Minimal Match — 48.8% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
IS 5517 55Cr3 (IS 5517:1993) and EN 10089 50CrV4 (EN 10089:2002) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Spring Steel category.
IS 5517 55Cr3 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India, while EN 10089 50CrV4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, IS 5517 55Cr3 vs EN 10089 50CrV4 is a 73.2% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 48.8%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
IS 5517 55Cr3
EN 10089 50CrV4
Tensile Strength
900-1050 MPa
1100–1300 MPa
Yield Strength (0.2% proof)
660 MPa min
Not specified
Elongation
>=12%
≥8%
Izod Impact
35 J min
Not specified
Hardness (annealed)
<=220 HB
Not specified
Condition
Hardened and tempered, ruling section up to 63 mm
Not specified
Yield Strength
Not specified
≥1000 MPa
Hardness
Not specified
321–375 HB
Typical Applications
IS 5517 55Cr3
Not documented
EN 10089 50CrV4
Valve springs, high duty coil springs, hand tools
Key Differences
IS 5517 55Cr3 specifies S, P which are not specified for EN 10089 50CrV4.
EN 10089 50CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for IS 5517 55Cr3.
Can IS 5517 55Cr3 Be Substituted With EN 10089 50CrV4?
IS 5517 55Cr3 and EN 10089 50CrV4 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 5517 55Cr3 and EN 10089 50CrV4?
IS 5517 55Cr3 specifies S, P which are not specified for EN 10089 50CrV4. EN 10089 50CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for IS 5517 55Cr3.
Can IS 5517 55Cr3 be substituted with EN 10089 50CrV4?
IS 5517 55Cr3 and EN 10089 50CrV4 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.