CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 140×203×20 vs WT 8X13

Tee 140×203×20 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 8X13 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 121 cm³ against 120.61 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 19.5 kg/m and 19.3 kg/m. Both are about 199 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 140×203×20
Tees (from UB)
WT 8X13
WT
Difference
Mass19.5 kg/m19.3 kg/m+1.0%
Depth198.9 mm199.4 mm-0.3%
Width141.8 mm139.7 mm+1.5%
Web thickness6.4 mm6.4 mmsame
Flange thickness8.6 mm8.8 mm-2.3%
Area24.8 cm²24.8 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)979 cm⁴978.1 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)121 cm³120.61 cm³+0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)67.2 cm³67.023 cm³+0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)205 cm⁴199.4 cm⁴+2.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)45.4 cm³44.737 cm³+1.5%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.87 cm2.84 cm+1.1%
Torsion constant (It)5.33 cm⁴5.41 cm⁴-1.5%

Tee 140×203×20 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 8X13 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 8X13.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 140×203×20 has the larger second moment of area: 979 cm⁴ against 978.1 cm⁴, a difference of 0.1%. 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 (6.2 against 6.2 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 a marginal amount of weight.

In short, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. Tee 140×203×20 has a plastic modulus of 121 cm³ and WT 8X13 has 120.61 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 140×203×20 is 19.5 kg/m and WT 8X13 is 19.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 8X13 gives 120.61 cm³ of plastic modulus and 978.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 121 cm³ and 979 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.

Tee 140×203×20, with a second moment of area of 979 cm⁴ against 978.1 cm⁴ (0.1% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…