CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 152×229×30 vs WT 9X20

Tee 152×229×30 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 9X20 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 199 cm³ against 196.64 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.2%. They weigh essentially the same, 29.9 kg/m and 29.8 kg/m. Both are about 227 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 152×229×30
Tees (from UB)
WT 9X20
WT
Difference
Mass29.9 kg/m29.8 kg/m+0.3%
Depth227.2 mm227.3 mmsame
Width152.9 mm152.9 mmsame
Web thickness8.1 mm8 mm+1.2%
Flange thickness13.3 mm13.3 mmsame
Area38.1 cm²37.9 cm²+0.5%
Second moment, major (Iy)1,880 cm⁴1,865 cm⁴+0.8%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)199 cm³196.64 cm³+1.2%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)111 cm³110.28 cm³+0.7%
Second moment, minor (Iz)397 cm⁴397.5 cm⁴-0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)81.5 cm³81.444 cm³+0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.23 cm3.23 cmsame
Torsion constant (It)16.9 cm⁴16.82 cm⁴+0.5%

Tee 152×229×30 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 9X20 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 9X20.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 152×229×30 has the larger second moment of area: 1,880 cm⁴ against 1,865 cm⁴, a difference of 0.8%. 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 (6.7 against 6.6 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 152×229×30 has a plastic modulus of 199 cm³ and WT 9X20 has 196.64 cm³, a difference of only 1.2% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 152×229×30 is 29.9 kg/m and WT 9X20 is 29.8 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 9X20 gives 196.64 cm³ of plastic modulus and 1,865 cm⁴ of inertia against 199 cm³ and 1,880 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 152×229×30, with a second moment of area of 1,880 cm⁴ against 1,865 cm⁴ (0.8% 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…