CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×368×153 vs W 14X99

UC 356×368×153 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X99 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. UC 356×368×153 carries more bending: 2960 cm³ of plastic modulus against 2835 cm³, 4.4% more. W 14X99 is the lighter of the two at 147.3 kg/m against 152.9 kg/m, a saving of 3.8% on steel weight. Both are about 361 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×368×153
UC
W 14X99
W
Difference
Mass152.9 kg/m147.3 kg/m+3.8%
Depth362 mm360.7 mm+0.4%
Width370.5 mm370.8 mm-0.1%
Web thickness12.3 mm12.3 mmsame
Flange thickness20.7 mm19.8 mm+4.5%
Area195 cm²187.7 cm²+3.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)48,600 cm⁴46,202 cm⁴+5.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)2,960 cm³2,835 cm³+4.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)2,680 cm³2,572.8 cm³+4.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)17,600 cm⁴16,733 cm⁴+5.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,430 cm³1,370 cm³+4.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.49 cm9.42 cm+0.7%
Torsion constant (It)251 cm⁴223.5 cm⁴+12.3%

UC 356×368×153 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X99 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X99.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×368×153 has the larger second moment of area: 48,600 cm⁴ against 46,202 cm⁴, a difference of 5.2%. 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, the two are equally efficient (19.4 against 19.2 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 3.8% weight.

In short, UC 356×368×153 is the stronger section and W 14X99 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

UC 356×368×153 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 2960 cm³ against 2835 cm³ - 4.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

W 14X99 at 147.3 kg/m, against 152.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.8%. 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 14X99 gives 2835 cm³ of plastic modulus and 46,202 cm⁴ of inertia against 2960 cm³ and 48,600 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 356×368×153, with a second moment of area of 48,600 cm⁴ against 46,202 cm⁴ (5.2% 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 356×368×153 vs H-350x350x14x22W 14X99 vs HE 360 BW 14X99 vs HP 14X102W 14X99 vs H-400x400x15x15
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…