Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
EN 10025-3 S420N (EN 10025-3:2019) and CSA G40.21 400A (CSA G40.21-13 (R2023)) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Structural Steel category.
EN 10025-3 S420N is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe, while CSA G40.21 400A is defined under Canadian Standards Association (CSA), originating from Canada.
As per chemical composition, EN 10025-3 S420N vs CSA G40.21 400A is a 62.2% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 31.3%.
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 10025-3 S420N
CSA G40.21 400A
Tensile Strength
520-680 MPa
520-670 MPa
Yield Strength
>=420 MPa
400 MPa min
Elongation
>=19%
17% min
Condition
Normalized or normalized rolled (N), nominal thickness up to 16 mm (tensile strength up to 100 mm), Table 4
Not specified
Impact
Not specified
27J at 0°C
Typical Applications
EN 10025-3 S420N
Not documented
CSA G40.21 400A
Atmospheric corrosion-resistant (weathering) structural steel; exposed bridge girders and structural members where high strength and weathering resistance are both needed
Key Differences
EN 10025-3 S420N specifies Nb, V, Ni, N which are not specified for CSA G40.21 400A.
Can EN 10025-3 S420N Be Substituted With CSA G40.21 400A?
EN 10025-3 S420N and CSA G40.21 400A 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 10025-3 S420N and CSA G40.21 400A?
EN 10025-3 S420N specifies Nb, V, Ni, N which are not specified for CSA G40.21 400A.
Can EN 10025-3 S420N be substituted with CSA G40.21 400A?
EN 10025-3 S420N and CSA G40.21 400A 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.