IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 vs EN 10088-1 1.4006
Minimal Match — 35% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 (IS 1570 (Part 5):1985) and EN 10088-1 1.4006 (EN 10088-1:2014) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India, while EN 10088-1 1.4006 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 vs EN 10088-1 1.4006 is a 54.6% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 35%.
Frequently Compared With IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2:
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2
EN 10088-1 1.4006
Tensile Strength
>=485 MPa
≥540 MPa (annealed)
Yield Strength
>=170 MPa (0.2 % proof stress)
Not specified
Elongation
>=40% (50 mm)
≥18%
Hardness
<=217 HB; <=95 HRB
Not specified
Condition
Annealed, quenched or solution treated plates, sheets and strips (Table 2)
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 specifies P, S, Mo which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4006.
Can IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 Be Substituted With EN 10088-1 1.4006?
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 and EN 10088-1 1.4006 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 IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 and EN 10088-1 1.4006?
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 specifies P, S, Mo which are not specified for EN 10088-1 1.4006.
Can IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 be substituted with EN 10088-1 1.4006?
IS 1570 (Part 5) X02Cr17Ni12Mo2 and EN 10088-1 1.4006 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.