CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 229×305×57 vs WT 12X38

Tee 229×305×57 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 12X38 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 489 cm³ against 493.25 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.9%. They weigh essentially the same, 56.5 kg/m and 56.6 kg/m. Both are about 304 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 229×305×57
Tees (from UB)
WT 12X38
WT
Difference
Mass56.5 kg/m56.6 kg/m-0.2%
Depth303.7 mm304.8 mm-0.4%
Width228.2 mm228.3 mmsame
Web thickness11.1 mm11.2 mm-0.9%
Flange thickness17.3 mm17.3 mmsame
Area72 cm²72.3 cm²-0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)6,270 cm⁴6,285 cm⁴-0.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)489 cm³493.25 cm³-0.9%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)275 cm³276.94 cm³-0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,720 cm⁴1,719 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)235 cm³234.34 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.88 cm4.88 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)55.5 cm⁴55.78 cm⁴-0.5%

Tee 229×305×57 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 12X38 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 12X38.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 12X38 has the larger second moment of area: 6,285 cm⁴ against 6,270 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 (8.7 against 8.7 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 229×305×57 has a plastic modulus of 489 cm³ and WT 12X38 has 493.25 cm³, a difference of only 0.9% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 229×305×57 is 56.5 kg/m and WT 12X38 is 56.6 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 12X38 gives 493.25 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,285 cm⁴ of inertia against 489 cm³ and 6,270 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 12X38, with a second moment of area of 6,285 cm⁴ against 6,270 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

Tee 178×305×50 vs WT 12X38
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…