Related Material — 69.9% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
IS 6603 X110Cr17 (IS 6603:2024) and ASTM A959 SS316 (ASTM A959:2011) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
IS 6603 X110Cr17 is typically used for general purposes, semi-finished products, bars, wire rods and bright bars, while ASTM A959 SS316 is commonly used for marine, chemical, pharmaceutical, food processing equipment.
IS 6603 X110Cr17 is defined under Bureau of Indian Standards (IS), originating from India, while ASTM A959 SS316 is defined under ASTM International, originating from United States.
As per chemical composition, IS 6603 X110Cr17 vs ASTM A959 SS316 is a 71.9% match.
Mechanical property data is not available for both grades, so this factor could not be scored.
Combined, this makes them a related material overall at 69.9%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
IS 6603 X110Cr17
ASTM A959 SS316
Hardness
<=285 HB
Not specified
Condition
Soft annealed (+A), conditions 1C, 1E, 1D, 1X, 1G and 2D, thickness or diameter up to 100 mm; hardness as printed
Not specified
Typical Applications
IS 6603 X110Cr17
General purposes, semi-finished products, bars, wire rods and bright bars
Can IS 6603 X110Cr17 Be Substituted With ASTM A959 SS316?
IS 6603 X110Cr17 and ASTM A959 SS316 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 6603 X110Cr17 and ASTM A959 SS316?
Both grades share a similar composition profile; see the specification table above for the exact chemistry and mechanical property values.
Can IS 6603 X110Cr17 be substituted with ASTM A959 SS316?
IS 6603 X110Cr17 and ASTM A959 SS316 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.