Related Material — 69.4% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
EN 10025-2 S275 (EN 10025-2:2019) and AS/NZS 3679.1 350 (AS/NZS 3679.1:2016) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Structural Steel category.
EN 10025-2 S275 is typically used for structural beams, columns, bridges, general fabrication, while AS/NZS 3679.1 350 is commonly used for hot-rolled structural bars and sections for primary structural beams, columns, and framing.
EN 10025-2 S275 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe, while AS/NZS 3679.1 350 is defined under Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS), originating from Australia/New Zealand.
As per chemical composition, EN 10025-2 S275 vs AS/NZS 3679.1 350 is a 98.3% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 11.6%.
Combined, this makes them a related material overall at 69.4%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
EN 10025-2 S275
AS/NZS 3679.1 350
Yield Strength
275 MPa min (t<=16mm)
350 MPa min
Tensile Strength
410-560 MPa
480-640 MPa
Elongation
23% min
20% min
Typical Applications
EN 10025-2 S275
Structural beams, columns, bridges, general fabrication
AS/NZS 3679.1 350
Hot-rolled structural bars and sections for primary structural beams, columns, and framing
Can EN 10025-2 S275 Be Substituted With AS/NZS 3679.1 350?
EN 10025-2 S275 and AS/NZS 3679.1 350 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 EN 10025-2 S275 and AS/NZS 3679.1 350?
Both grades share a similar composition profile; see the specification table above for the exact chemistry and mechanical property values.
Can EN 10025-2 S275 be substituted with AS/NZS 3679.1 350?
EN 10025-2 S275 and AS/NZS 3679.1 350 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.