CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 6X48 vs Tee 305×152×69

WT 6X48 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 305×152×69 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). WT 6X48 carries more bending: 195.01 cm³ of plastic modulus against 188 cm³, 3.7% more. Tee 305×152×69 is the lighter of the two at 68.4 kg/m against 71.4 kg/m, a saving of 4.4% on steel weight. Both are about 161 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 6X48
WT
Tee 305×152×69
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass71.4 kg/m68.4 kg/m+4.4%
Depth161.5 mm160.2 mm+0.8%
Width309.9 mm309.2 mm+0.2%
Web thickness14 mm13.8 mm+1.4%
Flange thickness22.9 mm21.7 mm+5.5%
Area91 cm²87.2 cm²+4.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,332 cm⁴1,290 cm⁴+3.3%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)195.01 cm³188 cm³+3.7%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)100.29 cm³97.7 cm³+2.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)5,619 cm⁴5,350 cm⁴+5.0%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)552.24 cm³526 cm³+5.0%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.85 cm7.83 cm+0.3%
Torsion constant (It)142.4 cm⁴124 cm⁴+14.8%

WT 6X48 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 305×152×69 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 305×152×69.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 6X48 has the larger second moment of area: 1,332 cm⁴ against 1,290 cm⁴, a difference of 3.3%. 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 (2.7 against 2.7 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 4.4% weight.

In short, WT 6X48 is the stronger section and Tee 305×152×69 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

WT 6X48 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 195.01 cm³ against 188 cm³ - 3.7% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Tee 305×152×69 at 68.4 kg/m, against 71.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 4.4%. 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 305×152×69 gives 188 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,290 cm⁴ of inertia against 195.01 cm³ and 1,332 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 6X48, with a second moment of area of 1,332 cm⁴ against 1,290 cm⁴ (3.3% 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…