Tee 127×152×24 vs WT 6X22.5
Tee 127×152×24 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 6X22.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 127×152×24 carries more bending: 102 cm³ of plastic modulus against 99.961 cm³, 2.0% more. Tee 127×152×24 is the lighter of the two at 24 kg/m against 33.5 kg/m, a saving of 28.4% on steel weight. Both are about 154 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.
| Property | Tee 127×152×24 Tees (from UB) | WT 6X22.5 WT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | 24 kg/m | 33.5 kg/m | -28.4% |
| Depth | 155.4 mm | 153.2 mm | +1.4% |
| Width | 125.3 mm | 204.5 mm | -38.7% |
| Web thickness | 9 mm | 8.5 mm | +5.9% |
| Flange thickness | 14 mm | 14.6 mm | -4.1% |
| Area | 30.6 cm² | 42.3 cm² | -27.7% |
| Second moment, major (Iy) | 662 cm⁴ | 690.9 cm⁴ | -4.2% |
| Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y) | 102 cm³ | 99.961 cm³ | +2.0% |
| Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y) | 57.1 cm³ | 55.552 cm³ | +2.8% |
| Second moment, minor (Iz) | 231 cm⁴ | 1,041 cm⁴ | -77.8% |
| Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z) | 58 cm³ | 155.19 cm³ | -62.6% |
| Radius of gyration, minor (iz) | 2.74 cm | 4.95 cm | -44.6% |
| Torsion constant (It) | 15.8 cm⁴ | 26.1 cm⁴ | -39.5% |
Tee 127×152×24 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 6X22.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 6X22.5.
How to choose between them
On stiffness, WT 6X22.5 has the larger second moment of area: 690.9 cm⁴ against 662 cm⁴, a difference of 4.2%. 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 of steel, Tee 127×152×24 is the more efficient section: 4.3 against 3.0 cm³ per kg/m, 42.4% 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: WT 6X22.5 has 155.19 cm³ of minor-axis plastic modulus against 58 cm³, 62.6% 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 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 28.4% weight.
In short, Tee 127×152×24 is the stronger section and Tee 127×152×24 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.