CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 127×178×17 vs WT 7X11

Tee 127×178×17 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 7X11 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 127×178×17 carries more bending: 87.2 cm³ of plastic modulus against 85.213 cm³, 2.3% more. They weigh essentially the same, 16.5 kg/m and 16.4 kg/m. Both are about 174 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 127×178×17
Tees (from UB)
WT 7X11
WT
Difference
Mass16.5 kg/m16.4 kg/m+0.6%
Depth174.4 mm174.5 mm-0.1%
Width125.4 mm127 mm-1.3%
Web thickness6 mm5.8 mm+3.4%
Flange thickness8.5 mm8.5 mmsame
Area21.1 cm²21 cm²+0.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)626 cm⁴616 cm⁴+1.6%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)87.2 cm³85.213 cm³+2.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)48.6 cm³47.686 cm³+1.9%
Second moment, minor (Iz)140 cm⁴145.7 cm⁴-3.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)35.1 cm³35.888 cm³-2.2%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.58 cm2.64 cm-2.3%
Torsion constant (It)4.38 cm⁴4.33 cm⁴+1.2%

Tee 127×178×17 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 7X11 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 7X11.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 127×178×17 has the larger second moment of area: 626 cm⁴ against 616 cm⁴, a difference of 1.6%. 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 (5.3 against 5.2 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, Tee 127×178×17 is the stronger section and WT 7X11 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 127×178×17 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 87.2 cm³ against 85.213 cm³ - 2.3% 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 127×178×17 is 16.5 kg/m and WT 7X11 is 16.4 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 7X11 gives 85.213 cm³ of plastic modulus and 616 cm⁴ of inertia against 87.2 cm³ and 626 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 127×178×17, with a second moment of area of 626 cm⁴ against 616 cm⁴ (1.6% 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…