WT 4X14 vs Tee 203×102×23
WT 4X14 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 203×102×23 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 39.001 cm³ against 39 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. WT 4X14 is the lighter of the two at 20.8 kg/m against 23 kg/m, a saving of 9.6% on steel weight. Both are about 102 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.
| Property | WT 4X14 WT | Tee 203×102×23 Tees (from UC) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | 20.8 kg/m | 23 kg/m | -9.6% |
| Depth | 102.4 mm | 101.5 mm | +0.9% |
| Width | 166.1 mm | 203.6 mm | -18.4% |
| Web thickness | 7.2 mm | 7.2 mm | same |
| Flange thickness | 11.8 mm | 11 mm | +7.3% |
| Area | 26.6 cm² | 29.4 cm² | -9.5% |
| Second moment, major (Iy) | 176.1 cm⁴ | 177 cm⁴ | -0.5% |
| Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y) | 39.001 cm³ | 39 cm³ | same |
| Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y) | 20.975 cm³ | 20.9 cm³ | +0.4% |
| Second moment, minor (Iz) | 449.5 cm⁴ | 774 cm⁴ | -41.9% |
| Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z) | 82.591 cm³ | 115 cm³ | -28.2% |
| Radius of gyration, minor (iz) | 4.11 cm | 5.13 cm | -19.9% |
| Torsion constant (It) | 11.16 cm⁴ | 11 cm⁴ | +1.5% |
WT 4X14 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 203×102×23 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 203×102×23.
How to choose between them
On stiffness, Tee 203×102×23 has the larger second moment of area: 177 cm⁴ against 176.1 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 4X14 is the more efficient section: 1.9 against 1.7 cm³ per kg/m, 10.6% 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 203×102×23 has 115 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 82.591 cm³, 28.2% 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 UC) 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 9.6% weight.
In short, WT 4X14 is the stronger section and WT 4X14 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.