CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×249 vs W 40X167

UB 1016×305×249 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X167 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 11300 cm³ against 11356.2 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 248.7 kg/m and 248.5 kg/m. Both are about 980 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×249
UB
W 40X167
W
Difference
Mass248.7 kg/m248.5 kg/m+0.1%
Depth980.1 mm980.4 mmsame
Width300 mm299.7 mm+0.1%
Web thickness16.5 mm16.5 mmsame
Flange thickness26 mm26.2 mm-0.8%
Area317 cm²318.1 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)481,000 cm⁴482,828 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)11,300 cm³11,356.2 cm³-0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)9,820 cm³9,832.2 cm³-0.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)11,800 cm⁴11,779 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,240 cm³1,245.4 cm³-0.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.09 cm6.1 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)582 cm⁴582.7 cm⁴-0.1%

UB 1016×305×249 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X167 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X167.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 40X167 has the larger second moment of area: 482,828 cm⁴ against 481,000 cm⁴, a difference of 0.4%. 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, the two are equally efficient (45.4 against 45.7 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 1016×305×249 has a plastic modulus of 11300 cm³ and W 40X167 has 11356.2 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×249 is 248.7 kg/m and W 40X167 is 248.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X167 gives 11356.2 cm³ of plastic modulus and 482,828 cm⁴ of inertia against 11300 cm³ and 481,000 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.

W 40X167, with a second moment of area of 482,828 cm⁴ against 481,000 cm⁴ (0.4% 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

UB 1016×305×249 vs HE 1000 x 249W 40X167 vs HE 1000 x 249
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…