CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

RHS 180×60×7.1 vs RHS 175×125×4.8

RHS 180×60×7.1 is an RHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); RHS 175×125×4.8 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 166 cm³ against 163 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.8%. RHS 175×125×4.8 is the lighter of the two at 21.6 kg/m against 24.7 kg/m, a saving of 14.4% on steel weight. RHS 180×60×7.1 is deeper, 180 mm against 175 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyRHS 180×60×7.1
RHS Hot-finished
RHS 175×125×4.8
RHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass24.7 kg/m21.6 kg/m+14.4%
Depth180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Width60 mm125 mm-52.0%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area31.5 cm²27.3 cm²+15.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,130 cm⁴1,187 cm⁴-4.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)166 cm³163 cm³+1.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)126 cm³136 cm³-7.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)186 cm⁴708 cm⁴-73.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)73.3 cm³129 cm³-43.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.43 cm5.09 cm-52.3%
Torsion constant (It)542 cm⁴1,410 cm⁴-61.6%

RHS 180×60×7.1 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; RHS 175×125×4.8 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to RHS 175×125×4.8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, RHS 175×125×4.8 has the larger second moment of area: 1,187 cm⁴ against 1,130 cm⁴, a difference of 4.8%. This matters more often than the strength comparison, because on normal floor spans deflection rather than bending capacity sets the beam size - so if the two are close on modulus but apart on inertia, the stiffer one is usually the better answer even when it is not the stronger one.

Measured as bending capacity per kilogram of steel, RHS 175×125×4.8 is the more efficient section: 7.5 against 6.7 cm³ per kg/m, 10.9% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: RHS 175×125×4.8 has 129 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 73.3 cm³, 43.2% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. RHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and RHS Cold-formed to EN 10219 · Continental Steel; the steel grades, tolerances and available lengths differ, connection details and bolt gauges are set out differently, and the two are rarely both stocked in the same market. Check availability before changing a section on a drawing to save 14.4% weight.

In short, RHS 180×60×7.1 is the stronger section and RHS 175×125×4.8 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. RHS 180×60×7.1 has a plastic modulus of 166 cm³ and RHS 175×125×4.8 has 163 cm³, a difference of only 1.8% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

RHS 175×125×4.8 at 21.6 kg/m, against 24.7 kg/m for the other - a saving of 14.4%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: RHS 175×125×4.8 gives 163 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,187 cm⁴ of inertia against 166 cm³ and 1,130 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10210-2:2006 and EN 10219 · Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

RHS 175×125×4.8, with a second moment of area of 1,187 cm⁴ against 1,130 cm⁴ (4.8% more). Deflection under a uniform load goes as 5wL⁴/384EI, so it is inversely proportional to I - on a span where the deflection limit governs rather than strength, this is the number that decides the section.

Related comparisons

RHS 180×60×7.1 vs CF RHS 180×80×6RHS 180×100×5 vs RHS 175×125×4.8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…