CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 10.5X22 vs Tee 165×267×33

WT 10.5X22 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 165×267×33 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 288.41 cm³ against 291 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.9%. They weigh essentially the same, 32.7 kg/m and 32.8 kg/m. Both are about 262 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 10.5X22
WT
Tee 165×267×33
Tees (from UB)
Difference
Mass32.7 kg/m32.8 kg/m-0.3%
Depth261.6 mm262.4 mm-0.3%
Width165.1 mm165.1 mmsame
Web thickness8.9 mm8.9 mmsame
Flange thickness11.4 mm11.4 mmsame
Area41.9 cm²41.9 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)2,959 cm⁴2,960 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)288.41 cm³291 cm³-0.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)158.63 cm³159 cm³-0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)428.7 cm⁴429 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)83.082 cm³83.1 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.2 cm3.2 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)15.94 cm⁴15.9 cm⁴+0.3%

WT 10.5X22 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 165×267×33 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 165×267×33.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 165×267×33 has the larger second moment of area: 2,960 cm⁴ against 2,959 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 (8.8 against 8.9 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. WT sections are specified to AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and Tees (from UB) to BS EN 10365:2017; 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. WT 10.5X22 has a plastic modulus of 288.41 cm³ and Tee 165×267×33 has 291 cm³, a difference of only 0.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 10.5X22 is 32.7 kg/m and Tee 165×267×33 is 32.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 165×267×33 gives 291 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,960 cm⁴ of inertia against 288.41 cm³ and 2,959 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and BS EN 10365:2017), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

Tee 165×267×33, with a second moment of area of 2,960 cm⁴ against 2,959 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

Tee 165×267×33 vs WT 10.5X24
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…