CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×406×287 vs W 14X193

UC 356×406×287 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X193 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 5810 cm³ against 5817.4 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 287.1 kg/m and 287.2 kg/m. Both are about 394 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×406×287
UC
W 14X193
W
Difference
Mass287.1 kg/m287.2 kg/msame
Depth393.6 mm393.7 mmsame
Width399 mm398.8 mm+0.1%
Web thickness22.6 mm22.6 mmsame
Flange thickness36.5 mm36.6 mm-0.3%
Area366 cm²366.5 cm²-0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)99,900 cm⁴99,896 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)5,810 cm³5,817.4 cm³-0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)5,070 cm³5,080 cm³-0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)38,700 cm⁴38,751 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)2,950 cm³2,949.7 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.3 cm10.29 cm+0.1%
Torsion constant (It)1,440 cm⁴1,448 cm⁴-0.6%

UC 356×406×287 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X193 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X193.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×406×287 has the larger second moment of area: 99,900 cm⁴ against 99,896 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 (20.2 against 20.3 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 356×406×287 has a plastic modulus of 5810 cm³ and W 14X193 has 5817.4 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: UC 356×406×287 is 287.1 kg/m and W 14X193 is 287.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: W 14X193 gives 5817.4 cm³ of plastic modulus and 99,896 cm⁴ of inertia against 5810 cm³ and 99,900 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 356×406×287, with a second moment of area of 99,900 cm⁴ against 99,896 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 356×406×287 vs HP 16X183W 14X193 vs HP 16X183W 12X210 vs UC 356×406×287
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…