CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 210×267×46 vs WT 10.5X31

Tee 210×267×46 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 10.5X31 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 343 cm³ against 345.77 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.8%. They weigh essentially the same, 46 kg/m and 46.1 kg/m. Both are about 267 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 210×267×46
Tees (from UB)
WT 10.5X31
WT
Difference
Mass46 kg/m46.1 kg/m-0.2%
Depth266.5 mm266.7 mm-0.1%
Width209.3 mm209.3 mmsame
Web thickness10.1 mm10.2 mm-1.0%
Flange thickness15.6 mm15.6 mmsame
Area58.7 cm²58.9 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)3,880 cm⁴3,904 cm⁴-0.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)343 cm³345.77 cm³-0.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)193 cm³195.01 cm³-1.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,190 cm⁴1,195 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)178 cm³178.62 cm³-0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.51 cm4.5 cm+0.2%
Torsion constant (It)37.7 cm⁴38 cm⁴-0.8%

Tee 210×267×46 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 10.5X31 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 10.5X31.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 10.5X31 has the larger second moment of area: 3,904 cm⁴ against 3,880 cm⁴, a difference of 0.6%. 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 (7.5 against 7.5 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 210×267×46 has a plastic modulus of 343 cm³ and WT 10.5X31 has 345.77 cm³, a difference of only 0.8% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 210×267×46 is 46 kg/m and WT 10.5X31 is 46.1 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 10.5X31 gives 345.77 cm³ of plastic modulus and 3,904 cm⁴ of inertia against 343 cm³ and 3,880 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 10.5X31, with a second moment of area of 3,904 cm⁴ against 3,880 cm⁴ (0.6% 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 165×267×43 vs WT 10.5X31
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…