CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

W 10X39 vs H-250x175x9x15

W 10X39 is an W section from the American AISC Shapes Database; H-250x175x9x15 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 766.91 cm³ against 764 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 58 kg/m and 59.1 kg/m. Both are about 252 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyW 10X39
W
H-250x175x9x15
MB & MC
Difference
Mass58 kg/m59.1 kg/m-1.9%
Depth252 mm252 mmsame
Width202.9 mm177 mm+14.6%
Web thickness8 mm9 mm-11.1%
Flange thickness13.5 mm15 mm-10.0%
Area74.2 cm²75.3 cm²-1.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)8,699 cm⁴8,541 cm⁴+1.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)766.91 cm³764 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)689.9 cm³678 cm³+1.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,873 cm⁴1,390 cm⁴+34.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)281.86 cm³241 cm³+17.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.03 cm4.3 cm+17.0%
Torsion constant (It)40.62 cm⁴53.2 cm⁴-23.6%

W 10X39 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; H-250x175x9x15 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to H-250x175x9x15.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 10X39 has the larger second moment of area: 8,699 cm⁴ against 8,541 cm⁴, a difference of 1.8%. 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, W 10X39 is the more efficient section: 13.2 against 12.9 cm³ per kg/m, 2.3% 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: W 10X39 has 281.86 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 241 cm³, 17.0% 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. W sections are specified to AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and MB & MC to 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. W 10X39 has a plastic modulus of 766.91 cm³ and H-250x175x9x15 has 764 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: W 10X39 is 58 kg/m and H-250x175x9x15 is 59.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: H-250x175x9x15 gives 764 cm³ of plastic modulus and 8,541 cm⁴ of inertia against 766.91 cm³ and 8,699 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

W 10X39, with a second moment of area of 8,699 cm⁴ against 8,541 cm⁴ (1.8% 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

W 10X39 vs HP 10X42
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…