CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 10.5X41.5 vs Tee 312×267×75

WT 10.5X41.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 312×267×75 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 458.84 cm³ against 458 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.2%. WT 10.5X41.5 is the lighter of the two at 61.8 kg/m against 75.3 kg/m, a saving of 17.9% on steel weight. Both are about 272 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 10.5X41.5
WT
Tee 312×267×75
Tees (from UB)
Difference
Mass61.8 kg/m75.3 kg/m-17.9%
Depth271.8 mm271.5 mm+0.1%
Width212.3 mm312 mm-32.0%
Web thickness13.1 mm12.7 mm+3.1%
Flange thickness21.2 mm20.3 mm+4.4%
Area78.7 cm²95.9 cm²-17.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)5,286 cm⁴5,620 cm⁴-5.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)458.84 cm³458 cm³+0.2%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)257.28 cm³260 cm³-1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,694 cm⁴5,140 cm⁴-67.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)249.08 cm³505 cm³-50.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.65 cm7.32 cm-36.5%
Torsion constant (It)89.91 cm⁴108 cm⁴-16.8%

WT 10.5X41.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 312×267×75 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 312×267×75.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 312×267×75 has the larger second moment of area: 5,620 cm⁴ against 5,286 cm⁴, a difference of 5.9%. 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 of steel, WT 10.5X41.5 is the more efficient section: 7.4 against 6.1 cm³ per kg/m, 22.1% 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 312×267×75 has 505 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 249.08 cm³, 50.7% 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 17.9% weight.

In short, WT 10.5X41.5 is the stronger section and WT 10.5X41.5 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

They are effectively equal in bending. WT 10.5X41.5 has a plastic modulus of 458.84 cm³ and Tee 312×267×75 has 458 cm³, a difference of only 0.2% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

WT 10.5X41.5 at 61.8 kg/m, against 75.3 kg/m for the other - a saving of 17.9%. 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: Tee 312×267×75 gives 458 cm³ of plastic modulus and 5,620 cm⁴ of inertia against 458.84 cm³ and 5,286 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 312×267×75, with a second moment of area of 5,620 cm⁴ against 5,286 cm⁴ (5.9% 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.

Related comparisons

Tee 312×267×75 vs WT 10.5X50.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…