CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 203×203×52 vs W 8X35

UC 203×203×52 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 8X35 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 567 cm³ against 568.63 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 52 kg/m and 52.1 kg/m. Both are about 206 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
W 8X35
W
Difference
Mass52 kg/m52.1 kg/m-0.2%
Depth206.2 mm206.2 mmsame
Width204.3 mm203.7 mm+0.3%
Web thickness7.9 mm7.9 mmsame
Flange thickness12.5 mm12.6 mm-0.8%
Area66.3 cm²66.5 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)5,260 cm⁴5,286 cm⁴-0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)567 cm³568.63 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)510 cm³511.28 cm³-0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,780 cm⁴1,773 cm⁴+0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)264 cm³263.83 cm³+0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.18 cm5.16 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)31.8 cm⁴32.01 cm⁴-0.7%

UC 203×203×52 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 8X35 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 8X35.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 8X35 has the larger second moment of area: 5,286 cm⁴ against 5,260 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 (10.9 against 10.9 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 203×203×52 has a plastic modulus of 567 cm³ and W 8X35 has 568.63 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 203×203×52 is 52 kg/m and W 8X35 is 52.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 8X35 gives 568.63 cm³ of plastic modulus and 5,286 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.

W 8X35, with a second moment of area of 5,286 cm⁴ against 5,260 cm⁴ (0.5% 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 HP 8X36W 8X35 vs HE 220 AW 8X35 vs HP 8X36
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…