CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

SHS 180×180×8 vs SHS 175×175×9

SHS 180×180×8 is an SHS Hot-finished section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); SHS 175×175×9 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 349 cm³ against 348 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. SHS 180×180×8 is the lighter of the two at 42.7 kg/m against 45.3 kg/m, a saving of 5.7% on steel weight. SHS 180×180×8 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.
PropertySHS 180×180×8
SHS Hot-finished
SHS 175×175×9
SHS Cold-formed
Difference
Mass42.7 kg/m45.3 kg/m-5.7%
Depth180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Width180 mm175 mm+2.9%
Web thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Flange thickness0 mm0 mmsame
Area54.4 cm²57 cm²-4.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,660 cm⁴2,546 cm⁴+4.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)349 cm³348 cm³+0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)296 cm³291 cm³+1.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,660 cm⁴2,546 cm⁴+4.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)349 cm³348 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7 cm6.68 cm+4.8%
Torsion constant (It)4,160 cm⁴4,246 cm⁴-2.0%

SHS 180×180×8 to BS EN 10210-2:2006; SHS 175×175×9 to EN 10219 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to SHS 175×175×9.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, SHS 180×180×8 has the larger second moment of area: 2,660 cm⁴ against 2,546 cm⁴, a difference of 4.5%. 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, SHS 180×180×8 is the more efficient section: 8.2 against 7.7 cm³ per kg/m, 6.4% 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.

These come from different catalogues, so treat the swap as a design change rather than a like-for-like substitution. SHS Hot-finished sections are specified to BS EN 10210-2:2006 and SHS 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 5.7% weight.

In short, SHS 180×180×8 is the stronger section and SHS 180×180×8 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. SHS 180×180×8 has a plastic modulus of 349 cm³ and SHS 175×175×9 has 348 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

SHS 180×180×8 at 42.7 kg/m, against 45.3 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.7%. 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: SHS 175×175×9 gives 348 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,546 cm⁴ of inertia against 349 cm³ and 2,660 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.

SHS 180×180×8, with a second moment of area of 2,660 cm⁴ against 2,546 cm⁴ (4.5% 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

SHS 180×180×8 vs CF SHS 180×180×8
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…