CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 203×102×23 vs W 8X15

UB 203×102×23 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 8X15 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. UB 203×102×23 carries more bending: 234 cm³ of plastic modulus against 222.86 cm³, 5.0% more. W 8X15 is the lighter of the two at 22.3 kg/m against 23.1 kg/m, a saving of 3.6% on steel weight. Both are about 205 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 203×102×23
UB
W 8X15
W
Difference
Mass23.1 kg/m22.3 kg/m+3.6%
Depth203.2 mm206 mm-1.4%
Width101.8 mm102.1 mm-0.3%
Web thickness5.4 mm6.2 mm-12.9%
Flange thickness9.3 mm8 mm+16.3%
Area29.4 cm²28.6 cm²+2.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,100 cm⁴1,998 cm⁴+5.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)234 cm³222.86 cm³+5.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)207 cm³193.37 cm³+7.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)164 cm⁴141.9 cm⁴+15.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)49.7 cm³43.753 cm³+13.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.36 cm2.23 cm+5.8%
Torsion constant (It)7.02 cm⁴5.7 cm⁴+23.2%

UB 203×102×23 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 8X15 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 8X15.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 203×102×23 has the larger second moment of area: 2,100 cm⁴ against 1,998 cm⁴, a difference of 5.1%. 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 (10.1 against 10.0 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: UB 203×102×23 has 49.7 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 43.753 cm³, 13.6% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

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 3.6% weight.

In short, UB 203×102×23 is the stronger section and W 8X15 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

UB 203×102×23 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 234 cm³ against 222.86 cm³ - 5.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

W 8X15 at 22.3 kg/m, against 23.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.6%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 8X15 gives 222.86 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,998 cm⁴ of inertia against 234 cm³ and 2,100 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 203×102×23, with a second moment of area of 2,100 cm⁴ against 1,998 cm⁴ (5.1% 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

IPE 200 vs W 8X15UB 203×102×23 vs IPE AA 220
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…