Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
DIN 17210 15Cr3 (DIN 17210:1986) and IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 (IS 4367:1991) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Alloy Steel category.
DIN 17210 15Cr3 is defined under Deutsches Institut fur Normung (DIN), originating from Germany, while IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India.
As per chemical composition, DIN 17210 15Cr3 vs IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 is a 66.7% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 35.9%.
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
DIN 17210 15Cr3
IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10
Tensile Strength
490-640 MPa
410-590 MPa
Yield Strength
295 MPa min
245 MPa min
Elongation
18% min
>=18%
Hardness
143-187 HB
Not specified
Izod Impact
Not specified
55 J min
Hardness (soft annealed)
Not specified
<=187 HB
Condition
Not specified
Normalised and tempered, ruling section up to 50 mm
Typical Applications
DIN 17210 15Cr3
Low-alloy chromium case-hardening (carburizing) steel; gears, shafts, pins, and machine components requiring a hard wear-resistant carburized surface with a tough core
IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10
Not documented
Key Differences
IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 specifies Ni, Mo which are not specified for DIN 17210 15Cr3.
Can DIN 17210 15Cr3 Be Substituted With IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10?
DIN 17210 15Cr3 and IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 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 DIN 17210 15Cr3 and IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10?
IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 specifies Ni, Mo which are not specified for DIN 17210 15Cr3.
Can DIN 17210 15Cr3 be substituted with IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10?
DIN 17210 15Cr3 and IS 4367 10Cr9Mo10 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.