CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 4X10.5 vs ST 4X9.2

WT 4X10.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; ST 4X9.2 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 34.577 cm³ against 33.921 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. ST 4X9.2 is the lighter of the two at 13.7 kg/m against 15.6 kg/m, a saving of 13.9% on steel weight. WT 4X10.5 is deeper, 105.2 mm against 101.6 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 4X10.5
WT
ST 4X9.2
ST
Difference
Mass15.6 kg/m13.7 kg/m+13.9%
Depth105.2 mm101.6 mm+3.5%
Width133.9 mm101.6 mm+31.8%
Web thickness6.4 mm6.9 mm-7.2%
Flange thickness10.2 mm10.8 mm-5.6%
Area19.9 cm²17.4 cm²+14.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)162.3 cm⁴145.3 cm⁴+11.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)34.577 cm³33.921 cm³+1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)19.337 cm³18.681 cm³+3.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)203.1 cm⁴76.59 cm⁴+165.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)46.539 cm³26.055 cm³+78.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.2 cm2.1 cm+52.4%
Torsion constant (It)5.87 cm⁴6.95 cm⁴-15.5%

WT 4X10.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; ST 4X9.2 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to ST 4X9.2.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 4X10.5 has the larger second moment of area: 162.3 cm⁴ against 145.3 cm⁴, a difference of 11.7%. 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, ST 4X9.2 is the more efficient section: 2.5 against 2.2 cm³ per kg/m, 10.5% 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: WT 4X10.5 has 46.539 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 26.055 cm³, 78.6% 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.

In short, WT 4X10.5 is the stronger section and ST 4X9.2 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 4X10.5 has a plastic modulus of 34.577 cm³ and ST 4X9.2 has 33.921 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

ST 4X9.2 at 13.7 kg/m, against 15.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 13.9%. 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: ST 4X9.2 gives 33.921 cm³ of plastic modulus and 145.3 cm⁴ of inertia against 34.577 cm³ and 162.3 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

WT 4X10.5, with a second moment of area of 162.3 cm⁴ against 145.3 cm⁴ (11.7% 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 133×102×15 vs WT 4X10.5Tee 133×102×15 vs ST 4X9.2WT 4X12 vs ST 4X9.2
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…