Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
EN 10025-2 S275 (EN 10025-2:2019) and GOST 19281 09G2S (GOST 19281-2014) 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 GOST 19281 09G2S is commonly used for used for bridges, pressure vessels, pipelines, structural frames, and heavy equipment components..
EN 10025-2 S275 is defined under European Standard (EN) (Europe).
As per chemical composition, EN 10025-2 S275 vs GOST 19281 09G2S is a 65.4% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 10.1%.
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
EN 10025-2 S275
GOST 19281 09G2S
Yield Strength
275 MPa min (t<=16mm)
345 MPa min
Tensile Strength
410-560 MPa
490-640 MPa
Elongation
23% min
21% min
Hardness
Not specified
140-190 HB
Typical Applications
EN 10025-2 S275
Structural beams, columns, bridges, general fabrication
GOST 19281 09G2S
Used for bridges, pressure vessels, pipelines, structural frames, and heavy equipment components.
Key Differences
GOST 19281 09G2S specifies Ni, Cr, Cu which are not specified for EN 10025-2 S275.
Can EN 10025-2 S275 Be Substituted With GOST 19281 09G2S?
EN 10025-2 S275 and GOST 19281 09G2S 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 GOST 19281 09G2S?
GOST 19281 09G2S specifies Ni, Cr, Cu which are not specified for EN 10025-2 S275.
Can EN 10025-2 S275 be substituted with GOST 19281 09G2S?
EN 10025-2 S275 and GOST 19281 09G2S 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.