CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 210×267×41 vs WT 10.5X27.5

Tee 210×267×41 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 10.5X27.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 320 cm³ against 317.91 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.7%. They weigh essentially the same, 41.1 kg/m and 40.9 kg/m. Both are about 264 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 210×267×41
Tees (from UB)
WT 10.5X27.5
WT
Difference
Mass41.1 kg/m40.9 kg/m+0.5%
Depth264.1 mm264.2 mmsame
Width208.8 mm208.8 mmsame
Web thickness9.6 mm9.5 mm+1.1%
Flange thickness13.2 mm13.3 mm-0.8%
Area52.3 cm²52.3 cm²same
Second moment, major (Iy)3,530 cm⁴3,513 cm⁴+0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)320 cm³317.91 cm³+0.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)179 cm³178.62 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,000 cm⁴1,007 cm⁴-0.7%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)150 cm³150.43 cm³-0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.38 cm4.39 cm-0.2%
Torsion constant (It)25.7 cm⁴25.68 cm⁴+0.1%

Tee 210×267×41 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 10.5X27.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 10.5X27.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 210×267×41 has the larger second moment of area: 3,530 cm⁴ against 3,513 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 (7.8 against 7.8 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 210×267×41 has a plastic modulus of 320 cm³ and WT 10.5X27.5 has 317.91 cm³, a difference of only 0.7% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 210×267×41 is 41.1 kg/m and WT 10.5X27.5 is 40.9 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 10.5X27.5 gives 317.91 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,513 cm⁴ of inertia against 320 cm³ and 3,530 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 210×267×41, with a second moment of area of 3,530 cm⁴ against 3,513 cm⁴ (0.5% 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 165×267×37 vs WT 10.5X27.5WT 10.5X25 vs Tee 210×267×41
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…