Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
GOST 5632 08X18H10 (GOST 5632-2014) and ASTM A959 201 (ASTM A959:2011) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
GOST 5632 08X18H10 is typically used for chemical equipment, food processing, general corrosion resistant applications, while ASTM A959 201 is commonly used for wrought stainless steel products; recommended composition limits for adoption by product standards (clause 1.1).
ASTM A959 201 is defined under ASTM International (United States).
As per chemical composition, GOST 5632 08X18H10 vs ASTM A959 201 is a 63.7% match.
Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored.
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
GOST 5632 08X18H10
ASTM A959 201
Tensile Strength
≥520 MPa
Not specified
Yield Strength
≥205 MPa
Not specified
Elongation
≥40%
Not specified
Typical Applications
GOST 5632 08X18H10
Chemical equipment, food processing, general corrosion resistant applications
ASTM A959 201
Wrought stainless steel products; recommended composition limits for adoption by product standards (clause 1.1)
Key Differences
ASTM A959 201 specifies N which is not specified for GOST 5632 08X18H10.
Can GOST 5632 08X18H10 Be Substituted With ASTM A959 201?
GOST 5632 08X18H10 and ASTM A959 201 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 GOST 5632 08X18H10 and ASTM A959 201?
ASTM A959 201 specifies N which is not specified for GOST 5632 08X18H10.
Can GOST 5632 08X18H10 be substituted with ASTM A959 201?
GOST 5632 08X18H10 and ASTM A959 201 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.