WT 6X26.5 vs Tee 127×152×24
WT 6X26.5 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 127×152×24 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). WT 6X26.5 carries more bending: 105.86 cm³ of plastic modulus against 102 cm³, 3.8% more. Tee 127×152×24 is the lighter of the two at 24 kg/m against 39.4 kg/m, a saving of 64.2% on steel weight. Both are about 154 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.
| Property | WT 6X26.5 WT | Tee 127×152×24 Tees (from UB) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | 39.4 kg/m | 24 kg/m | +64.2% |
| Depth | 153.2 mm | 155.4 mm | -1.4% |
| Width | 254 mm | 125.3 mm | +102.7% |
| Web thickness | 8.8 mm | 9 mm | -2.2% |
| Flange thickness | 14.6 mm | 14 mm | +4.3% |
| Area | 50.2 cm² | 30.6 cm² | +64.1% |
| Second moment, major (Iy) | 736.7 cm⁴ | 662 cm⁴ | +11.3% |
| Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y) | 105.86 cm³ | 102 cm³ | +3.8% |
| Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y) | 58.01 cm³ | 57.1 cm³ | +1.6% |
| Second moment, minor (Iz) | 1,994 cm⁴ | 231 cm⁴ | +763.2% |
| Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z) | 237.61 cm³ | 58 cm³ | +309.7% |
| Radius of gyration, minor (iz) | 6.3 cm | 2.74 cm | +129.9% |
| Torsion constant (It) | 32.8 cm⁴ | 15.8 cm⁴ | +107.6% |
WT 6X26.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 127×152×24 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 127×152×24.
How to choose between them
On stiffness, WT 6X26.5 has the larger second moment of area: 736.7 cm⁴ against 662 cm⁴, a difference of 11.3%. 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, Tee 127×152×24 is the more efficient section: 4.3 against 2.7 cm³ per kg/m, 36.8% 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 6X26.5 has 237.61 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 58 cm³, 309.7% 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. WT sections are specified to AISC Shapes Database v16.0 and Tees (from UB) 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 64.2% weight.
In short, WT 6X26.5 is the stronger section and Tee 127×152×24 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.