CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

UC 356×406×393 vs W 14X257

UC 356×406×393 is an UC section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); W 14X257 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. UC 356×406×393 carries more bending: 8220 cm³ of plastic modulus against 7980.5 cm³, 3.0% more. W 14X257 is the lighter of the two at 382.5 kg/m against 393 kg/m, a saving of 2.7% on steel weight. Both are about 418 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyUC 356×406×393
UC
W 14X257
W
Difference
Mass393 kg/m382.5 kg/m+2.7%
Depth419 mm416.6 mm+0.6%
Width407 mm406.4 mm+0.1%
Web thickness30.6 mm30 mm+2.0%
Flange thickness49.2 mm48 mm+2.5%
Area501 cm²487.7 cm²+2.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)147,000 cm⁴141,519 cm⁴+3.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)8,220 cm³7,980.5 cm³+3.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)7,000 cm³6,800.6 cm³+2.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)55,400 cm⁴53,694 cm⁴+3.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)4,150 cm³4,031.2 cm³+2.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)10.5 cm10.49 cm+0.1%
Torsion constant (It)3,550 cm⁴3,292 cm⁴+7.8%

UC 356×406×393 to BS EN 10365:2017; W 14X257 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to W 14X257.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, UC 356×406×393 has the larger second moment of area: 147,000 cm⁴ against 141,519 cm⁴, a difference of 3.9%. 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 (20.9 against 20.9 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 2.7% weight.

In short, UC 356×406×393 is the stronger section and W 14X257 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 356×406×393 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 8220 cm³ against 7980.5 cm³ - 3.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

W 14X257 at 382.5 kg/m, against 393 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.7%. 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 14X257 gives 7980.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 141,519 cm⁴ of inertia against 8220 cm³ and 147,000 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 356×406×393, with a second moment of area of 147,000 cm⁴ against 141,519 cm⁴ (3.9% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…