CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

W 36X247 vs UB 914×419×388

W 36X247 is an W section from the American AISC Shapes Database; UB 914×419×388 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). UB 914×419×388 carries more bending: 17700 cm³ of plastic modulus against 16878.7 cm³, 4.6% more. W 36X247 is the lighter of the two at 367.6 kg/m against 388 kg/m, a saving of 5.3% on steel weight. Both are about 927 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyW 36X247
W
UB 914×419×388
UB
Difference
Mass367.6 kg/m388 kg/m-5.3%
Depth932.2 mm921 mm+1.2%
Width419.1 mm420.5 mm-0.3%
Web thickness20.3 mm21.4 mm-5.1%
Flange thickness34.3 mm36.6 mm-6.3%
Area467.7 cm²494 cm²-5.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)695,106 cm⁴720,000 cm⁴-3.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)16,878.7 cm³17,700 cm³-4.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)14,961.4 cm³15,600 cm³-4.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)42,039 cm⁴45,400 cm⁴-7.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)3,113.5 cm³3,340 cm³-6.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.5 cm9.59 cm-0.9%
Torsion constant (It)1,444 cm⁴1,730 cm⁴-16.5%

W 36X247 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; UB 914×419×388 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to UB 914×419×388.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 914×419×388 has the larger second moment of area: 720,000 cm⁴ against 695,106 cm⁴, a difference of 3.5%. 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, the two are equally efficient (45.9 against 45.6 cm³ per kg/m), so on a pure steel-tonnage basis there is nothing to choose between them. The decision comes down to availability, connection detailing and what the rest of the frame uses.

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 UB to BS EN 10365:2017; 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 5.3% weight.

In short, UB 914×419×388 is the stronger section and W 36X247 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

UB 914×419×388 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 17700 cm³ against 16878.7 cm³ - 4.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

W 36X247 at 367.6 kg/m, against 388 kg/m for the other - a saving of 5.3%. 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: UB 914×419×388 gives 17700 cm³ of plastic modulus and 720,000 cm⁴ of inertia against 16878.7 cm³ and 695,106 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and BS EN 10365:2017), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

UB 914×419×388, with a second moment of area of 720,000 cm⁴ against 695,106 cm⁴ (3.5% 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

UB 914×419×388 vs HE 900 x 391UB 914×419×388 vs W 36X262W 36X247 vs HE 900 x 391W 36X256 vs UB 914×419×388
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…