CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 203×203×52 vs HP 8X36

UC 203×203×52 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); HP 8X36 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. UC 203×203×52 carries more bending: 567 cm³ of plastic modulus against 550.61 cm³, 3.0% more. UC 203×203×52 is the lighter of the two at 52 kg/m against 53.6 kg/m, a saving of 3.0% on steel weight. Both are about 205 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 203×203×52
UC
HP 8X36
HP
Difference
Mass52 kg/m53.6 kg/m-3.0%
Depth206.2 mm203.7 mm+1.2%
Width204.3 mm207.3 mm-1.4%
Web thickness7.9 mm11.3 mm-30.1%
Flange thickness12.5 mm11.3 mm+10.6%
Area66.3 cm²68.4 cm²-3.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)5,260 cm⁴4,953 cm⁴+6.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)567 cm³550.61 cm³+3.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)510 cm³488.33 cm³+4.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,780 cm⁴1,677 cm⁴+6.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)264 cm³249.08 cm³+6.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.18 cm4.95 cm+4.6%
Torsion constant (It)31.8 cm⁴32.05 cm⁴-0.8%

UC 203×203×52 to BS EN 10365:2017; HP 8X36 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to HP 8X36.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 203×203×52 has the larger second moment of area: 5,260 cm⁴ against 4,953 cm⁴, a difference of 6.2%. 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 of steel, UC 203×203×52 is the more efficient section: 10.9 against 10.3 cm³ per kg/m, 6.1% 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.

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 HP 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 3.0% weight.

In short, UC 203×203×52 is the stronger section and UC 203×203×52 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

UC 203×203×52 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 567 cm³ against 550.61 cm³ - 3.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

UC 203×203×52 at 52 kg/m, against 53.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.0%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: HP 8X36 gives 550.61 cm³ of plastic modulus and 4,953 cm⁴ of inertia against 567 cm³ and 5,260 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 203×203×52, with a second moment of area of 5,260 cm⁴ against 4,953 cm⁴ (6.2% 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

UC 203×203×52 vs HE 220 AUC 203×203×52 vs W 8X35W 8X35 vs HP 8X36HE 220 A vs HP 8X36
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…