CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 191×229×41 vs WT 9X27.5

Tee 191×229×41 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X27.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 250 cm³ against 250.72 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 41 kg/m and 40.9 kg/m. Both are about 230 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 191×229×41
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X27.5
WT
Difference
Mass41 kg/m40.9 kg/m+0.2%
Depth229.9 mm230.1 mm-0.1%
Width191.3 mm191.3 mmsame
Web thickness9.9 mm9.9 mmsame
Flange thickness16 mm16 mmsame
Area52.2 cm²52.3 cm²-0.2%
Second moment, major (Iy)2,470 cm⁴2,477 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)250 cm³250.72 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)141 cm³141.42 cm³-0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)935 cm⁴936.5 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)152 cm³151.74 cm³+0.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.23 cm4.24 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)34.5 cm⁴34.55 cm⁴-0.1%

Tee 191×229×41 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X27.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X27.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 9X27.5 has the larger second moment of area: 2,477 cm⁴ against 2,470 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 191×229×41 has a plastic modulus of 250 cm³ and WT 9X27.5 has 250.72 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 191×229×41 is 41 kg/m and WT 9X27.5 is 40.9 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X27.5 gives 250.72 cm³ of plastic modulus and 2,477 cm⁴ of inertia against 250 cm³ and 2,470 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 9X27.5, with a second moment of area of 2,477 cm⁴ against 2,470 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 152×229×37 vs WT 9X27.5WT 8X38.5 vs Tee 191×229×41
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…