CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 171×178×23 vs WT 7X15

Tee 171×178×23 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 7X15 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. They are close to interchangeable in bending: 104 cm³ against 102.42 cm³ of plastic modulus, a difference of 1.5%. They weigh essentially the same, 22.5 kg/m and 22.3 kg/m. Both are about 176 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 171×178×23
Tees (from UB)
WT 7X15
WT
Difference
Mass22.5 kg/m22.3 kg/m+0.9%
Depth175.6 mm175.8 mm-0.1%
Width171.1 mm170.9 mm+0.1%
Web thickness7 mm6.9 mm+1.4%
Flange thickness9.7 mm9.8 mm-1.0%
Area28.7 cm²28.5 cm²+0.7%
Second moment, major (Iy)798 cm⁴790.8 cm⁴+0.9%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)104 cm³102.42 cm³+1.5%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)59.1 cm³58.174 cm³+1.6%
Second moment, minor (Iz)406 cm⁴407.5 cm⁴-0.4%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)73.3 cm³73.578 cm³-0.4%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.76 cm3.78 cm-0.5%
Torsion constant (It)7.9 cm⁴7.91 cm⁴-0.1%

Tee 171×178×23 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 7X15 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 7X15.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 171×178×23 has the larger second moment of area: 798 cm⁴ against 790.8 cm⁴, a difference of 0.9%. 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 (4.6 against 4.6 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 171×178×23 has a plastic modulus of 104 cm³ and WT 7X15 has 102.42 cm³, a difference of only 1.5% - within the margin that section choice normally turns on. Compare stiffness and availability instead.

Neither meaningfully: Tee 171×178×23 is 22.5 kg/m and WT 7X15 is 22.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 7X15 gives 102.42 cm³ of plastic modulus and 790.8 cm⁴ of inertia against 104 cm³ and 798 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 171×178×23, with a second moment of area of 798 cm⁴ against 790.8 cm⁴ (0.9% 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…