CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 5X24.5 vs Tee 254×127×37

WT 5X24.5 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). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 74.07 cm³ against 74 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 36.5 kg/m and 36.5 kg/m. Both are about 127 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 5X24.5
WT
Tee 254×127×37
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass36.5 kg/m36.5 kg/msame
Depth126.7 mm127 mm-0.2%
Width254 mm254.6 mm-0.2%
Web thickness8.6 mm8.6 mmsame
Flange thickness14.2 mm14.2 mmsame
Area46.5 cm²46.5 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)416.2 cm⁴417 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)74.07 cm³74 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)39.165 cm³39.2 cm³-0.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,944 cm⁴1,950 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)231.06 cm³233 cm³-0.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.45 cm6.48 cm-0.5%
Torsion constant (It)28.84 cm⁴28.8 cm⁴+0.1%

WT 5X24.5 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, Tee 254×127×37 has the larger second moment of area: 417 cm⁴ against 416.2 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 (2.0 against 2.0 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 5X24.5 has a plastic modulus of 74.07 cm³ and Tee 254×127×37 has 74 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 5X24.5 is 36.5 kg/m and Tee 254×127×37 is 36.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 254×127×37 gives 74 cm³ of plastic modulus and 417 cm⁴ of inertia against 74.07 cm³ and 416.2 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 254×127×37, with a second moment of area of 417 cm⁴ against 416.2 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.

Related comparisons

WT 5X22.5 vs Tee 254×127×37
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…