CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×349 vs W 40X235

UB 1016×305×349 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X235 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 16600 cm³ against 16550.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 349.4 kg/m and 349.7 kg/m. Both are about 1008 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×349
UB
W 40X235
W
Difference
Mass349.4 kg/m349.7 kg/m-0.1%
Depth1008.1 mm1008.4 mmsame
Width302 mm302.3 mm-0.1%
Web thickness21.1 mm21.1 mmsame
Flange thickness40 mm40.1 mm-0.2%
Area445 cm²445.8 cm²-0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)723,000 cm⁴724,243 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)16,600 cm³16,550.9 cm³+0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)14,300 cm³14,338.7 cm³-0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)18,500 cm⁴18,481 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,940 cm³1,933.7 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.44 cm6.45 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)1,720 cm⁴1,719 cm⁴+0.1%

UB 1016×305×349 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X235 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X235.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 40X235 has the larger second moment of area: 724,243 cm⁴ against 723,000 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 (47.5 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 1016×305×349 has a plastic modulus of 16600 cm³ and W 40X235 has 16550.9 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×349 is 349.4 kg/m and W 40X235 is 349.7 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X235 gives 16550.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 724,243 cm⁴ of inertia against 16600 cm³ and 723,000 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 40X235, with a second moment of area of 724,243 cm⁴ against 723,000 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 1016×305×349 vs HE 1000 MW 40X235 vs HE 1000 M
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…