CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 3X7.5 vs Tee 152×76×12

WT 3X7.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 152×76×12 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 16.879 cm³ against 16.9 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.1%. WT 3X7.5 is the lighter of the two at 11.2 kg/m against 11.5 kg/m, a saving of 2.6% on steel weight. Both are about 76 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 3X7.5
WT
Tee 152×76×12
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass11.2 kg/m11.5 kg/m-2.6%
Depth76.2 mm76.1 mm+0.1%
Width152.1 mm152.2 mm-0.1%
Web thickness5.8 mm5.8 mmsame
Flange thickness6.6 mm6.8 mm-2.9%
Area14.3 cm²14.6 cm²-2.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)58.69 cm⁴58.5 cm⁴+0.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)16.879 cm³16.9 cm³-0.1%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)9.455 cm³9.41 cm³+0.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)194 cm⁴200 cm⁴-3.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)38.837 cm³40.1 cm³-3.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.68 cm3.7 cm-0.5%
Torsion constant (It)2.1 cm⁴2.3 cm⁴-8.7%

WT 3X7.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 152×76×12 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 152×76×12.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 3X7.5 has the larger second moment of area: 58.69 cm⁴ against 58.5 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 of steel, WT 3X7.5 is the more efficient section: 1.5 against 1.5 cm³ per kg/m, 2.6% 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.

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 2.6% weight.

In short, Tee 152×76×12 is the stronger section and WT 3X7.5 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

They are effectively equal in bending. WT 3X7.5 has a plastic modulus of 16.879 cm³ and Tee 152×76×12 has 16.9 cm³, a difference of only 0.1% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

WT 3X7.5 at 11.2 kg/m, against 11.5 kg/m for the other - a saving of 2.6%. Over a repeated floor beam that is a real cost difference, but check it against the deflection case before taking it.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 152×76×12 gives 16.9 cm³ of plastic modulus and 58.5 cm⁴ of inertia against 16.879 cm³ and 58.69 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 3X7.5, with a second moment of area of 58.69 cm⁴ against 58.5 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.

Related comparisons

WT 3X7.5 vs ST 3X6.25WT 3X6 vs Tee 152×76×12
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…