CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×406×235 vs W 14X159

UC 356×406×235 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X159 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 4690 cm³ against 4703.1 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 235.1 kg/m and 236.6 kg/m. Both are about 381 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×406×235
UC
W 14X159
W
Difference
Mass235.1 kg/m236.6 kg/m-0.6%
Depth381 mm381 mmsame
Width394.8 mm396.2 mm-0.4%
Web thickness18.4 mm18.9 mm-2.6%
Flange thickness30.2 mm30.2 mmsame
Area299 cm²301.3 cm²-0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)79,100 cm⁴79,084 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)4,690 cm³4,703.1 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)4,150 cm³4,162.3 cm³-0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)31,000 cm⁴31,134 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,380 cm³2,392.5 cm³-0.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.2 cm10.16 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)812 cm⁴820 cm⁴-1.0%

UC 356×406×235 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X159 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X159.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×406×235 has the larger second moment of area: 79,100 cm⁴ against 79,084 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 (19.9 against 19.9 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 356×406×235 has a plastic modulus of 4690 cm³ and W 14X159 has 4703.1 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 356×406×235 is 235.1 kg/m and W 14X159 is 236.6 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 14X159 gives 4703.1 cm³ of plastic modulus and 79,084 cm⁴ of inertia against 4690 cm³ and 79,100 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.

UC 356×406×235, with a second moment of area of 79,100 cm⁴ against 79,084 cm⁴ (0.0% 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 356×406×235 vs HE 340 MW 14X159 vs HE 340 M
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…