CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 305×305×119 vs WT 12X81

Tee 305×305×119 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 12X81 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 305×305×119 carries more bending: 894 cm³ of plastic modulus against 873.43 cm³, 2.4% more. They weigh essentially the same, 119 kg/m and 120.5 kg/m. Both are about 318 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 305×305×119
Tees (from UB)
WT 12X81
WT
Difference
Mass119 kg/m120.5 kg/m-1.2%
Depth317.9 mm317.5 mm+0.1%
Width311.4 mm330.2 mm-5.7%
Web thickness18.4 mm17.9 mm+2.8%
Flange thickness31.4 mm31 mm+1.3%
Area152 cm²154.2 cm²-1.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)12,400 cm⁴12,196 cm⁴+1.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)894 cm³873.43 cm³+2.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)501 cm³489.97 cm³+2.3%
Second moment, minor (Iz)7,920 cm⁴9,199 cm⁴-13.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)787 cm³861.96 cm³-8.7%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.23 cm7.75 cm-6.7%
Torsion constant (It)391 cm⁴383.8 cm⁴+1.9%

Tee 305×305×119 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 12X81 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 12X81.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 305×305×119 has the larger second moment of area: 12,400 cm⁴ against 12,196 cm⁴, a difference of 1.7%. 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 of steel, Tee 305×305×119 is the more efficient section: 7.5 against 7.2 cm³ per kg/m, 3.6% better. Over a floor of repeated beams that difference is real tonnage, though it is often outweighed by whichever section the fabricator can actually source.

The two diverge much more about the minor axis: WT 12X81 has 861.96 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 787 cm³, 8.7% more. If the member sees any minor-axis bending, or if it is unrestrained over a long length and lateral-torsional buckling governs, that gap decides the comparison even though the major-axis numbers looked equivalent.

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, Tee 305×305×119 is the stronger section and Tee 305×305×119 is the lighter one; where those are the same section, it is the clear choice, and where they are not, decide on whether your design is governed by capacity or by tonnage.

Common questions

Tee 305×305×119 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 894 cm³ against 873.43 cm³ - 2.4% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 305×305×119 is 119 kg/m and WT 12X81 is 120.5 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 12X81 gives 873.43 cm³ of plastic modulus and 12,196 cm⁴ of inertia against 894 cm³ and 12,400 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 305×305×119, with a second moment of area of 12,400 cm⁴ against 12,196 cm⁴ (1.7% 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 305×305×119 vs ST 12X60.5WT 12X81 vs ST 12X60.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…