CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×368×177 vs W 14X120

UC 356×368×177 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X120 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 3460 cm³ against 3474.1 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 177 kg/m and 178.6 kg/m. Both are about 368 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×368×177
UC
W 14X120
W
Difference
Mass177 kg/m178.6 kg/m-0.9%
Depth368.2 mm368.3 mmsame
Width372.6 mm373.4 mm-0.2%
Web thickness14.4 mm15 mm-4.0%
Flange thickness23.8 mm23.9 mm-0.4%
Area226 cm²227.7 cm²-0.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)57,100 cm⁴57,440 cm⁴-0.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)3,460 cm³3,474.1 cm³-0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)3,100 cm³3,113.5 cm³-0.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)20,500 cm⁴20,603 cm⁴-0.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,670 cm³1,671.5 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.54 cm9.5 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)381 cm⁴390 cm⁴-2.3%

UC 356×368×177 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X120 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X120.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, W 14X120 has the larger second moment of area: 57,440 cm⁴ against 57,100 cm⁴, a difference of 0.6%. 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 (19.5 against 19.5 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 356×368×177 has a plastic modulus of 3460 cm³ and W 14X120 has 3474.1 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 356×368×177 is 177 kg/m and W 14X120 is 178.6 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 14X120 gives 3474.1 cm³ of plastic modulus and 57,440 cm⁴ of inertia against 3460 cm³ and 57,100 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.

W 14X120, with a second moment of area of 57,440 cm⁴ against 57,100 cm⁴ (0.6% 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-350x350x16x25W 14X120 vs H-350x350x16x25
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…