CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 10.5X28.5 vs Tee 165×267×43

WT 10.5X28.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 165×267×43 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 347.41 cm³ against 346 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. They weigh essentially the same, 42.4 kg/m and 42.3 kg/m. Both are about 267 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 10.5X28.5
WT
Tee 165×267×43
Tees (from UB)
Difference
Mass42.4 kg/m42.3 kg/m+0.2%
Depth266.7 mm267.1 mm-0.1%
Width166.6 mm166.5 mm+0.1%
Web thickness10.3 mm10.3 mmsame
Flange thickness16.5 mm16.5 mmsame
Area54 cm²54 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)3,763 cm⁴3,750 cm⁴+0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)347.41 cm³346 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)193.37 cm³192 cm³+0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)636.8 cm⁴637 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)121.26 cm³122 cm³-0.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.43 cm3.44 cm-0.3%
Torsion constant (It)36.79 cm⁴36.8 cm⁴same

WT 10.5X28.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 165×267×43 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 165×267×43.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 10.5X28.5 has the larger second moment of area: 3,763 cm⁴ against 3,750 cm⁴, a difference of 0.3%. 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, the two are equally efficient (8.2 against 8.2 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 10.5X28.5 has a plastic modulus of 347.41 cm³ and Tee 165×267×43 has 346 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 10.5X28.5 is 42.4 kg/m and Tee 165×267×43 is 42.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 165×267×43 gives 346 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,750 cm⁴ of inertia against 347.41 cm³ and 3,763 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.

WT 10.5X28.5, with a second moment of area of 3,763 cm⁴ against 3,750 cm⁴ (0.3% 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 165×267×43 vs WT 10.5X31
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…