CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×368×129 vs H-350x350x12x19-135

UC 356×368×129 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); H-350x350x12x19-135 is the closest equivalent in the European (Continental) range. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 2480 cm³ against 2515 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.4%. UC 356×368×129 is the lighter of the two at 129 kg/m against 135 kg/m, a saving of 4.4% on steel weight. Both are about 353 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×368×129
UC
H-350x350x12x19-135
MB & MC
Difference
Mass129 kg/m135 kg/m-4.4%
Depth355.6 mm350 mm+1.6%
Width368.6 mm350 mm+5.3%
Web thickness10.4 mm12 mm-13.3%
Flange thickness17.5 mm19 mm-7.9%
Area164 cm²172 cm²-4.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)40,200 cm⁴39,847 cm⁴+0.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)2,480 cm³2,515 cm³-1.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)2,260 cm³2,277 cm³-0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)14,600 cm⁴13,583 cm⁴+7.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,200 cm³1,176 cm³+2.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.43 cm8.89 cm+6.1%
Torsion constant (It)153 cm⁴186 cm⁴-17.7%

UC 356×368×129 to BS EN 10365:2017; H-350x350x12x19-135 to Continental Steel. Difference is expressed relative to H-350x350x12x19-135.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×368×129 has the larger second moment of area: 40,200 cm⁴ against 39,847 cm⁴, a difference of 0.9%. 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 356×368×129 is the more efficient section: 19.2 against 18.6 cm³ per kg/m, 3.2% 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 4.4% weight.

In short, H-350x350x12x19-135 is the stronger section and UC 356×368×129 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 356×368×129 has a plastic modulus of 2480 cm³ and H-350x350x12x19-135 has 2515 cm³, a difference of only 1.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

UC 356×368×129 at 129 kg/m, against 135 kg/m for the other - a saving of 4.4%. 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-350x350x12x19-135 gives 2515 cm³ of plastic modulus and 39,847 cm⁴ of inertia against 2480 cm³ and 40,200 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 356×368×129, with a second moment of area of 40,200 cm⁴ against 39,847 cm⁴ (0.9% 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 356×368×129 vs HE 340 BUC 356×368×129 vs W 14X90UC 356×368×129 vs HP 14X89
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…