CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 5X22.5 vs Tee 254×127×37

WT 5X22.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 254×127×37 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). WT 5X22.5 carries more bending: 76.2 cm³ of plastic modulus against 74 cm³, 3.0% more. WT 5X22.5 is the lighter of the two at 33.5 kg/m against 36.5 kg/m, a saving of 8.2% on steel weight. Both are about 128 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 5X22.5
WT
Tee 254×127×37
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass33.5 kg/m36.5 kg/m-8.2%
Depth128.3 mm127 mm+1.0%
Width203.7 mm254.6 mm-20.0%
Web thickness8.9 mm8.6 mm+3.5%
Flange thickness15.7 mm14.2 mm+10.6%
Area42.8 cm²46.5 cm²-8.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)424.6 cm⁴417 cm⁴+1.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)76.2 cm³74 cm³+3.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)40.476 cm³39.2 cm³+3.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,111 cm⁴1,950 cm⁴-43.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)165.51 cm³233 cm³-29.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.11 cm6.48 cm-21.1%
Torsion constant (It)31.34 cm⁴28.8 cm⁴+8.8%

WT 5X22.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 254×127×37 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 254×127×37.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 5X22.5 has the larger second moment of area: 424.6 cm⁴ against 417 cm⁴, a difference of 1.8%. 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 5X22.5 is the more efficient section: 2.3 against 2.0 cm³ per kg/m, 12.2% 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 254×127×37 has 233 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 165.51 cm³, 29.0% 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 8.2% weight.

In short, WT 5X22.5 is the stronger section and WT 5X22.5 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

WT 5X22.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 76.2 cm³ against 74 cm³ - 3.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

WT 5X22.5 at 33.5 kg/m, against 36.5 kg/m for the other - a saving of 8.2%. 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: Tee 254×127×37 gives 74 cm³ of plastic modulus and 417 cm⁴ of inertia against 76.2 cm³ and 424.6 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 5X22.5, with a second moment of area of 424.6 cm⁴ against 417 cm⁴ (1.8% 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 5X24.5 vs Tee 254×127×37
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…