CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 406×140×46 vs W 16X31

UB 406×140×46 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 16X31 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 888 cm³ against 884.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 46 kg/m and 46.1 kg/m. Both are about 404 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 406×140×46
UB
W 16X31
W
Difference
Mass46 kg/m46.1 kg/m-0.2%
Depth403.2 mm403.9 mm-0.2%
Width142.2 mm140.5 mm+1.2%
Web thickness6.8 mm7 mm-2.9%
Flange thickness11.2 mm11.2 mmsame
Area58.6 cm²58.9 cm²-0.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)15,700 cm⁴15,609 cm⁴+0.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)888 cm³884.9 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)778 cm³773.47 cm³+0.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)538 cm⁴516.1 cm⁴+4.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)118 cm³115.2 cm³+2.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.03 cm2.97 cm+2.0%
Torsion constant (It)19 cm⁴19.19 cm⁴-1.0%

UB 406×140×46 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 16X31 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 16X31.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 406×140×46 has the larger second moment of area: 15,700 cm⁴ against 15,609 cm⁴, a difference of 0.6%. 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 (19.3 against 19.2 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 406×140×46 has a plastic modulus of 888 cm³ and W 16X31 has 884.9 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 406×140×46 is 46 kg/m and W 16X31 is 46.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 16X31 gives 884.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 15,609 cm⁴ of inertia against 888 cm³ and 15,700 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 406×140×46, with a second moment of area of 15,700 cm⁴ against 15,609 cm⁴ (0.6% 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…