CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 305×305×198 vs W 12X136

UC 305×305×198 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 12X136 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 3440 cm³ against 3506.8 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. UC 305×305×198 is the lighter of the two at 198.1 kg/m against 202.4 kg/m, a saving of 2.1% on steel weight. Both are about 340 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 305×305×198
UC
W 12X136
W
Difference
Mass198.1 kg/m202.4 kg/m-2.1%
Depth339.9 mm340.4 mm-0.1%
Width314.5 mm315 mm-0.2%
Web thickness19.1 mm20.1 mm-5.0%
Flange thickness31.4 mm31.8 mm-1.3%
Area252 cm²257.4 cm²-2.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)50,900 cm⁴51,613 cm⁴-1.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)3,440 cm³3,506.8 cm³-1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)3,000 cm³3,048 cm³-1.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)16,300 cm⁴16,566 cm⁴-1.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,580 cm³1,605.9 cm³-1.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.04 cm8.03 cm+0.1%
Torsion constant (It)734 cm⁴770 cm⁴-4.7%

UC 305×305×198 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 12X136 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 12X136.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 12X136 has the larger second moment of area: 51,613 cm⁴ against 50,900 cm⁴, a difference of 1.4%. 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 (17.4 against 17.3 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 2.1% weight.

In short, W 12X136 is the stronger section and UC 305×305×198 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

They are effectively equal in bending. UC 305×305×198 has a plastic modulus of 3440 cm³ and W 12X136 has 3506.8 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

UC 305×305×198 at 198.1 kg/m, against 202.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.1%. 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: W 12X136 gives 3506.8 cm³ of plastic modulus and 51,613 cm⁴ of inertia against 3440 cm³ and 50,900 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 12X136, with a second moment of area of 51,613 cm⁴ against 50,900 cm⁴ (1.4% 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 305×305×198 vs HE 320 CUC 305×305×198 vs H-350x350x16x25
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…