CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 762×267×197 vs W 30X132

UB 762×267×197 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 30X132 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 7170 cm³ against 7161.1 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 196.8 kg/m and 196.4 kg/m. Both are about 770 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 762×267×197
UB
W 30X132
W
Difference
Mass196.8 kg/m196.4 kg/m+0.2%
Depth769.8 mm769.6 mmsame
Width268 mm266.7 mm+0.5%
Web thickness15.6 mm15.6 mmsame
Flange thickness25.4 mm25.4 mmsame
Area251 cm²250.3 cm²+0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)240,000 cm⁴240,166 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)7,170 cm³7,161.1 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)6,230 cm³6,227.1 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)8,170 cm⁴8,158 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)958 cm³957 cm³+0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.71 cm5.72 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)404 cm⁴404.6 cm⁴-0.1%

UB 762×267×197 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 30X132 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 30X132.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 30X132 has the larger second moment of area: 240,166 cm⁴ against 240,000 cm⁴, a difference of 0.1%. 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 (36.4 against 36.5 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 762×267×197 has a plastic modulus of 7170 cm³ and W 30X132 has 7161.1 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UB 762×267×197 is 196.8 kg/m and W 30X132 is 196.4 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 30X132 gives 7161.1 cm³ of plastic modulus and 240,166 cm⁴ of inertia against 7170 cm³ and 240,000 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 30X132, with a second moment of area of 240,166 cm⁴ against 240,000 cm⁴ (0.1% 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 762×267×197 vs IPE 750 x 196UB 762×267×197 vs H-800x300x14x22W 30X132 vs IPE 750 x 196W 30X132 vs H-800x300x14x22
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…