CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 127×178×20 vs WT 7X13

Tee 127×178×20 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 7X13 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 98 cm³ against 96.52 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 19.5 kg/m and 19.3 kg/m. Both are about 177 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 127×178×20
Tees (from UB)
WT 7X13
WT
Difference
Mass19.5 kg/m19.3 kg/m+1.0%
Depth176.6 mm176.8 mm-0.1%
Width126 mm127.8 mm-1.4%
Web thickness6.6 mm6.5 mm+1.5%
Flange thickness10.7 mm10.7 mmsame
Area24.9 cm²24.8 cm²+0.4%
Second moment, major (Iy)728 cm⁴720.1 cm⁴+1.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)98 cm³96.52 cm³+1.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)55 cm³54.241 cm³+1.4%
Second moment, minor (Iz)179 cm⁴185.2 cm⁴-3.3%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)44.5 cm³45.228 cm³-1.6%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)2.68 cm2.74 cm-2.2%
Torsion constant (It)7.53 cm⁴7.45 cm⁴+1.1%

Tee 127×178×20 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 7X13 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 7X13.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 127×178×20 has the larger second moment of area: 728 cm⁴ against 720.1 cm⁴, a difference of 1.1%. 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 (5.0 against 5.0 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, these two are genuine equivalents. Pick whichever your supplier stocks and the rest of the frame already uses.

Common questions

They are effectively equal in bending. Tee 127×178×20 has a plastic modulus of 98 cm³ and WT 7X13 has 96.52 cm³, a difference of only 1.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 127×178×20 is 19.5 kg/m and WT 7X13 is 19.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 7X13 gives 96.52 cm³ of plastic modulus and 720.1 cm⁴ of inertia against 98 cm³ and 728 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 127×178×20, with a second moment of area of 728 cm⁴ against 720.1 cm⁴ (1.1% 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…