CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 102×127×11 vs WT 5X7.5

Tee 102×127×11 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 5X7.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. WT 5X7.5 carries more bending: 44.409 cm³ of plastic modulus against 43.5 cm³, 2.0% more. They weigh essentially the same, 11 kg/m and 11.2 kg/m. Both are about 127 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 102×127×11
Tees (from UB)
WT 5X7.5
WT
Difference
Mass11 kg/m11.2 kg/m-1.8%
Depth126.9 mm127 mm-0.1%
Width101.6 mm101.6 mmsame
Web thickness5.7 mm5.8 mm-1.7%
Flange thickness6.8 mm6.9 mm-1.4%
Area14 cm²14.3 cm²-2.1%
Second moment, major (Iy)223 cm⁴226.8 cm⁴-1.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)43.5 cm³44.409 cm³-2.0%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)24.1 cm³24.581 cm³-2.0%
Second moment, minor (Iz)59.7 cm⁴60.35 cm⁴-1.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)18.6 cm³18.845 cm³-1.3%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.06 cm2.06 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)2.06 cm⁴2.16 cm⁴-4.6%

Tee 102×127×11 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 5X7.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 5X7.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, WT 5X7.5 has the larger second moment of area: 226.8 cm⁴ against 223 cm⁴, a difference of 1.7%. 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 (4.0 against 4.0 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. Tees (from UB) sections are specified to BS EN 10365:2017 and WT to AISC Shapes Database v16.0; 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, WT 5X7.5 is the stronger section and Tee 102×127×11 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 5X7.5 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 44.409 cm³ against 43.5 cm³ - 2.0% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 102×127×11 is 11 kg/m and WT 5X7.5 is 11.2 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 5X7.5 gives 44.409 cm³ of plastic modulus and 226.8 cm⁴ of inertia against 43.5 cm³ and 223 cm⁴. But they are from different catalogues (BS EN 10365:2017 and AISC Shapes Database v16.0), so this is a design change, not a drop-in swap: re-check deflection, connection detailing and local availability.

WT 5X7.5, with a second moment of area of 226.8 cm⁴ against 223 cm⁴ (1.7% 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

Tee 146×127×16 vs WT 5X7.5
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…