CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 9X30 vs ST 9X27.35

WT 9X30 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; ST 9X27.35 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. ST 9X27.35 carries more bending: 283.5 cm³ of plastic modulus against 270.39 cm³, 4.6% more. ST 9X27.35 is the lighter of the two at 40.7 kg/m against 44.6 kg/m, a saving of 9.6% on steel weight. Both are about 230 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 9X30
WT
ST 9X27.35
ST
Difference
Mass44.6 kg/m40.7 kg/m+9.6%
Depth231.6 mm228.6 mm+1.3%
Width192 mm152.4 mm+26.0%
Web thickness10.5 mm11.7 mm-10.3%
Flange thickness17.7 mm17.6 mm+0.6%
Area56.9 cm²51.7 cm²+10.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,693 cm⁴2,593 cm⁴+3.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)270.39 cm³283.5 cm³-4.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)152.24 cm³157.32 cm³-3.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,041 cm⁴432.9 cm⁴+140.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)168.79 cm³99.306 cm³+70.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.27 cm2.9 cm+47.2%
Torsion constant (It)44.95 cm⁴48.28 cm⁴-6.9%

WT 9X30 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; ST 9X27.35 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to ST 9X27.35.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 9X30 has the larger second moment of area: 2,693 cm⁴ against 2,593 cm⁴, a difference of 3.9%. 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, ST 9X27.35 is the more efficient section: 7.0 against 6.1 cm³ per kg/m, 13.0% 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 9X30 has 168.79 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 99.306 cm³, 70.0% 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.

In short, ST 9X27.35 is the stronger section and ST 9X27.35 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

ST 9X27.35 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 283.5 cm³ against 270.39 cm³ - 4.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

ST 9X27.35 at 40.7 kg/m, against 44.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 9.6%. 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: ST 9X27.35 gives 283.5 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,593 cm⁴ of inertia against 270.39 cm³ and 2,693 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

WT 9X30, with a second moment of area of 2,693 cm⁴ against 2,593 cm⁴ (3.9% 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 ST 9X27.35Tee 191×229×45 vs WT 9X30Tee 152×229×41 vs WT 9X30WT 9X38 vs ST 9X27.35WT 9X32.5 vs ST 9X27.35
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…