CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 12X58.5 vs Tee 305×305×90

WT 12X58.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 305×305×90 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). Tee 305×305×90 carries more bending: 656 cm³ of plastic modulus against 642.37 cm³, 2.1% more. WT 12X58.5 is the lighter of the two at 87.1 kg/m against 89.5 kg/m, a saving of 2.7% on steel weight. Both are about 309 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 12X58.5
WT
Tee 305×305×90
Tees (from UB)
Difference
Mass87.1 kg/m89.5 kg/m-2.7%
Depth307.3 mm310 mm-0.9%
Width325.1 mm307.1 mm+5.9%
Web thickness14 mm14.1 mm-0.7%
Flange thickness21.6 mm23.6 mm-8.5%
Area111 cm²114 cm²-2.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)8,824 cm⁴9,040 cm⁴-2.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)642.37 cm³656 cm³-2.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)365.43 cm³372 cm³-1.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)6,202 cm⁴5,700 cm⁴+8.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)585.02 cm³572 cm³+2.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.47 cm7.07 cm+5.7%
Torsion constant (It)139.4 cm⁴170 cm⁴-18.0%

WT 12X58.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 305×305×90 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 305×305×90.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 305×305×90 has the larger second moment of area: 9,040 cm⁴ against 8,824 cm⁴, a difference of 2.4%. 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 (7.4 against 7.3 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 2.7% weight.

In short, Tee 305×305×90 is the stronger section and WT 12X58.5 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

Tee 305×305×90 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 656 cm³ against 642.37 cm³ - 2.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

WT 12X58.5 at 87.1 kg/m, against 89.5 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: Tee 305×305×90 gives 656 cm³ of plastic modulus and 9,040 cm⁴ of inertia against 642.37 cm³ and 8,824 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 305×305×90, with a second moment of area of 9,040 cm⁴ against 8,824 cm⁴ (2.4% 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 305×305×90 vs WT 12X51.5Tee 305×305×90 vs ST 12X45WT 12X58.5 vs ST 12X45
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…