CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 8X44.5 vs Tee 191×229×49

WT 8X44.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 191×229×49 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 296.61 cm³ against 296 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.2%. Tee 191×229×49 is the lighter of the two at 49.1 kg/m against 66.2 kg/m, a saving of 34.8% on steel weight. Tee 191×229×49 is deeper, 233.5 mm against 212.9 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 8X44.5
WT
Tee 191×229×49
Tees (from UB)
Difference
Mass66.2 kg/m49.1 kg/m+34.8%
Depth212.9 mm233.5 mm-8.8%
Width264.2 mm192.8 mm+37.0%
Web thickness13.3 mm11.4 mm+16.7%
Flange thickness22.2 mm19.6 mm+13.3%
Area84.5 cm²62.6 cm²+35.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,797 cm⁴2,970 cm⁴-5.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)296.61 cm³296 cm³+0.2%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)165.51 cm³167 cm³-0.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)3,384 cm⁴1,170 cm⁴+189.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)393.29 cm³189 cm³+108.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.32 cm4.33 cm+46.0%
Torsion constant (It)113.2 cm⁴60.5 cm⁴+87.1%

WT 8X44.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 191×229×49 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 191×229×49.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 191×229×49 has the larger second moment of area: 2,970 cm⁴ against 2,797 cm⁴, a difference of 5.8%. 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, Tee 191×229×49 is the more efficient section: 6.0 against 4.5 cm³ per kg/m, 25.7% 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: WT 8X44.5 has 393.29 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 189 cm³, 108.1% 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 UB) 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 34.8% weight.

In short, WT 8X44.5 is the stronger section and Tee 191×229×49 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

They are effectively equal in bending. WT 8X44.5 has a plastic modulus of 296.61 cm³ and Tee 191×229×49 has 296 cm³, a difference of only 0.2% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Tee 191×229×49 at 49.1 kg/m, against 66.2 kg/m for the other - a saving of 34.8%. 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 191×229×49 gives 296 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,970 cm⁴ of inertia against 296.61 cm³ and 2,797 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 191×229×49, with a second moment of area of 2,970 cm⁴ against 2,797 cm⁴ (5.8% 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

Tee 191×229×49 vs WT 9X32.5Tee 191×229×49 vs ST 9X27.35WT 9X38 vs Tee 191×229×49
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…