CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 229×305×63 vs WT 12X42

Tee 229×305×63 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 12X42 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 531 cm³ against 532.58 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 62.5 kg/m and 62.5 kg/m. Both are about 307 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 229×305×63
Tees (from UB)
WT 12X42
WT
Difference
Mass62.5 kg/m62.5 kg/msame
Depth306 mm307.3 mm-0.4%
Width229 mm229.1 mmsame
Web thickness11.9 mm11.9 mmsame
Flange thickness19.6 mm19.6 mmsame
Area79.7 cm²80 cm²-0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)6,900 cm⁴6,909 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)531 cm³532.58 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)299 cm³299.88 cm³-0.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)1,970 cm⁴1,965 cm⁴+0.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)268 cm³267.11 cm³+0.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)4.97 cm4.95 cm+0.4%
Torsion constant (It)76.9 cm⁴76.59 cm⁴+0.4%

Tee 229×305×63 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 12X42 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 12X42.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 12X42 has the larger second moment of area: 6,909 cm⁴ against 6,900 cm⁴, a difference of 0.1%. 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 (8.5 against 8.5 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 229×305×63 has a plastic modulus of 531 cm³ and WT 12X42 has 532.58 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 229×305×63 is 62.5 kg/m and WT 12X42 is 62.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 12X42 gives 532.58 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,909 cm⁴ of inertia against 531 cm³ and 6,900 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 12X42, with a second moment of area of 6,909 cm⁴ against 6,900 cm⁴ (0.1% 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 305×305×75 vs WT 12X42Tee 229×305×63 vs ST 12X40WT 12X42 vs ST 12X40
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…