CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 203×203×60 vs W 8X40

UC 203×203×60 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 8X40 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 656 cm³ against 652.21 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.6%. They weigh essentially the same, 60 kg/m and 59.5 kg/m. Both are about 210 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 203×203×60
UC
W 8X40
W
Difference
Mass60 kg/m59.5 kg/m+0.8%
Depth209.6 mm209.6 mmsame
Width205.8 mm205 mm+0.4%
Web thickness9.4 mm9.1 mm+3.3%
Flange thickness14.2 mm14.2 mmsame
Area76.4 cm²75.5 cm²+1.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)6,120 cm⁴6,077 cm⁴+0.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)656 cm³652.21 cm³+0.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)584 cm³581.74 cm³+0.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,060 cm⁴2,044 cm⁴+0.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)305 cm³303.16 cm³+0.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.2 cm5.18 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)47.2 cm⁴46.62 cm⁴+1.2%

UC 203×203×60 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 8X40 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 8X40.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 203×203×60 has the larger second moment of area: 6,120 cm⁴ against 6,077 cm⁴, a difference of 0.7%. 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 11.0 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 203×203×60 has a plastic modulus of 656 cm³ and W 8X40 has 652.21 cm³, a difference of only 0.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 203×203×60 is 60 kg/m and W 8X40 is 59.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 8X40 gives 652.21 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,077 cm⁴ of inertia against 656 cm³ and 6,120 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 203×203×60, with a second moment of area of 6,120 cm⁴ against 6,077 cm⁴ (0.7% 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 203×203×60 vs HE 200 BW 8X40 vs HE 200 B
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…