CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 9X38 vs ST 9X27.35

WT 9X38 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; ST 9X27.35 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 283.5 cm³ against 283.5 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. ST 9X27.35 is the lighter of the two at 40.7 kg/m against 56.6 kg/m, a saving of 39.1% 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 9X38
WT
ST 9X27.35
ST
Difference
Mass56.6 kg/m40.7 kg/m+39.1%
Depth231.4 mm228.6 mm+1.2%
Width279.4 mm152.4 mm+83.3%
Web thickness10.8 mm11.7 mm-7.7%
Flange thickness17.3 mm17.6 mm-1.7%
Area71.6 cm²51.7 cm²+38.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,989 cm⁴2,593 cm⁴+15.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)283.5 cm³283.5 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)161.08 cm³157.32 cm³+2.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)3,172 cm⁴432.9 cm⁴+632.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)345.77 cm³99.306 cm³+248.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.63 cm2.9 cm+128.6%
Torsion constant (It)58.69 cm⁴48.28 cm⁴+21.6%

WT 9X38 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 9X38 has the larger second moment of area: 2,989 cm⁴ against 2,593 cm⁴, a difference of 15.3%. 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 5.0 cm³ per kg/m, 28.1% 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 9X38 has 345.77 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 99.306 cm³, 248.2% 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

They are effectively equal in bending. WT 9X38 has a plastic modulus of 283.5 cm³ and ST 9X27.35 has 283.5 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

ST 9X27.35 at 40.7 kg/m, against 56.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 39.1%. 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 283.5 cm³ and 2,989 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

WT 9X38, with a second moment of area of 2,989 cm⁴ against 2,593 cm⁴ (15.3% 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 9X27.35WT 9X38 vs Tee 191×229×49WT 9X32.5 vs ST 9X27.35WT 9X30 vs ST 9X27.35
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…