CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 5X44 vs Tee 254×127×66

WT 5X44 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 254×127×66 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 158.14 cm³ against 159 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 65.5 kg/m and 66 kg/m. Both are about 138 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 5X44
WT
Tee 254×127×66
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass65.5 kg/m66 kg/m-0.8%
Depth137.7 mm138.1 mm-0.3%
Width261.6 mm261.3 mm+0.1%
Web thickness15.4 mm15.3 mm+0.7%
Flange thickness25.1 mm25.3 mm-0.8%
Area83.9 cm²84.1 cm²-0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)865.8 cm⁴871 cm⁴-0.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)158.14 cm³159 cm³-0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)78.166 cm³78.3 cm³-0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)3,717 cm⁴3,770 cm⁴-1.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)434.26 cm³439 cm³-1.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.68 cm6.69 cm-0.1%
Torsion constant (It)156.1 cm⁴159 cm⁴-1.8%

WT 5X44 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 254×127×66 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 254×127×66.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 254×127×66 has the larger second moment of area: 871 cm⁴ against 865.8 cm⁴, a difference of 0.6%. 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, the two are equally efficient (2.4 against 2.4 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 5X44 has a plastic modulus of 158.14 cm³ and Tee 254×127×66 has 159 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 5X44 is 65.5 kg/m and Tee 254×127×66 is 66 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 254×127×66 gives 159 cm³ of plastic modulus and 871 cm⁴ of inertia against 158.14 cm³ and 865.8 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 254×127×66, with a second moment of area of 871 cm⁴ against 865.8 cm⁴ (0.6% 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.

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