CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 312×267×91 vs WT 10.5X61

Tee 312×267×91 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 10.5X61 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 562 cm³ against 562.08 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 90.7 kg/m and 90.8 kg/m. Both are about 275 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 312×267×91
Tees (from UB)
WT 10.5X61
WT
Difference
Mass90.7 kg/m90.8 kg/m-0.1%
Depth275.6 mm274.3 mm+0.5%
Width314.5 mm315 mm-0.2%
Web thickness15.2 mm15.2 mmsame
Flange thickness24.4 mm24.4 mmsame
Area116 cm²115.5 cm²+0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)6,890 cm⁴6,909 cm⁴-0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)562 cm³562.08 cm³same
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)317 cm³316.27 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)6,330 cm⁴6,327 cm⁴same
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)619 cm³619.43 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.4 cm7.39 cm+0.1%
Torsion constant (It)186 cm⁴186.1 cm⁴-0.1%

Tee 312×267×91 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 10.5X61 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 10.5X61.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 10.5X61 has the larger second moment of area: 6,909 cm⁴ against 6,890 cm⁴, a difference of 0.3%. 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 (6.2 against 6.2 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 312×267×91 has a plastic modulus of 562 cm³ and WT 10.5X61 has 562.08 cm³, a difference of only 0.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 312×267×91 is 90.7 kg/m and WT 10.5X61 is 90.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 10.5X61 gives 562.08 cm³ of plastic modulus and 6,909 cm⁴ of inertia against 562 cm³ and 6,890 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 10.5X61, with a second moment of area of 6,909 cm⁴ against 6,890 cm⁴ (0.3% 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…