BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 vs IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10
Minimal Match — 51.9% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 (BS 970 (Part 1):1991) and IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 (IS 1570 (Part 3):1979) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Free Machining Steel category.
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 is defined under British Standards (BS), originating from United Kingdom, while IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India.
As per chemical composition, BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 vs IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 is a 77.8% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 51.9%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15
IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10
Condition
Case hardened, 19 mm test bar
Hot rolled or normalized bars, billets and forgings (Table 2), ruling sections up to 150 mm
Tensile Strength
650 MPa min
370-490 MPa
Elongation
12 % min
>=24%
Typical Applications
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15
Case hardening steel (section four)
IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10
Not documented
Key Differences
IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 specifies Si, P which are not specified for BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15.
Can BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 Be Substituted With IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10?
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 and IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 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 BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 and IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10?
IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 specifies Si, P which are not specified for BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15.
Can BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 be substituted with IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10?
BS 970 (Part 1) 214A15 and IS 1570 (Part 3) 10C8S10 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.