CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×368×202 vs W 14X132

UC 356×368×202 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X132 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. UC 356×368×202 carries more bending: 3970 cm³ of plastic modulus against 3834.6 cm³, 3.5% more. W 14X132 is the lighter of the two at 196.4 kg/m against 201.9 kg/m, a saving of 2.8% on steel weight. Both are about 374 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×368×202
UC
W 14X132
W
Difference
Mass201.9 kg/m196.4 kg/m+2.8%
Depth374.6 mm373.4 mm+0.3%
Width374.7 mm373.4 mm+0.3%
Web thickness16.5 mm16.4 mm+0.6%
Flange thickness27 mm26.2 mm+3.1%
Area257 cm²250.3 cm²+2.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)66,300 cm⁴63,683 cm⁴+4.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)3,970 cm³3,834.6 cm³+3.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)3,540 cm³3,424.9 cm³+3.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)23,700 cm⁴22,809 cm⁴+3.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)1,920 cm³1,851.7 cm³+3.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)9.6 cm9.55 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)558 cm⁴512 cm⁴+9.0%

UC 356×368×202 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X132 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X132.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×368×202 has the larger second moment of area: 66,300 cm⁴ against 63,683 cm⁴, a difference of 4.1%. 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 (19.7 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 2.8% weight.

In short, UC 356×368×202 is the stronger section and W 14X132 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 356×368×202 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 3970 cm³ against 3834.6 cm³ - 3.5% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

W 14X132 at 196.4 kg/m, against 201.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.8%. 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 14X132 gives 3834.6 cm³ of plastic modulus and 63,683 cm⁴ of inertia against 3970 cm³ and 66,300 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 356×368×202, with a second moment of area of 66,300 cm⁴ against 63,683 cm⁴ (4.1% 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 356×368×202 vs H-400x400x21x21W 12X152 vs UC 356×368×202
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…