CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 191×229×37 vs WT 9X25

Tee 191×229×37 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X25 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 225 cm³ against 226.14 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 37.1 kg/m and 37.2 kg/m. Both are about 229 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 191×229×37
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X25
WT
Difference
Mass37.1 kg/m37.2 kg/m-0.3%
Depth228.4 mm228.6 mm-0.1%
Width190.4 mm190.5 mm-0.1%
Web thickness9 mm9 mmsame
Flange thickness14.5 mm14.5 mmsame
Area47.3 cm²47.4 cm²-0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,220 cm⁴2,227 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)225 cm³226.14 cm³-0.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)127 cm³127.66 cm³-0.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)836 cm⁴832.5 cm⁴+0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)136 cm³135.68 cm³+0.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.2 cm4.19 cm+0.2%
Torsion constant (It)25.8 cm⁴25.76 cm⁴+0.2%

Tee 191×229×37 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X25 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X25.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 9X25 has the larger second moment of area: 2,227 cm⁴ against 2,220 cm⁴, a difference of 0.3%. 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 (6.1 against 6.1 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 191×229×37 has a plastic modulus of 225 cm³ and WT 9X25 has 226.14 cm³, a difference of only 0.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 191×229×37 is 37.1 kg/m and WT 9X25 is 37.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X25 gives 226.14 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,227 cm⁴ of inertia against 225 cm³ and 2,220 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 9X25, with a second moment of area of 2,227 cm⁴ against 2,220 cm⁴ (0.3% 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 152×229×34 vs WT 9X25WT 9X23 vs Tee 191×229×37
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…