CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 178×305×41 vs WT 12X27.5

Tee 178×305×41 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 12X27.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 425 cm³ against 419.51 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 40.9 kg/m and 40.9 kg/m. Both are about 300 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 178×305×41
Tees (from UB)
WT 12X27.5
WT
Difference
Mass40.9 kg/m40.9 kg/msame
Depth299.3 mm299.7 mm-0.1%
Width177.9 mm178.1 mm-0.1%
Web thickness10 mm10 mmsame
Flange thickness12.8 mm12.8 mmsame
Area52.1 cm²52.3 cm²-0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)4,840 cm⁴4,870 cm⁴-0.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)425 cm³419.51 cm³+1.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)230 cm³231.06 cm³-0.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)603 cm⁴603.5 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)109 cm³108.97 cm³same
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.4 cm3.4 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)24.3 cm⁴24.47 cm⁴-0.7%

Tee 178×305×41 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 12X27.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 12X27.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 12X27.5 has the larger second moment of area: 4,870 cm⁴ against 4,840 cm⁴, a difference of 0.6%. 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 (10.4 against 10.3 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 178×305×41 has a plastic modulus of 425 cm³ and WT 12X27.5 has 419.51 cm³, a difference of only 1.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 178×305×41 is 40.9 kg/m and WT 12X27.5 is 40.9 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 12X27.5 gives 419.51 cm³ of plastic modulus and 4,870 cm⁴ of inertia against 425 cm³ and 4,840 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 12X27.5, with a second moment of area of 4,870 cm⁴ against 4,840 cm⁴ (0.6% 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.

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