CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 406×178×74 vs W 16X50

UB 406×178×74 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 16X50 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 1500 cm³ against 1507.6 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 74.2 kg/m and 74.4 kg/m. Both are about 413 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 406×178×74
UB
W 16X50
W
Difference
Mass74.2 kg/m74.4 kg/m-0.3%
Depth412.8 mm414 mm-0.3%
Width179.5 mm179.6 mm-0.1%
Web thickness9.5 mm9.7 mm-2.1%
Flange thickness16 mm16 mmsame
Area94.5 cm²94.8 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)27,300 cm⁴27,430 cm⁴-0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)1,500 cm³1,507.6 cm³-0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)1,320 cm³1,327.4 cm³-0.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,550 cm⁴1,548 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)267 cm³267.11 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.04 cm4.04 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)62.8 cm⁴63.27 cm⁴-0.7%

UB 406×178×74 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 16X50 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 16X50.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 16X50 has the larger second moment of area: 27,430 cm⁴ against 27,300 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 (20.2 against 20.3 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 406×178×74 has a plastic modulus of 1500 cm³ and W 16X50 has 1507.6 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 406×178×74 is 74.2 kg/m and W 16X50 is 74.4 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 16X50 gives 1507.6 cm³ of plastic modulus and 27,430 cm⁴ of inertia against 1500 cm³ and 27,300 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 16X50, with a second moment of area of 27,430 cm⁴ against 27,300 cm⁴ (0.5% 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 406×178×74 vs IPE O 400UB 406×178×74 vs H-400x200x9x15W 16X50 vs IPE O 400W 16X50 vs H-400x200x9x15
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…