CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 9X53 vs ST 9X35

WT 9X53 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; ST 9X35 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 412.95 cm³ against 411.32 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.4%. ST 9X35 is the lighter of the two at 52.1 kg/m against 78.9 kg/m, a saving of 51.4% on steel weight. WT 9X53 is deeper, 238 mm against 228.6 mm, which matters where the floor zone is tight.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 9X53
WT
ST 9X35
ST
Difference
Mass78.9 kg/m52.1 kg/m+51.4%
Depth238 mm228.6 mm+4.1%
Width284.5 mm158.8 mm+79.2%
Web thickness15 mm18.1 mm-17.1%
Flange thickness23.9 mm17.6 mm+35.8%
Area100.6 cm²66.5 cm²+51.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)4,329 cm⁴3,517 cm⁴+23.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)412.95 cm³411.32 cm³+0.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)231.06 cm³229.42 cm³+0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)4,579 cm⁴499.5 cm⁴+816.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)494.89 cm³117.5 cm³+321.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)6.76 cm2.74 cm+146.7%
Torsion constant (It)155.3 cm⁴84.08 cm⁴+84.7%

WT 9X53 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; ST 9X35 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to ST 9X35.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 9X53 has the larger second moment of area: 4,329 cm⁴ against 3,517 cm⁴, a difference of 23.1%. 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 9X35 is the more efficient section: 7.9 against 5.2 cm³ per kg/m, 33.7% 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 9X53 has 494.89 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 117.5 cm³, 321.2% 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, WT 9X53 is the stronger section and ST 9X35 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 9X53 has a plastic modulus of 412.95 cm³ and ST 9X35 has 411.32 cm³, a difference of only 0.4% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

ST 9X35 at 52.1 kg/m, against 78.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 51.4%. 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 9X35 gives 411.32 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,517 cm⁴ of inertia against 412.95 cm³ and 4,329 cm⁴. Re-check deflection and the connection details before swapping, since the flange and web thicknesses differ.

WT 9X53, with a second moment of area of 4,329 cm⁴ against 3,517 cm⁴ (23.1% 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 191×229×67 vs WT 9X53Tee 191×229×67 vs ST 9X35
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…