CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

WT 6X53 vs Tee 305×152×79

WT 6X53 is an WT section from the American AISC Shapes Database; Tee 305×152×79 is the closest equivalent in the UK Blue Book (SCI P363). They are close to interchangeable in bending: 222.86 cm³ against 225 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.0%. They weigh essentially the same, 78.9 kg/m and 79 kg/m. Both are about 164 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyWT 6X53
WT
Tee 305×152×79
Tees (from UC)
Difference
Mass78.9 kg/m79 kg/m-0.1%
Depth163.8 mm163.5 mm+0.2%
Width309.9 mm311.2 mm-0.4%
Web thickness15.5 mm15.8 mm-1.9%
Flange thickness25.1 mm25 mm+0.4%
Area100.6 cm²101 cm²-0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,511 cm⁴1,530 cm⁴-1.2%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)222.86 cm³225 cm³-1.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)113.4 cm³115 cm³-1.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)6,285 cm⁴6,280 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)614.51 cm³615 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)7.9 cm7.9 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)189.4 cm⁴188 cm⁴+0.7%

WT 6X53 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; Tee 305×152×79 to BS EN 10365:2017. Difference is expressed relative to Tee 305×152×79.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 305×152×79 has the larger second moment of area: 1,530 cm⁴ against 1,511 cm⁴, a difference of 1.2%. 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 (2.8 against 2.8 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 6X53 has a plastic modulus of 222.86 cm³ and Tee 305×152×79 has 225 cm³, a difference of only 1.0% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: WT 6X53 is 78.9 kg/m and Tee 305×152×79 is 79 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: Tee 305×152×79 gives 225 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,530 cm⁴ of inertia against 222.86 cm³ and 1,511 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.

Tee 305×152×79, with a second moment of area of 1,530 cm⁴ against 1,511 cm⁴ (1.2% 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…