CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 152×152×30 vs W 6X20

UC 152×152×30 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 6X20 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 248 cm³ against 244.17 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.6%. They weigh essentially the same, 30 kg/m and 29.8 kg/m. Both are about 158 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 152×152×30
UC
W 6X20
W
Difference
Mass30 kg/m29.8 kg/m+0.7%
Depth157.6 mm157.5 mm+0.1%
Width152.9 mm152.9 mmsame
Web thickness6.5 mm6.6 mm-1.5%
Flange thickness9.4 mm9.3 mm+1.1%
Area38.3 cm²37.9 cm²+1.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,750 cm⁴1,723 cm⁴+1.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)248 cm³244.17 cm³+1.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)222 cm³219.59 cm³+1.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)560 cm⁴553.6 cm⁴+1.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)112 cm³110.12 cm³+1.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.83 cm3.81 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)10.5 cm⁴9.99 cm⁴+5.1%

UC 152×152×30 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 6X20 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 6X20.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 152×152×30 has the larger second moment of area: 1,750 cm⁴ against 1,723 cm⁴, a difference of 1.6%. 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 (8.3 against 8.2 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. UC 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. UC 152×152×30 has a plastic modulus of 248 cm³ and W 6X20 has 244.17 cm³, a difference of only 1.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 152×152×30 is 30 kg/m and W 6X20 is 29.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 6X20 gives 244.17 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,723 cm⁴ of inertia against 248 cm³ and 1,750 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.

UC 152×152×30, with a second moment of area of 1,750 cm⁴ against 1,723 cm⁴ (1.6% 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.

Related comparisons

UC 152×152×30 vs HE 160 AUC 152×152×30 vs H-150x150x7x10-31.5W 6X20 vs HE 160 AW 6X20 vs H-150x150x7x10-31.1
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…