CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 133×102×15 vs WT 4X10.5

Tee 133×102×15 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 4X10.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. WT 4X10.5 carries more bending: 34.577 cm³ of plastic modulus against 33.5 cm³, 3.1% more. Tee 133×102×15 is the lighter of the two at 15 kg/m against 15.6 kg/m, a saving of 3.8% on steel weight. Both are about 104 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 133×102×15
Tees (from UB)
WT 4X10.5
WT
Difference
Mass15 kg/m15.6 kg/m-3.8%
Depth103.3 mm105.2 mm-1.8%
Width133.9 mm133.9 mmsame
Web thickness6.4 mm6.4 mmsame
Flange thickness9.6 mm10.2 mm-5.9%
Area19.1 cm²19.9 cm²-4.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)154 cm⁴162.3 cm⁴-5.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)33.5 cm³34.577 cm³-3.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)18.8 cm³19.337 cm³-2.8%
Second moment, minor (Iz)192 cm⁴203.1 cm⁴-5.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)44.1 cm³46.539 cm³-5.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.17 cm3.2 cm-0.9%
Torsion constant (It)5.13 cm⁴5.87 cm⁴-12.6%

Tee 133×102×15 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 4X10.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 4X10.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 4X10.5 has the larger second moment of area: 162.3 cm⁴ against 154 cm⁴, a difference of 5.1%. 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, the two are equally efficient (2.2 against 2.2 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. Tees (from UB) sections are specified to BS EN 10365:2017 and WT to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; 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 3.8% weight.

In short, WT 4X10.5 is the stronger section and Tee 133×102×15 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

WT 4X10.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 34.577 cm³ against 33.5 cm³ - 3.1% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Tee 133×102×15 at 15 kg/m, against 15.6 kg/m for the other - a saving of 3.8%. 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: WT 4X10.5 gives 34.577 cm³ of plastic modulus and 162.3 cm⁴ of inertia against 33.5 cm³ and 154 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and AISC Shapes Database v16.0), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

WT 4X10.5, with a second moment of area of 162.3 cm⁴ against 154 cm⁴ (5.1% 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 133×102×15 vs ST 4X9.2WT 4X12 vs Tee 133×102×15WT 4X10.5 vs ST 4X9.2
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…