CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 4X20 vs ST 4X11.5

WT 4X20 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; ST 4X11.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 53.258 cm³ against 52.275 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. ST 4X11.5 is the lighter of the two at 17.1 kg/m against 29.8 kg/m, a saving of 74.3% on steel weight. WT 4X20 is deeper, 104.9 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 4X20
WT
ST 4X11.5
ST
Difference
Mass29.8 kg/m17.1 kg/m+74.3%
Depth104.9 mm101.6 mm+3.2%
Width205 mm105.9 mm+93.6%
Web thickness9.1 mm11.2 mm-18.7%
Flange thickness14.2 mm10.8 mm+31.5%
Area37.9 cm²21.8 cm²+73.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)238.5 cm⁴208.1 cm⁴+14.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)53.258 cm³52.275 cm³+1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)27.694 cm³28.841 cm³-4.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,020 cm⁴88.66 cm⁴+1050.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)151.42 cm³30.152 cm³+402.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.18 cm2.02 cm+156.4%
Torsion constant (It)23.23 cm⁴11.28 cm⁴+105.9%

WT 4X20 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; ST 4X11.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to ST 4X11.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 4X20 has the larger second moment of area: 238.5 cm⁴ against 208.1 cm⁴, a difference of 14.6%. 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 4X11.5 is the more efficient section: 3.1 against 1.8 cm³ per kg/m, 41.5% 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 4X20 has 151.42 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 30.152 cm³, 402.2% 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.

In short, WT 4X20 is the stronger section and ST 4X11.5 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 4X20 has a plastic modulus of 53.258 cm³ and ST 4X11.5 has 52.275 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

ST 4X11.5 at 17.1 kg/m, against 29.8 kg/m for the other - a saving of 74.3%. 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 4X11.5 gives 52.275 cm³ of plastic modulus and 208.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 53.258 cm³ and 238.5 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

WT 4X20, with a second moment of area of 238.5 cm⁴ against 208.1 cm⁴ (14.6% 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

WT 4X20 vs Tee 203×102×30
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…