CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×393 vs W 40X264

UB 1016×305×393 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X264 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 18500 cm³ against 18517.4 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 392.7 kg/m and 392.9 kg/m. Both are about 1016 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×393
UB
W 40X264
W
Difference
Mass392.7 kg/m392.9 kg/m-0.1%
Depth1015.9 mm1016 mmsame
Width303 mm302.3 mm+0.2%
Web thickness24.4 mm24.4 mmsame
Flange thickness43.9 mm43.9 mmsame
Area500 cm²499.4 cm²+0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)808,000 cm⁴807,489 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)18,500 cm³18,517.4 cm³-0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)15,900 cm³15,911.8 cm³-0.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)20,500 cm⁴20,520 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,170 cm³2,163.1 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.4 cm6.4 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)2,330 cm⁴2,335 cm⁴-0.2%

UB 1016×305×393 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X264 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X264.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 1016×305×393 has the larger second moment of area: 808,000 cm⁴ against 807,489 cm⁴, a difference of 0.1%. 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 47.1 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 1016×305×393 has a plastic modulus of 18500 cm³ and W 40X264 has 18517.4 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×393 is 392.7 kg/m and W 40X264 is 392.9 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X264 gives 18517.4 cm³ of plastic modulus and 807,489 cm⁴ of inertia against 18500 cm³ and 808,000 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 1016×305×393, with a second moment of area of 808,000 cm⁴ against 807,489 cm⁴ (0.1% 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 1016×305×393 vs HE 1000 x 393W 40X249 vs UB 1016×305×393W 40X278 vs UB 1016×305×393W 40X264 vs HE 1000 x 393
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…