CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 312×267×110 vs WT 10.5X73.5

Tee 312×267×110 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 10.5X73.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 696 cm³ against 694.81 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.2%. They weigh essentially the same, 109.4 kg/m and 109.4 kg/m. Both are about 280 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 312×267×110
Tees (from UB)
WT 10.5X73.5
WT
Difference
Mass109.4 kg/m109.4 kg/msame
Depth280.4 mm279.4 mm+0.4%
Width317.4 mm317.5 mmsame
Web thickness18.3 mm18.3 mmsame
Flange thickness29.2 mm29.2 mmsame
Area139 cm²139.4 cm²-0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)8,530 cm⁴8,491 cm⁴+0.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)696 cm³694.81 cm³+0.2%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)389 cm³388.37 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)7,790 cm⁴7,825 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)757 cm³758.72 cm³-0.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.48 cm7.49 cm-0.1%
Torsion constant (It)320 cm⁴320.1 cm⁴same

Tee 312×267×110 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 10.5X73.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 10.5X73.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 312×267×110 has the larger second moment of area: 8,530 cm⁴ against 8,491 cm⁴, a difference of 0.5%. 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 (6.4 against 6.4 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 312×267×110 has a plastic modulus of 696 cm³ and WT 10.5X73.5 has 694.81 cm³, a difference of only 0.2% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 312×267×110 is 109.4 kg/m and WT 10.5X73.5 is 109.4 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 10.5X73.5 gives 694.81 cm³ of plastic modulus and 8,491 cm⁴ of inertia against 696 cm³ and 8,530 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 312×267×110, with a second moment of area of 8,530 cm⁴ against 8,491 cm⁴ (0.5% 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.

Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…