CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 178×203×30 vs WT 8X20

Tee 178×203×30 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 8X20 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 157 cm³ against 154.53 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.6%. They weigh essentially the same, 30 kg/m and 29.8 kg/m. Both are about 203 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 178×203×30
Tees (from UB)
WT 8X20
WT
Difference
Mass30 kg/m29.8 kg/m+0.7%
Depth203.1 mm203.5 mm-0.2%
Width177.9 mm177.8 mm+0.1%
Web thickness7.9 mm7.7 mm+2.6%
Flange thickness12.8 mm12.8 mmsame
Area38.3 cm²38 cm²+0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,400 cm⁴1,378 cm⁴+1.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)157 cm³154.53 cm³+1.6%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)89 cm³87.671 cm³+1.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)602 cm⁴599.4 cm⁴+0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)104 cm³104.22 cm³-0.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.97 cm3.96 cm+0.3%
Torsion constant (It)16.6 cm⁴16.48 cm⁴+0.7%

Tee 178×203×30 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 8X20 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 8X20.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 178×203×30 has the larger second moment of area: 1,400 cm⁴ against 1,378 cm⁴, a difference of 1.6%. 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 (5.2 against 5.2 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 178×203×30 has a plastic modulus of 157 cm³ and WT 8X20 has 154.53 cm³, a difference of only 1.6% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 178×203×30 is 30 kg/m and WT 8X20 is 29.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 8X20 gives 154.53 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,378 cm⁴ of inertia against 157 cm³ and 1,400 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 178×203×30, with a second moment of area of 1,400 cm⁴ against 1,378 cm⁴ (1.6% 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 140×203×27 vs WT 8X20
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…