CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 1016×305×487 vs W 40X327

UB 1016×305×487 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 40X327 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 23200 cm³ against 23105.8 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 486.7 kg/m and 486.6 kg/m. Both are about 1036 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 1016×305×487
UB
W 40X327
W
Difference
Mass486.7 kg/m486.6 kg/msame
Depth1036.3 mm1036.3 mmsame
Width308.5 mm307.3 mm+0.4%
Web thickness30 mm30 mmsame
Flange thickness54.1 mm54.1 mmsame
Area620 cm²618.7 cm²+0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,022,000 cm⁴1,019,767 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)23,200 cm³23,105.8 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)19,700 cm³19,664.5 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)26,700 cm⁴26,639 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,800 cm³2,785.8 cm³+0.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.57 cm6.55 cm+0.3%
Torsion constant (It)4,300 cm⁴4,287 cm⁴+0.3%

UB 1016×305×487 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 40X327 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 40X327.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 1016×305×487 has the larger second moment of area: 1,022,000 cm⁴ against 1,019,767 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 (47.7 against 47.5 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 1016×305×487 has a plastic modulus of 23200 cm³ and W 40X327 has 23105.8 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 1016×305×487 is 486.7 kg/m and W 40X327 is 486.6 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 40X327 gives 23105.8 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,019,767 cm⁴ of inertia against 23200 cm³ and 1,022,000 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 1016×305×487, with a second moment of area of 1,022,000 cm⁴ against 1,019,767 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 1016×305×487 vs HE 1000 x 494W 44X290 vs UB 1016×305×487W 40X324 vs UB 1016×305×487W 40X331 vs UB 1016×305×487W 40X327 vs HE 1000 x 494W 36X330 vs UB 1016×305×487W 36X350 vs UB 1016×305×487
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…