CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 229×305×70 vs WT 12X47

Tee 229×305×70 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 12X47 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 592 cm³ against 591.57 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 69.9 kg/m and 69.9 kg/m. Both are about 309 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 229×305×70
Tees (from UB)
WT 12X47
WT
Difference
Mass69.9 kg/m69.9 kg/msame
Depth308.5 mm309.9 mm-0.5%
Width230.2 mm230.4 mm-0.1%
Web thickness13.1 mm13.1 mmsame
Flange thickness22.1 mm22.2 mm-0.5%
Area89.1 cm²89 cm²+0.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)7,740 cm⁴7,742 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)592 cm³591.57 cm³+0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)333 cm³332.66 cm³+0.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)2,250 cm⁴2,268 cm⁴-0.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)306 cm³306.44 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)5.03 cm5.03 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)108 cm⁴109.1 cm⁴-1.0%

Tee 229×305×70 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 12X47 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 12X47.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 12X47 has the larger second moment of area: 7,742 cm⁴ against 7,740 cm⁴, a difference of 0.0%. 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 229×305×70 has a plastic modulus of 592 cm³ and WT 12X47 has 591.57 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 229×305×70 is 69.9 kg/m and WT 12X47 is 69.9 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 12X47 gives 591.57 cm³ of plastic modulus and 7,742 cm⁴ of inertia against 592 cm³ and 7,740 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 12X47, with a second moment of area of 7,742 cm⁴ against 7,740 cm⁴ (0.0% 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

WT 12X52 vs Tee 229×305×70
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…