CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 254×146×43 vs IPE O 270

UB 254×146×43 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); IPE O 270 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 566 cm³ against 575 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.6%. They weigh essentially the same, 43 kg/m and 42.3 kg/m. IPE O 270 is deeper, 274 mm against 259.6 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 254×146×43
UB
IPE O 270
IPE
Difference
Mass43 kg/m42.3 kg/m+1.7%
Depth259.6 mm274 mm-5.3%
Width147.3 mm136 mm+8.3%
Web thickness7.2 mm7.5 mm-4.0%
Flange thickness12.7 mm12.2 mm+4.1%
Area54.8 cm²53.8 cm²+1.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)6,540 cm⁴6,950 cm⁴-5.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)566 cm³575 cm³-1.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)504 cm³507 cm³-0.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)677 cm⁴514 cm⁴+31.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)141 cm³118 cm³+19.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.52 cm3.09 cm+13.9%
Torsion constant (It)23.9 cm⁴25 cm⁴-4.4%

UB 254×146×43 to BS EN 10365:2017; IPE O 270 to EN 10365 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to IPE O 270.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, IPE O 270 has the larger second moment of area: 6,950 cm⁴ against 6,540 cm⁴, a difference of 5.9%. 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 of steel, IPE O 270 is the more efficient section: 13.6 against 13.2 cm³ per kg/m, 3.2% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: UB 254×146×43 has 141 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 118 cm³, 19.5% 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 IPE to EN 10365 · Continental Steel; 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 254×146×43 has a plastic modulus of 566 cm³ and IPE O 270 has 575 cm³, a difference of only 1.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 254×146×43 is 43 kg/m and IPE O 270 is 42.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: IPE O 270 gives 575 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,950 cm⁴ of inertia against 566 cm³ and 6,540 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and EN 10365 · Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

IPE O 270, with a second moment of area of 6,950 cm⁴ against 6,540 cm⁴ (5.9% 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 254×146×43 vs S 10X35UB 254×146×43 vs H-250x175x7x11-44.1W 10X30 vs IPE O 270
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…