CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

W 14X193 vs HP 16X183

W 14X193 is an W section from the American AISC Shapes Database; HP 16X183 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 5817.4 cm³ against 5719.1 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.7%. HP 16X183 is the lighter of the two at 272.3 kg/m against 287.2 kg/m, a saving of 5.5% on steel weight. HP 16X183 is deeper, 419.1 mm against 393.7 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyW 14X193
W
HP 16X183
HP
Difference
Mass287.2 kg/m272.3 kg/m+5.5%
Depth393.7 mm419.1 mm-6.1%
Width398.8 mm414 mm-3.7%
Web thickness22.6 mm28.7 mm-21.3%
Flange thickness36.6 mm28.7 mm+27.5%
Area366.5 cm²349 cm²+5.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)99,896 cm⁴104,474 cm⁴-4.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)5,817.4 cm³5,719.1 cm³+1.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)5,080 cm³4,981.7 cm³+2.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)38,751 cm⁴34,048 cm⁴+13.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,949.7 cm³2,556.4 cm³+15.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.29 cm9.88 cm+4.1%
Torsion constant (It)1,448 cm⁴1,120 cm⁴+29.3%

W 14X193 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; HP 16X183 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to HP 16X183.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, HP 16X183 has the larger second moment of area: 104,474 cm⁴ against 99,896 cm⁴, a difference of 4.4%. 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, HP 16X183 is the more efficient section: 21.0 against 20.3 cm³ per kg/m, 3.6% 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 14X193 has 2949.7 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 2556.4 cm³, 15.4% 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.

In short, W 14X193 is the stronger section and HP 16X183 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. W 14X193 has a plastic modulus of 5817.4 cm³ and HP 16X183 has 5719.1 cm³, a difference of only 1.7% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

HP 16X183 at 272.3 kg/m, against 287.2 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.5%. 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: HP 16X183 gives 5719.1 cm³ of plastic modulus and 104,474 cm⁴ of inertia against 5817.4 cm³ and 99,896 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

HP 16X183, with a second moment of area of 104,474 cm⁴ against 99,896 cm⁴ (4.4% 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

UC 356×406×287 vs W 14X193UC 356×406×287 vs HP 16X183
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…