CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 152×229×26 vs WT 9X17.5

Tee 152×229×26 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X17.5 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 183 cm³ against 183.54 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 0.3%. They weigh essentially the same, 26.1 kg/m and 26 kg/m. Both are about 225 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 152×229×26
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X17.5
WT
Difference
Mass26.1 kg/m26 kg/m+0.4%
Depth224.8 mm224.8 mmsame
Width152.4 mm152.4 mmsame
Web thickness7.6 mm7.6 mmsame
Flange thickness10.9 mm10.8 mm+0.9%
Area33.3 cm²33.2 cm²+0.3%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,670 cm⁴1,669 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)183 cm³183.54 cm³-0.3%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)102 cm³101.76 cm³+0.2%
Second moment, minor (Iz)322 cm⁴319.2 cm⁴+0.9%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)66.6 cm³65.876 cm³+1.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.11 cm3.1 cm+0.3%
Torsion constant (It)10.7 cm⁴10.49 cm⁴+2.0%

Tee 152×229×26 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X17.5 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X17.5.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 152×229×26 has the larger second moment of area: 1,670 cm⁴ against 1,669 cm⁴, a difference of 0.1%. 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 (7.0 against 7.1 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 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 152×229×26 has a plastic modulus of 183 cm³ and WT 9X17.5 has 183.54 cm³, a difference of only 0.3% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 152×229×26 is 26.1 kg/m and WT 9X17.5 is 26 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X17.5 gives 183.54 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,669 cm⁴ of inertia against 183 cm³ and 1,670 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 152×229×26, with a second moment of area of 1,670 cm⁴ against 1,669 cm⁴ (0.1% 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…