CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 4X33.5 vs Tee 203×102×50

WT 4X33.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 203×102×50 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 103.07 cm³ against 103 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 49.9 kg/m and 49.8 kg/m. Both are about 114 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 4X33.5
WT
Tee 203×102×50
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass49.9 kg/m49.8 kg/m+0.2%
Depth114.3 mm114.3 mmsame
Width210.3 mm210.3 mmsame
Web thickness14.5 mm14.5 mmsame
Flange thickness23.7 mm23.7 mmsame
Area63.5 cm²63.4 cm²+0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)453.7 cm⁴453 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)103.07 cm³103 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)49.981 cm³50 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,844 cm⁴1,840 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)267.11 cm³267 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.38 cm5.39 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)104.5 cm⁴104 cm⁴+0.5%

WT 4X33.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 203×102×50 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 203×102×50.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 4X33.5 has the larger second moment of area: 453.7 cm⁴ against 453 cm⁴, a difference of 0.2%. 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 (2.1 against 2.1 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 4X33.5 has a plastic modulus of 103.07 cm³ and Tee 203×102×50 has 103 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 4X33.5 is 49.9 kg/m and Tee 203×102×50 is 49.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 203×102×50 gives 103 cm³ of plastic modulus and 453 cm⁴ of inertia against 103.07 cm³ and 453.7 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.

WT 4X33.5, with a second moment of area of 453.7 cm⁴ against 453 cm⁴ (0.2% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…