CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 305×305×198 vs H-350x350x16x25

UC 305×305×198 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); H-350x350x16x25 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 3440 cm³ against 3424 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. H-350x350x16x25 is the lighter of the two at 181 kg/m against 198.1 kg/m, a saving of 9.4% on steel weight. H-350x350x16x25 is deeper, 362 mm against 339.9 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 305×305×198
UC
H-350x350x16x25
MB & MC
Difference
Mass198.1 kg/m181 kg/m+9.4%
Depth339.9 mm362 mm-6.1%
Width314.5 mm354 mm-11.2%
Web thickness19.1 mm16 mm+19.4%
Flange thickness31.4 mm25 mm+25.6%
Area252 cm²230 cm²+9.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)50,900 cm⁴55,190 cm⁴-7.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)3,440 cm³3,424 cm³+0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)3,000 cm³3,049 cm³-1.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)16,300 cm⁴18,500 cm⁴-11.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,580 cm³1,591 cm³-0.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.04 cm8.96 cm-10.3%
Torsion constant (It)734 cm⁴445 cm⁴+64.9%

UC 305×305×198 to BS EN 10365:2017; H-350x350x16x25 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to H-350x350x16x25.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, H-350x350x16x25 has the larger second moment of area: 55,190 cm⁴ against 50,900 cm⁴, a difference of 7.8%. 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, H-350x350x16x25 is the more efficient section: 18.9 against 17.4 cm³ per kg/m, 8.2% 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 MB & MC to Continental Steel; 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 9.4% weight.

In short, UC 305×305×198 is the stronger section and H-350x350x16x25 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 H-350x350x16x25 has 3424 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

H-350x350x16x25 at 181 kg/m, against 198.1 kg/m for the other - a saving of 9.4%. 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: H-350x350x16x25 gives 3424 cm³ of plastic modulus and 55,190 cm⁴ of inertia against 3440 cm³ and 50,900 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and Continental Steel), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

H-350x350x16x25, with a second moment of area of 55,190 cm⁴ against 50,900 cm⁴ (7.8% 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 356×368×177 vs H-350x350x16x25UC 305×305×198 vs HE 320 CUC 305×305×198 vs W 12X136W 14X120 vs H-350x350x16x25
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…