CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 457×152×82 vs W 18X55

UB 457×152×82 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 18X55 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 1810 cm³ against 1835.4 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 82.1 kg/m and 81.8 kg/m. Both are about 463 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 457×152×82
UB
W 18X55
W
Difference
Mass82.1 kg/m81.8 kg/m+0.4%
Depth465.8 mm459.7 mm+1.3%
Width155.3 mm191.3 mm-18.8%
Web thickness10.5 mm9.9 mm+6.1%
Flange thickness18.9 mm16 mm+18.1%
Area105 cm²104.5 cm²+0.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)36,600 cm⁴37,045 cm⁴-1.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)1,810 cm³1,835.4 cm³-1.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)1,570 cm³1,610.8 cm³-2.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,180 cm⁴1,869 cm⁴-36.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)240 cm³303.16 cm³-20.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.37 cm4.24 cm-20.5%
Torsion constant (It)89.2 cm⁴69.09 cm⁴+29.1%

UB 457×152×82 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 18X55 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 18X55.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 18X55 has the larger second moment of area: 37,045 cm⁴ against 36,600 cm⁴, a difference of 1.2%. 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 (22.0 against 22.4 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.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: W 18X55 has 303.16 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 240 cm³, 20.8% 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 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 457×152×82 has a plastic modulus of 1810 cm³ and W 18X55 has 1835.4 cm³, a difference of only 1.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 457×152×82 is 82.1 kg/m and W 18X55 is 81.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 18X55 gives 1835.4 cm³ of plastic modulus and 37,045 cm⁴ of inertia against 1810 cm³ and 36,600 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 18X55, with a second moment of area of 37,045 cm⁴ against 36,600 cm⁴ (1.2% 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.

Related comparisons

UB 457×191×82 vs W 18X55
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…