CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 406×140×39 vs W 16X26

UB 406×140×39 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 16X26 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 724 cm³ against 724.31 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 39 kg/m and 38.7 kg/m. Both are about 398 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 406×140×39
UB
W 16X26
W
Difference
Mass39 kg/m38.7 kg/m+0.8%
Depth398 mm398.8 mm-0.2%
Width141.8 mm139.7 mm+1.5%
Web thickness6.4 mm6.4 mmsame
Flange thickness8.6 mm8.8 mm-2.3%
Area49.7 cm²49.5 cm²+0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)12,500 cm⁴12,529 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)724 cm³724.31 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)629 cm³629.26 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)410 cm⁴399.2 cm⁴+2.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)90.8 cm³89.801 cm³+1.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.87 cm2.84 cm+1.1%
Torsion constant (It)10.7 cm⁴10.91 cm⁴-1.9%

UB 406×140×39 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 16X26 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 16X26.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 16X26 has the larger second moment of area: 12,529 cm⁴ against 12,500 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 (18.6 against 18.7 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 406×140×39 has a plastic modulus of 724 cm³ and W 16X26 has 724.31 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 406×140×39 is 39 kg/m and W 16X26 is 38.7 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 16X26 gives 724.31 cm³ of plastic modulus and 12,529 cm⁴ of inertia against 724 cm³ and 12,500 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.

W 16X26, with a second moment of area of 12,529 cm⁴ against 12,500 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…