CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

W 40X278 vs UB 1016×305×393

W 40X278 is an W section from the American AISC Shapes Database; UB 1016×305×393 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). W 40X278 carries more bending: 19500.6 cm³ of plastic modulus against 18500 cm³, 5.4% more. UB 1016×305×393 is the lighter of the two at 392.7 kg/m against 413.7 kg/m, a saving of 5.3% on steel weight. Both are about 1019 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyW 40X278
W
UB 1016×305×393
UB
Difference
Mass413.7 kg/m392.7 kg/m+5.3%
Depth1021.1 mm1015.9 mm+0.5%
Width304.8 mm303 mm+0.6%
Web thickness26.2 mm24.4 mm+7.4%
Flange thickness46 mm43.9 mm+4.8%
Area531 cm²500 cm²+6.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)853,274 cm⁴808,000 cm⁴+5.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)19,500.6 cm³18,500 cm³+5.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)16,714.8 cm³15,900 cm³+5.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)21,686 cm⁴20,500 cm⁴+5.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,294.2 cm³2,170 cm³+5.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.4 cm6.4 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)2,706 cm⁴2,330 cm⁴+16.1%

W 40X278 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; UB 1016×305×393 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to UB 1016×305×393.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 40X278 has the larger second moment of area: 853,274 cm⁴ against 808,000 cm⁴, a difference of 5.6%. 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 (47.1 against 47.1 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, W 40X278 is the stronger section and UB 1016×305×393 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

W 40X278 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 19500.6 cm³ against 18500 cm³ - 5.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

UB 1016×305×393 at 392.7 kg/m, against 413.7 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 1016×305×393 gives 18500 cm³ of plastic modulus and 808,000 cm⁴ of inertia against 19500.6 cm³ and 853,274 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.

W 40X278, with a second moment of area of 853,274 cm⁴ against 808,000 cm⁴ (5.6% 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 1016×305×393 vs HE 1000 x 393UB 1016×305×393 vs W 40X264W 40X249 vs UB 1016×305×393W 40X278 vs HE 1000 x 415
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…