Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
ASTM A959 622 (ASTM A959:2011) and EN 10088-1 1.4006 (EN 10088-1:2014) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
ASTM A959 622 is typically used for wrought stainless steel products; recommended composition limits for adoption by product standards (clause 1.1), while EN 10088-1 1.4006 is commonly used for cutlery, turbine blades, fasteners, surgical instruments.
ASTM A959 622 is defined under ASTM International, originating from United States, while EN 10088-1 1.4006 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, ASTM A959 622 vs EN 10088-1 1.4006 is a 42.9% 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 622
EN 10088-1 1.4006
Tensile Strength
Not specified
≥540 MPa (annealed)
Hardness HRC
Not specified
36–45 (hardened)
Elongation
Not specified
≥18%
Typical Applications
ASTM A959 622
Wrought stainless steel products; recommended composition limits for adoption by product standards (clause 1.1)
ASTM A959 622 specifies Al, B, Cu, Mo which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4006.
Can ASTM A959 622 Be Substituted With EN 10088-1 1.4006?
ASTM A959 622 and EN 10088-1 1.4006 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 622 and EN 10088-1 1.4006?
ASTM A959 622 specifies Al, B, Cu, Mo which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4006.
Can ASTM A959 622 be substituted with EN 10088-1 1.4006?
ASTM A959 622 and EN 10088-1 1.4006 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.