CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 140×203×23 vs WT 8X15.5

Tee 140×203×23 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 8X15.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. WT 8X15.5 carries more bending: 135.52 cm³ of plastic modulus against 132 cm³, 2.6% more. They weigh essentially the same, 23 kg/m and 23.1 kg/m. Both are about 202 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 140×203×23
Tees (from UB)
WT 8X15.5
WT
Difference
Mass23 kg/m23.1 kg/m-0.4%
Depth201.5 mm201.7 mm-0.1%
Width142.2 mm140.5 mm+1.2%
Web thickness6.8 mm7 mm-2.9%
Flange thickness11.2 mm11.2 mmsame
Area29.3 cm²29.4 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,120 cm⁴1,145 cm⁴-2.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)132 cm³135.52 cm³-2.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)74.2 cm³76.036 cm³-2.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)269 cm⁴258.1 cm⁴+4.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)59 cm³57.519 cm³+2.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.03 cm2.97 cm+2.0%
Torsion constant (It)9.49 cm⁴9.57 cm⁴-0.8%

Tee 140×203×23 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 8X15.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 8X15.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 8X15.5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,145 cm⁴ against 1,120 cm⁴, a difference of 2.2%. 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, WT 8X15.5 is the more efficient section: 5.9 against 5.7 cm³ per kg/m, 2.2% 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.

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, WT 8X15.5 is the stronger section and Tee 140×203×23 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 8X15.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 135.52 cm³ against 132 cm³ - 2.6% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 140×203×23 is 23 kg/m and WT 8X15.5 is 23.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 8X15.5 gives 135.52 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,145 cm⁴ of inertia against 132 cm³ and 1,120 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 8X15.5, with a second moment of area of 1,145 cm⁴ against 1,120 cm⁴ (2.2% 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…