CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 305×305×283 vs W 12X190

UC 305×305×283 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 12X190 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 5110 cm³ against 5096.4 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 282.9 kg/m and 282.8 kg/m. Both are about 366 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 305×305×283
UC
W 12X190
W
Difference
Mass282.9 kg/m282.8 kg/msame
Depth365.3 mm365.8 mm-0.1%
Width322.2 mm322.6 mm-0.1%
Web thickness26.8 mm26.9 mm-0.4%
Flange thickness44.1 mm44.2 mm-0.2%
Area360 cm²361.3 cm²-0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)78,900 cm⁴78,668 cm⁴+0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)5,110 cm³5,096.4 cm³+0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)4,320 cm³4,309.8 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)24,600 cm⁴24,516 cm⁴+0.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,340 cm³2,343.4 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)8.27 cm8.26 cm+0.1%
Torsion constant (It)2,030 cm⁴2,031 cm⁴same

UC 305×305×283 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 12X190 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 12X190.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 305×305×283 has the larger second moment of area: 78,900 cm⁴ against 78,668 cm⁴, a difference of 0.3%. 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 (18.1 against 18.0 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 305×305×283 has a plastic modulus of 5110 cm³ and W 12X190 has 5096.4 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 305×305×283 is 282.9 kg/m and W 12X190 is 282.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 12X190 gives 5096.4 cm³ of plastic modulus and 78,668 cm⁴ of inertia against 5110 cm³ and 78,900 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.

UC 305×305×283, with a second moment of area of 78,900 cm⁴ against 78,668 cm⁴ (0.3% 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

W 14X176 vs UC 305×305×283
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…