CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×314 vs W 40X211

UB 1016×305×314 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X211 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 14800 cm³ against 14846.7 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 314.3 kg/m and 314 kg/m. Both are about 1000 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×314
UB
W 40X211
W
Difference
Mass314.3 kg/m314 kg/m+0.1%
Depth999.9 mm1000.8 mm-0.1%
Width300 mm299.7 mm+0.1%
Web thickness19.1 mm19 mm+0.5%
Flange thickness35.9 mm36.1 mm-0.6%
Area400 cm²400.6 cm²-0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)644,000 cm⁴645,159 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)14,800 cm³14,846.7 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)12,900 cm³12,880.2 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)16,200 cm⁴16,233 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,710 cm³1,720.6 cm³-0.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.37 cm6.38 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)1,260 cm⁴1,265 cm⁴-0.4%

UB 1016×305×314 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X211 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X211.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 40X211 has the larger second moment of area: 645,159 cm⁴ against 644,000 cm⁴, a difference of 0.2%. 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 47.3 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 1016×305×314 has a plastic modulus of 14800 cm³ and W 40X211 has 14846.7 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×314 is 314.3 kg/m and W 40X211 is 314 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X211 gives 14846.7 cm³ of plastic modulus and 645,159 cm⁴ of inertia against 14800 cm³ and 644,000 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 40X211, with a second moment of area of 645,159 cm⁴ against 644,000 cm⁴ (0.2% 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 1016×305×314 vs HE 1000 BW 40X199 vs UB 1016×305×314W 40X211 vs HE 1000 B
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…