CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

IPE 270 vs UB 254×146×37

IPE 270 is an IPE section from the European (Continental) range; UB 254×146×37 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 484 cm³ against 483 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.2%. IPE 270 is the lighter of the two at 36.1 kg/m against 37 kg/m, a saving of 2.4% on steel weight. IPE 270 is deeper, 270 mm against 256 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyIPE 270
IPE
UB 254×146×37
UB
Difference
Mass36.1 kg/m37 kg/m-2.4%
Depth270 mm256 mm+5.5%
Width135 mm146.4 mm-7.8%
Web thickness6.6 mm6.3 mm+4.8%
Flange thickness10.2 mm10.9 mm-6.4%
Area45.9 cm²47.2 cm²-2.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)5,790 cm⁴5,540 cm⁴+4.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)484 cm³483 cm³+0.2%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)429 cm³433 cm³-0.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)420 cm⁴571 cm⁴-26.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)97 cm³119 cm³-18.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.02 cm3.48 cm-13.2%
Torsion constant (It)15.9 cm⁴15.3 cm⁴+3.9%

IPE 270 to EN 10365 · Continental Steel; UB 254×146×37 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to UB 254×146×37.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, IPE 270 has the larger second moment of area: 5,790 cm⁴ against 5,540 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, IPE 270 is the more efficient section: 13.4 against 13.1 cm³ per kg/m, 2.7% 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: UB 254×146×37 has 119 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 97 cm³, 18.5% 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. IPE sections are specified to EN 10365 · Continental Steel 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 2.4% weight.

In short, IPE 270 is the stronger section and IPE 270 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. IPE 270 has a plastic modulus of 484 cm³ and UB 254×146×37 has 483 cm³, a difference of only 0.2% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

IPE 270 at 36.1 kg/m, against 37 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.4%. 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 254×146×37 gives 483 cm³ of plastic modulus and 5,540 cm⁴ of inertia against 484 cm³ and 5,790 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (EN 10365 · Continental Steel and BS EN 10365:2017), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

IPE 270, with a second moment of area of 5,790 cm⁴ against 5,540 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

UB 254×146×37 vs S 10X25.4
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…