Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
EN 10089 55Si7 (EN 10089:2002) and EN 10083-3 51CrV4 (EN 10083-3:2006) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Spring Steel category.
EN 10089 55Si7 is typically used for leaf springs, coil springs, torsion bars, while EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is commonly used for valve springs, clutch springs, high duty coil springs.
EN 10089 55Si7 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe, while EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, EN 10089 55Si7 vs EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is a 68.1% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 25%.
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 10089 55Si7
EN 10083-3 51CrV4
Tensile Strength
1000–1200 MPa
1100 to 1300 MPa
Yield Strength
≥900 MPa
900 MPa min
Elongation
≥7%
9% min
Hardness
285–363 HB
Soft annealed (+A): 248 HBW max
Condition
Not specified
Quenched and tempered (+QT), ruling section d <= 16 mm
Typical Applications
EN 10089 55Si7
Leaf springs, coil springs, torsion bars
EN 10083-3 51CrV4
Valve springs, clutch springs, high duty coil springs
Key Differences
EN 10083-3 51CrV4 specifies Cr, V which are not specified for EN 10089 55Si7.
Can EN 10089 55Si7 Be Substituted With EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
EN 10089 55Si7 and EN 10083-3 51CrV4 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 10089 55Si7 and EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
EN 10083-3 51CrV4 specifies Cr, V which are not specified for EN 10089 55Si7.
Can EN 10089 55Si7 be substituted with EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
EN 10089 55Si7 and EN 10083-3 51CrV4 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.