CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 191×229×53 vs WT 9X35.5

Tee 191×229×53 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X35.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 328 cm³ against 327.74 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 52.9 kg/m and 52.8 kg/m. Both are about 235 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 191×229×53
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X35.5
WT
Difference
Mass52.9 kg/m52.8 kg/m+0.2%
Depth234.6 mm234.7 mmsame
Width194 mm194.1 mm-0.1%
Web thickness12.6 mm12.6 mmsame
Flange thickness20.6 mm20.6 mmsame
Area67.4 cm²67.1 cm²+0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,260 cm⁴3,255 cm⁴+0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)328 cm³327.74 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)184 cm³183.54 cm³+0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,260 cm⁴1,253 cm⁴+0.6%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)203 cm³201.56 cm³+0.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.32 cm4.32 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)72.6 cm⁴72.42 cm⁴+0.2%

Tee 191×229×53 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X35.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X35.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 191×229×53 has the larger second moment of area: 3,260 cm⁴ against 3,255 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 (6.2 against 6.2 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 191×229×53 has a plastic modulus of 328 cm³ and WT 9X35.5 has 327.74 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 191×229×53 is 52.9 kg/m and WT 9X35.5 is 52.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X35.5 gives 327.74 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,255 cm⁴ of inertia against 328 cm³ and 3,260 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 191×229×53, with a second moment of area of 3,260 cm⁴ against 3,255 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

WT 9X43 vs Tee 191×229×53
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…