WT 10.5X25 vs Tee 210×267×41
WT 10.5X25 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 210×267×41 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 317.91 cm³ against 320 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.7%. WT 10.5X25 is the lighter of the two at 37.2 kg/m against 41.1 kg/m, a saving of 9.5% on steel weight. Both are about 264 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.
| Property | WT 10.5X25 WT | Tee 210×267×41 Tees (from UB) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | 37.2 kg/m | 41.1 kg/m | -9.5% |
| Depth | 264.2 mm | 264.1 mm | same |
| Width | 165.9 mm | 208.8 mm | -20.5% |
| Web thickness | 9.7 mm | 9.6 mm | +1.0% |
| Flange thickness | 13.6 mm | 13.2 mm | +3.0% |
| Area | 47.5 cm² | 52.3 cm² | -9.2% |
| Second moment, major (Iy) | 3,342 cm⁴ | 3,530 cm⁴ | -5.3% |
| Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y) | 317.91 cm³ | 320 cm³ | -0.7% |
| Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y) | 175.34 cm³ | 179 cm³ | -2.0% |
| Second moment, minor (Iz) | 520.3 cm⁴ | 1,000 cm⁴ | -48.0% |
| Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z) | 99.633 cm³ | 150 cm³ | -33.6% |
| Radius of gyration, minor (iz) | 3.3 cm | 4.38 cm | -24.7% |
| Torsion constant (It) | 23.73 cm⁴ | 25.7 cm⁴ | -7.7% |
WT 10.5X25 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 210×267×41 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 210×267×41.
How to choose between them
On stiffness, Tee 210×267×41 has the larger second moment of area: 3,530 cm⁴ against 3,342 cm⁴, a difference of 5.3%. 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 of steel, WT 10.5X25 is the more efficient section: 8.5 against 7.8 cm³ per kg/m, 9.8% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.
The two diverge much more about the minor axis: Tee 210×267×41 has 150 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 99.633 cm³, 33.6% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.
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 9.5% weight.
In short, Tee 210×267×41 is the stronger section and WT 10.5X25 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.