IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti vs IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH

Minimal Match — 40.2% match based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.

IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti (IS 11169 (Part 2):2023) and IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH (IS 1570 (Part 7):1992) are both steel grades. Both fall under the Stainless Steel category. IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti is typically used for cold heading and cold extrusion of stainless steel parts; the standard covers wires, wire rods and bars of 0.8 to 50 mm (clause 1.1, table 11), while IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH is commonly used for boilers, pressure vessels, steam turbines, steam and water piping and other power plant equipment working at elevated temperature. IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India, while IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India.

As per chemical composition, IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti vs IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH is a 60.3% match. As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%. Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 40.2%.

Frequently Compared With IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti:
GOST 5632 08X18H10 EN 10088-1 1.4301 IS 1570 (Part 7) 12Cr12Ni2Mo IS 1570 (Part 7) 12Cr13H EN 10088-1 1.4006 EN 10088-1 1.4845 IS 1570 (Part 7) 12Cr12MoH IS 1570 (Part 7) 12Cr12MoVH GB/T 3280 06Cr19Ni10 GOST 5632 06Kh23N28 EN 10088-1 1.4401 GOST 5632 12Kh13
Match Breakdown
CHEMISTRY MATCH
60.3%
MECHANICAL MATCH
0%
OVERALL
40.2%
Specifications
Property IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH
Standard IS 11169 (Part 2):2023 IS 1570 (Part 7):1992
Category Stainless Steel Stainless Steel
C (%) <=0.08 0.07-0.15
Cr (%) 17.0-19.0 15.5-17.50
Cu (%) <=1.00 Not specified
Mn (%) <=2.00 <=1.00
Ni (%) 9.0-12.0 12.00-14.50
P (%) <=0.045 <=0.045
S (%) <=0.030 <=0.030
Si (%) <=1.00 <=1.00
Ti (%) 5xC-0.70 >=4xC, <=0.80
W (%) Not specified 2.5-3.5
B (%) Not specified <=0.0006
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH
Reduction of Area, solution annealed (+AT) >=65% (over 5 to 50 mm) Not specified
Tensile Strength, solution annealed (+AT) <=680 MPa (over 5 to 50 mm) Not specified
Tensile Strength Not specified 600-800 MPa
Yield Strength Not specified >=390 MPa (0.2 % proof stress)
Elongation Not specified >=25%
Condition Not specified Bars, forgings, pipes, hot cold worked, thickness up to 60 (first row of Table 3)
Typical Applications
IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti
Cold heading and cold extrusion of stainless steel parts; the standard covers wires, wire rods and bars of 0.8 to 50 mm (clause 1.1, Table 11)
IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH
Boilers, pressure vessels, steam turbines, steam and water piping and other power plant equipment working at elevated temperature
Key Differences
Can IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti Be Substituted With IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH?
IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti and IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH 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.
On M-EX Right Now
IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti
0 active listings and RFQs →
IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH
0 active listings and RFQs →
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti and IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH?
IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti specifies Cu which is not specified for IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH. IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH specifies W, B which are not specified for IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti.
Can IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti be substituted with IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH?
IS 11169 (Part 2) X04Cr18Ni10Ti and IS 1570 (Part 7) 11Cr17Ni13W3TiH 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.