CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×222 vs W 40X149

UB 1016×305×222 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X149 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 9810 cm³ against 9799.5 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 222 kg/m and 221.7 kg/m. Both are about 970 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×222
UB
W 40X149
W
Difference
Mass222 kg/m221.7 kg/m+0.1%
Depth970.3 mm970.3 mmsame
Width300 mm299.7 mm+0.1%
Web thickness16 mm16 mmsame
Flange thickness21.1 mm21.1 mmsame
Area283 cm²282.6 cm²+0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)408,000 cm⁴407,907 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)9,810 cm³9,799.5 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)8,410 cm³8,406.6 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)9,550 cm⁴9,532 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,020 cm³1,019.3 cm³+0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.81 cm5.82 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)390 cm⁴389.6 cm⁴+0.1%

UB 1016×305×222 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X149 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X149.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 1016×305×222 has the larger second moment of area: 408,000 cm⁴ against 407,907 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 (44.2 against 44.2 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. UB sections are specified to BS EN 10365:2017 and W to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; 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. UB 1016×305×222 has a plastic modulus of 9810 cm³ and W 40X149 has 9799.5 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×222 is 222 kg/m and W 40X149 is 221.7 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X149 gives 9799.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 407,907 cm⁴ of inertia against 9810 cm³ and 408,000 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and AISC Shapes Database v16.0), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

UB 1016×305×222, with a second moment of area of 408,000 cm⁴ against 407,907 cm⁴ (0.0% 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 1016×305×222 vs HE 1000 AAW 40X149 vs HE 1000 AA
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…