CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 4X20 vs Tee 203×102×30

WT 4X20 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 203×102×30 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 53.258 cm³ against 54.3 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.9%. They weigh essentially the same, 29.8 kg/m and 30 kg/m. Both are about 105 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 4X20
WT
Tee 203×102×30
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass29.8 kg/m30 kg/m-0.7%
Depth104.9 mm104.7 mm+0.2%
Width205 mm205.8 mm-0.4%
Web thickness9.1 mm9.4 mm-3.2%
Flange thickness14.2 mm14.2 mmsame
Area37.9 cm²38.2 cm²-0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)238.5 cm⁴244 cm⁴-2.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)53.258 cm³54.3 cm³-1.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)27.694 cm³28.4 cm³-2.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,020 cm⁴1,030 cm⁴-1.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)151.42 cm³153 cm³-1.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.18 cm5.2 cm-0.4%
Torsion constant (It)23.23 cm⁴23.5 cm⁴-1.1%

WT 4X20 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 203×102×30 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 203×102×30.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 203×102×30 has the larger second moment of area: 244 cm⁴ against 238.5 cm⁴, a difference of 2.3%. 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 (1.8 against 1.8 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 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. WT 4X20 has a plastic modulus of 53.258 cm³ and Tee 203×102×30 has 54.3 cm³, a difference of only 1.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 4X20 is 29.8 kg/m and Tee 203×102×30 is 30 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 203×102×30 gives 54.3 cm³ of plastic modulus and 244 cm⁴ of inertia against 53.258 cm³ and 238.5 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 203×102×30, with a second moment of area of 244 cm⁴ against 238.5 cm⁴ (2.3% 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 ST 4X11.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…