CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 127×152×24 vs ST 6X15.9

Tee 127×152×24 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); ST 6X15.9 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 127×152×24 carries more bending: 102 cm³ of plastic modulus against 97.339 cm³, 4.8% more. They weigh essentially the same, 24 kg/m and 23.7 kg/m. Both are about 154 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 127×152×24
Tees (from UB)
ST 6X15.9
ST
Difference
Mass24 kg/m23.7 kg/m+1.3%
Depth155.4 mm152.4 mm+2.0%
Width125.3 mm127 mm-1.3%
Web thickness9 mm8.9 mm+1.1%
Flange thickness14 mm13.8 mm+1.4%
Area30.6 cm²30 cm²+2.0%
Second moment, major (Iy)662 cm⁴616 cm⁴+7.5%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)102 cm³97.339 cm³+4.8%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)57.1 cm³54.077 cm³+5.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)231 cm⁴194 cm⁴+19.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)58 cm³52.766 cm³+9.9%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.74 cm2.54 cm+7.9%
Torsion constant (It)15.8 cm⁴18.23 cm⁴-13.3%

Tee 127×152×24 to BS EN 10365:2017; ST 6X15.9 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to ST 6X15.9.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 127×152×24 has the larger second moment of area: 662 cm⁴ against 616 cm⁴, a difference of 7.5%. 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 4.1 cm³ per kg/m, 3.5% 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: Tee 127×152×24 has 58 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 52.766 cm³, 9.9% 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. Tees (from UB) sections are specified to BS EN 10365:2017 and ST 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, Tee 127×152×24 is the stronger section and ST 6X15.9 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 127×152×24 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 102 cm³ against 97.339 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.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 127×152×24 is 24 kg/m and ST 6X15.9 is 23.7 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: ST 6X15.9 gives 97.339 cm³ of plastic modulus and 616 cm⁴ of inertia against 102 cm³ and 662 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 127×152×24, with a second moment of area of 662 cm⁴ against 616 cm⁴ (7.5% 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 165×152×27 vs ST 6X15.9Tee 127×152×24 vs WT 6X22.5WT 6X26.5 vs Tee 127×152×24WT 6X22.5 vs ST 6X15.9
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…