EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 vs IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2

Related Material — 64.3% match based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.

EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 (EN 10088-1:2014) and IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 (IS 11169 (Part 2):1989) are both steel grades. EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 is classified under Tool & Die Steels, while IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is classified under Stainless Steel — a different category, which is worth noting alongside the chemistry match below. EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 is typically used for plastic injection moulds, die casting dies for zinc/aluminium, while IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is commonly used for cold heading and cold extrusion; the standard covers wires, wire rods and bars (clause 1.1). EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe, while IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India.

As per chemical composition, EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 vs IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is a 64.3% match. Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored. Combined, this makes them a related material overall at 64.3%.

Frequently Compared With EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5:
EN ISO 4957 1.2316 DIN EN ISO 4957 1.2344 EN ISO 683-17 100Cr6 GOST 5950 4H5MFS1 GB/T 1299 4Cr5MoSiV DIN EN ISO 4957 1.2379 GB/T 1299 4Cr5MoSiV1 GOST 5950 4H5MFS AISI 52100 GOST 5950 3H2W8F GB/T 1299 3Cr2W8V IS 3748 103T3
Match Breakdown
CHEMISTRY MATCH
64.3%
MECHANICAL MATCH
No shared data
OVERALL
64.3%
Specifications
Property EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
Standard EN 10088-1:2014 IS 11169 (Part 2):1989
Category Tool & Die Steels Stainless Steel
C (%) ≤0.06 <=0.030
Si (%) ≤0.70 <=1.0
Mn (%) ≤1.50 <=2.0
Cr (%) 15.0–17.0 16.0-18.0
Mo (%) 0.80–1.50 2.0-3.0
Ni (%) 3.50–5.50 10.0-14.0
S (%) Not specified <=0.030
P (%) Not specified <=0.045
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
Hardness HRC 28–34 (delivered) Not specified
Hardness HRC (hardened) 38–42 Not specified
Corrosion Resistance Good Not specified
Yield Strength (0.2% proof) Not specified >=225 MPa
Tensile Strength Not specified 500-750 MPa
Elongation Not specified >=40%
Impact (U-notch 5 mm) Not specified >=60 J
Condition Not specified Quenched reference test piece (Table 6 treatment)
Typical Applications
EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5
Plastic injection moulds, die casting dies for zinc/aluminium
IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
Cold heading and cold extrusion; the standard covers wires, wire rods and bars (clause 1.1)
Key Differences
Can EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 Be Substituted With IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2?
EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 and IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 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.
Forms & Sizes Available on M-EX
EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5
Round Bar → (2 listings)
Diameter: 80–80 mm (3.15–3.15 in)
Length: 3700–4000 mm (145.67–157.48 in)
IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
No active listings currently.
On M-EX Right Now
EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5
2 active listings and RFQs →
IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
0 active listings and RFQs →
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 and IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2?
Different category: EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 is Tool & Die Steels, IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is Stainless Steel. IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 specifies S, P which are not specified for EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5.
Can EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 be substituted with IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2?
EN 10088-1 X4CrNiMo16-5 and IS 11169 (Part 2) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 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.