CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 254×102×25 vs W 10X17

UB 254×102×25 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 10X17 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 306 cm³ against 306.44 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 25.2 kg/m and 25.3 kg/m. Both are about 257 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 254×102×25
UB
W 10X17
W
Difference
Mass25.2 kg/m25.3 kg/m-0.4%
Depth257.2 mm256.5 mm+0.3%
Width101.9 mm101.9 mmsame
Web thickness6 mm6.1 mm-1.6%
Flange thickness8.4 mm8.4 mmsame
Area32 cm²32.2 cm²-0.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,410 cm⁴3,409 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)306 cm³306.44 cm³-0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)266 cm³265.47 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)149 cm⁴148.2 cm⁴+0.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)46 cm³45.884 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.15 cm2.15 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)6.42 cm⁴6.49 cm⁴-1.1%

UB 254×102×25 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 10X17 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 10X17.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 254×102×25 has the larger second moment of area: 3,410 cm⁴ against 3,409 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 (12.1 against 12.1 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 254×102×25 has a plastic modulus of 306 cm³ and W 10X17 has 306.44 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 254×102×25 is 25.2 kg/m and W 10X17 is 25.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 10X17 gives 306.44 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,409 cm⁴ of inertia against 306 cm³ and 3,410 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 254×102×25, with a second moment of area of 3,410 cm⁴ against 3,409 cm⁴ (0.0% 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 254×102×25 vs H-250x125x5x8-25.1W 10X17 vs H-250x125x5x8-25.1
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…