CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 191×229×67 vs WT 9X53

Tee 191×229×67 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X53 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 414 cm³ against 412.95 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. Tee 191×229×67 is the lighter of the two at 66.6 kg/m against 78.9 kg/m, a saving of 15.6% on steel weight. Both are about 239 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 191×229×67
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X53
WT
Difference
Mass66.6 kg/m78.9 kg/m-15.6%
Depth240.3 mm238 mm+1.0%
Width196.7 mm284.5 mm-30.9%
Web thickness15.3 mm15 mm+2.0%
Flange thickness26.3 mm23.9 mm+10.0%
Area84.9 cm²100.6 cm²-15.6%
Second moment, major (Iy)4,180 cm⁴4,329 cm⁴-3.4%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)414 cm³412.95 cm³+0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)231 cm³231.06 cm³same
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,670 cm⁴4,579 cm⁴-63.5%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)267 cm³494.89 cm³-46.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.44 cm6.76 cm-34.3%
Torsion constant (It)146 cm⁴155.3 cm⁴-6.0%

Tee 191×229×67 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X53 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X53.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 9X53 has the larger second moment of area: 4,329 cm⁴ against 4,180 cm⁴, a difference of 3.4%. 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 of steel, Tee 191×229×67 is the more efficient section: 6.2 against 5.2 cm³ per kg/m, 18.8% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: WT 9X53 has 494.89 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 267 cm³, 46.0% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

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 15.6% weight.

In short, Tee 191×229×67 is the stronger section and Tee 191×229×67 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. Tee 191×229×67 has a plastic modulus of 414 cm³ and WT 9X53 has 412.95 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Tee 191×229×67 at 66.6 kg/m, against 78.9 kg/m for the other - a saving of 15.6%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X53 gives 412.95 cm³ of plastic modulus and 4,329 cm⁴ of inertia against 414 cm³ and 4,180 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 9X53, with a second moment of area of 4,329 cm⁴ against 4,180 cm⁴ (3.4% 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 191×229×67 vs ST 9X35WT 9X53 vs ST 9X35
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…