Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
ASTM A959 SS304 (ASTM A959:2011) and EN 10088-1 1.4845 (EN 10088-1:2014) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
ASTM A959 SS304 is typically used for food processing, chemical equipment, kitchen equipment, while EN 10088-1 1.4845 is commonly used for furnace parts, heat exchangers, kiln components.
ASTM A959 SS304 is defined under ASTM International, originating from United States, while EN 10088-1 1.4845 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, ASTM A959 SS304 vs EN 10088-1 1.4845 is a 68.9% match.
Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 35%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
ASTM A959 SS304
EN 10088-1 1.4845
Tensile Strength
Not specified
≥515 MPa
Yield Strength
Not specified
≥205 MPa
Elongation
Not specified
≥40%
Max Service Temp
Not specified
1100°C continuous
Typical Applications
ASTM A959 SS304
Food processing, chemical equipment, kitchen equipment
EN 10088-1 1.4845
Furnace parts, heat exchangers, kiln components
Key Differences
ASTM A959 SS304 specifies P, S which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4845.
Can ASTM A959 SS304 Be Substituted With EN 10088-1 1.4845?
ASTM A959 SS304 and EN 10088-1 1.4845 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.
What is the difference between ASTM A959 SS304 and EN 10088-1 1.4845?
ASTM A959 SS304 specifies P, S which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4845.
Can ASTM A959 SS304 be substituted with EN 10088-1 1.4845?
ASTM A959 SS304 and EN 10088-1 1.4845 share some compositional similarity but differ enough that substitution should not be assumed. Review the differences above carefully, and consult the applicable standard or a metallurgist before using one in place of the other.