CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 305×305×97 vs H-300x300x15x15

UC 305×305×97 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); H-300x300x15x15 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 1590 cm³ against 1596 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. UC 305×305×97 is the lighter of the two at 96.9 kg/m against 105 kg/m, a saving of 7.7% on steel weight. UC 305×305×97 is deeper, 307.9 mm against 300 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 305×305×97
UC
H-300x300x15x15
MB & MC
Difference
Mass96.9 kg/m105 kg/m-7.7%
Depth307.9 mm300 mm+2.6%
Width305.3 mm305 mm+0.1%
Web thickness9.9 mm15 mm-34.0%
Flange thickness15.4 mm15 mm+2.7%
Area123 cm²133 cm²-7.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)22,200 cm⁴21,310 cm⁴+4.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)1,590 cm³1,596 cm³-0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)1,450 cm³1,421 cm³+2.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)7,310 cm⁴7,103 cm⁴+2.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)726 cm³714 cm³+1.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.69 cm7.3 cm+5.3%
Torsion constant (It)91.2 cm⁴109 cm⁴-16.3%

UC 305×305×97 to BS EN 10365:2017; H-300x300x15x15 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to H-300x300x15x15.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 305×305×97 has the larger second moment of area: 22,200 cm⁴ against 21,310 cm⁴, a difference of 4.2%. 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, UC 305×305×97 is the more efficient section: 16.4 against 15.2 cm³ per kg/m, 8.0% 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 7.7% weight.

In short, H-300x300x15x15 is the stronger section and UC 305×305×97 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 305×305×97 has a plastic modulus of 1590 cm³ and H-300x300x15x15 has 1596 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

UC 305×305×97 at 96.9 kg/m, against 105 kg/m for the other - a saving of 7.7%. 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-300x300x15x15 gives 1596 cm³ of plastic modulus and 21,310 cm⁴ of inertia against 1590 cm³ and 22,200 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.

UC 305×305×97, with a second moment of area of 22,200 cm⁴ against 21,310 cm⁴ (4.2% 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 305×305×97 vs HE 320 AUC 305×305×97 vs W 12X65W 12X65 vs H-300x300x15x15HE 320 A vs H-300x300x15x15
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…