CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 102×152×13 vs WT 6X8

Tee 102×152×13 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 6X8 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 102×152×13 carries more bending: 63.9 cm³ of plastic modulus against 60.96 cm³, 4.8% more. WT 6X8 is the lighter of the two at 11.9 kg/m against 12.4 kg/m, a saving of 4.2% on steel weight. Both are about 152 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 102×152×13
Tees (from UB)
WT 6X8
WT
Difference
Mass12.4 kg/m11.9 kg/m+4.2%
Depth152.5 mm152.4 mm+0.1%
Width101.6 mm101.3 mm+0.3%
Web thickness5.8 mm5.6 mm+3.6%
Flange thickness7 mm6.7 mm+4.5%
Area15.8 cm²15.2 cm²+3.9%
Second moment, major (Iy)377 cm⁴362.1 cm⁴+4.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)63.9 cm³60.96 cm³+4.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)34.8 cm³33.43 cm³+4.1%
Second moment, minor (Iz)61.5 cm⁴58.69 cm⁴+4.8%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)19.4 cm³18.517 cm³+4.8%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)1.97 cm1.96 cm+0.5%
Torsion constant (It)2.37 cm⁴2.13 cm⁴+11.3%

Tee 102×152×13 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 6X8 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 6X8.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 102×152×13 has the larger second moment of area: 377 cm⁴ against 362.1 cm⁴, a difference of 4.1%. 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 (5.2 against 5.1 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 4.2% weight.

In short, Tee 102×152×13 is the stronger section and WT 6X8 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

Tee 102×152×13 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 63.9 cm³ against 60.96 cm³ - 4.8% more. At the same steel grade that translates directly into moment capacity, since M_pl,Rd = W_pl x f_y / gamma_M0.

WT 6X8 at 11.9 kg/m, against 12.4 kg/m for the other - a saving of 4.2%. 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: WT 6X8 gives 60.96 cm³ of plastic modulus and 362.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 63.9 cm³ and 377 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.

Tee 102×152×13, with a second moment of area of 377 cm⁴ against 362.1 cm⁴ (4.1% 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…