CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×272 vs W 40X183

UB 1016×305×272 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X183 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 12800 cm³ against 12683.6 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.9%. They weigh essentially the same, 272.3 kg/m and 272.3 kg/m. Both are about 990 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×272
UB
W 40X183
W
Difference
Mass272.3 kg/m272.3 kg/msame
Depth990.1 mm990.6 mm-0.1%
Width300 mm299.7 mm+0.1%
Web thickness16.5 mm16.5 mmsame
Flange thickness31 mm30.5 mm+1.6%
Area347 cm²343.9 cm²+0.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)554,000 cm⁴549,425 cm⁴+0.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)12,800 cm³12,683.6 cm³+0.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)11,200 cm³11,061.3 cm³+1.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)14,000 cm⁴13,777 cm⁴+1.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,470 cm³1,447 cm³+1.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.35 cm6.32 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)835 cm⁴803.3 cm⁴+3.9%

UB 1016×305×272 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X183 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X183.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 1016×305×272 has the larger second moment of area: 554,000 cm⁴ against 549,425 cm⁴, a difference of 0.8%. 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 (47.0 against 46.6 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. 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 1016×305×272 has a plastic modulus of 12800 cm³ and W 40X183 has 12683.6 cm³, a difference of only 0.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×272 is 272.3 kg/m and W 40X183 is 272.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X183 gives 12683.6 cm³ of plastic modulus and 549,425 cm⁴ of inertia against 12800 cm³ and 554,000 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 1016×305×272, with a second moment of area of 554,000 cm⁴ against 549,425 cm⁴ (0.8% 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 1016×305×272 vs HE 1000 AW 40X183 vs HE 1000 A
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…