CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 178×203×34 vs WT 8X22.5

Tee 178×203×34 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 8X22.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 177 cm³ against 176.98 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 33.5 kg/m and 33.5 kg/m. Both are about 205 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 178×203×34
Tees (from UB)
WT 8X22.5
WT
Difference
Mass33.5 kg/m33.5 kg/msame
Depth204.6 mm205 mm-0.2%
Width178.8 mm178.8 mmsame
Web thickness8.8 mm8.8 mmsame
Flange thickness14.3 mm14.4 mm-0.7%
Area42.8 cm²42.8 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)1,570 cm⁴1,573 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)177 cm³176.98 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)100 cm³99.961 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)682 cm⁴682.6 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)118 cm³118.31 cm³-0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.99 cm3.99 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)23 cm⁴23.1 cm⁴-0.4%

Tee 178×203×34 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 8X22.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 8X22.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 8X22.5 has the larger second moment of area: 1,573 cm⁴ against 1,570 cm⁴, a difference of 0.2%. 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, the two are equally efficient (5.3 against 5.3 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 178×203×34 has a plastic modulus of 177 cm³ and WT 8X22.5 has 176.98 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 178×203×34 is 33.5 kg/m and WT 8X22.5 is 33.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 8X22.5 gives 176.98 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,573 cm⁴ of inertia against 177 cm³ and 1,570 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 8X22.5, with a second moment of area of 1,573 cm⁴ against 1,570 cm⁴ (0.2% 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.

Related comparisons

Tee 178×203×34 vs ST 7.5X21.45WT 8X22.5 vs ST 7.5X21.45
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…