CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 3X10 vs Tee 152×76×15

WT 3X10 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 152×76×15 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 21.139 cm³ against 20.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.1%. They weigh essentially the same, 14.9 kg/m and 15 kg/m. Both are about 79 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 3X10
WT
Tee 152×76×15
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass14.9 kg/m15 kg/m-0.7%
Depth78.7 mm78.7 mmsame
Width152.9 mm152.9 mmsame
Web thickness6.6 mm6.5 mm+1.5%
Flange thickness9.3 mm9.4 mm-1.1%
Area19 cm²19.1 cm²-0.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)73.26 cm⁴72.2 cm⁴+1.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)21.139 cm³20.9 cm³+1.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)11.356 cm³11.2 cm³+1.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)276.4 cm⁴280 cm⁴-1.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)55.061 cm³55.8 cm³-1.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.81 cm3.83 cm-0.5%
Torsion constant (It)4.99 cm⁴5.24 cm⁴-4.8%

WT 3X10 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 152×76×15 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 152×76×15.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 3X10 has the larger second moment of area: 73.26 cm⁴ against 72.2 cm⁴, a difference of 1.5%. 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 (1.4 against 1.4 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. WT sections are specified to AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and Tees (from UC) to BS EN 10365:2017; 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. WT 3X10 has a plastic modulus of 21.139 cm³ and Tee 152×76×15 has 20.9 cm³, a difference of only 1.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 3X10 is 14.9 kg/m and Tee 152×76×15 is 15 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 152×76×15 gives 20.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 72.2 cm⁴ of inertia against 21.139 cm³ and 73.26 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and BS EN 10365:2017), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

WT 3X10, with a second moment of area of 73.26 cm⁴ against 72.2 cm⁴ (1.5% 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.

Related comparisons

WT 3X8 vs Tee 152×76×15
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…