Related Material — 67.9% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
JIS G4303 SUS310S (JIS G4303:2021) and BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 (BS 970 (Part 3):1991) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Stainless Steel category.
JIS G4303 SUS310S is typically used for furnace parts, heat treatment baskets, kiln components, while BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 is commonly used for bright cold finished bars (cold drawn, turned or precision ground) for general engineering purposes, in straight lengths; austenitic stainless and heat resisting steel (table 18).
JIS G4303 SUS310S is defined under Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), originating from Japan, while BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 is defined under British Standards (BS), originating from United Kingdom.
As per chemical composition, JIS G4303 SUS310S vs BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 is a 67.9% 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 67.9%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Bright cold finished bars (cold drawn, turned or precision ground) for general engineering purposes, in straight lengths; austenitic stainless and heat resisting steel (Table 18)
Can JIS G4303 SUS310S Be Substituted With BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11?
JIS G4303 SUS310S and BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 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 JIS G4303 SUS310S and BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11?
Both grades share a similar composition profile; see the specification table above for the exact chemistry and mechanical property values.
Can JIS G4303 SUS310S be substituted with BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11?
JIS G4303 SUS310S and BS 970 (Part 3) 304S11 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.