CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UB 914×419×388 vs HE 900 x 391

UB 914×419×388 is an UB section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); HE 900 x 391 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. UB 914×419×388 carries more bending: 17700 cm³ of plastic modulus against 17000 cm³, 4.1% more. They weigh essentially the same, 388 kg/m and 391 kg/m. Both are about 922 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUB 914×419×388
UB
HE 900 x 391
HE
Difference
Mass388 kg/m391 kg/m-0.8%
Depth921 mm922 mm-0.1%
Width420.5 mm307 mm+37.0%
Web thickness21.4 mm25 mm-14.4%
Flange thickness36.6 mm46 mm-20.4%
Area494 cm²498 cm²-0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)720,000 cm⁴674,000 cm⁴+6.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)17,700 cm³17,000 cm³+4.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)15,600 cm³14,600 cm³+6.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)45,400 cm⁴22,300 cm⁴+103.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)3,340 cm³2,310 cm³+44.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.59 cm6.7 cm+43.1%
Torsion constant (It)1,730 cm⁴2,600 cm⁴-33.5%

UB 914×419×388 to BS EN 10365:2017; HE 900 x 391 to EN 10365 · Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to HE 900 x 391.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UB 914×419×388 has the larger second moment of area: 720,000 cm⁴ against 674,000 cm⁴, a difference of 6.8%. 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 of steel, UB 914×419×388 is the more efficient section: 45.6 against 43.5 cm³ per kg/m, 4.9% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: UB 914×419×388 has 3340 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 2310 cm³, 44.6% 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 HE to EN 10365 · Continental Steel; 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, UB 914×419×388 is the stronger section and UB 914×419×388 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

UB 914×419×388 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 17700 cm³ against 17000 cm³ - 4.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: UB 914×419×388 is 388 kg/m and HE 900 x 391 is 391 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: HE 900 x 391 gives 17000 cm³ of plastic modulus and 674,000 cm⁴ of inertia against 17700 cm³ and 720,000 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and EN 10365 · Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

UB 914×419×388, with a second moment of area of 720,000 cm⁴ against 674,000 cm⁴ (6.8% 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 914×419×388 vs W 36X262W 36X247 vs UB 914×419×388W 36X247 vs HE 900 x 391W 36X256 vs UB 914×419×388W 36X256 vs HE 900 x 391W 33X263 vs HE 900 x 391
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…