CivilAxisCivilAxis
☕ Support🌐 Community

Tee 171×178×29 vs WT 7X19

Tee 171×178×29 is an Tees (from UB) section from the UK Blue Book (SCI P363); WT 7X19 is the closest equivalent in the American AISC Shapes Database. Tee 171×178×29 carries more bending: 125 cm³ of plastic modulus against 122.08 cm³, 2.4% more. They weigh essentially the same, 28.5 kg/m and 28.3 kg/m. Both are about 179 mm deep, so either fits the same construction zone.

Section properties side by side. Bold marks the more favourable value where one is.
PropertyTee 171×178×29
Tees (from UB)
WT 7X19
WT
Difference
Mass28.5 kg/m28.3 kg/m+0.7%
Depth178.9 mm179.1 mm-0.1%
Width172.2 mm172 mm+0.1%
Web thickness8.1 mm7.9 mm+2.5%
Flange thickness13 mm13.1 mm-0.8%
Area36.3 cm²36 cm²+0.8%
Second moment, major (Iy)986 cm⁴969.8 cm⁴+1.7%
Plastic modulus, major (Wpl,y)125 cm³122.08 cm³+2.4%
Elastic modulus, major (Wel,y)70.9 cm³69.153 cm³+2.5%
Second moment, minor (Iz)554 cm⁴553.6 cm⁴+0.1%
Plastic modulus, minor (Wpl,z)99.4 cm³99.469 cm³-0.1%
Radius of gyration, minor (iz)3.91 cm3.94 cm-0.8%
Torsion constant (It)16.6 cm⁴16.57 cm⁴+0.2%

Tee 171×178×29 to BS EN 10365:2017; WT 7X19 to AISC Shapes Database v16.0. Difference is expressed relative to WT 7X19.

How to choose between them

On stiffness, Tee 171×178×29 has the larger second moment of area: 986 cm⁴ against 969.8 cm⁴, a difference of 1.7%. 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 (4.4 against 4.3 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 171×178×29 is the stronger section and WT 7X19 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 171×178×29 is the stronger of the two in bending, with a plastic modulus of 125 cm³ against 122.08 cm³ - 2.4% 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 171×178×29 is 28.5 kg/m and WT 7X19 is 28.3 kg/m. On a tonnage basis they cost the same.

Structurally it is the closest equivalent we hold: WT 7X19 gives 122.08 cm³ of plastic modulus and 969.8 cm⁴ of inertia against 125 cm³ and 986 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 171×178×29, with a second moment of area of 986 cm⁴ against 969.8 cm⁴ (1.7% 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.

Related comparisons

WT 7X24 vs Tee 171×178×29
Rate this
No ratings yet
Sign in to join the discussion.
Loading…