Minimal Match — 48.1% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
JIS G4801 SUP9 (JIS G 4801:2005) and EN 10083-1 51CrV4 (EN 10083-1:1996) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Spring Steel category.
JIS G4801 SUP9 is typically used for automotive leaf springs, suspension springs, while EN 10083-1 51CrV4 is commonly used for quenched and tempered machine parts (clause 1.1).
JIS G4801 SUP9 is defined under Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), originating from Japan, while EN 10083-1 51CrV4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, JIS G4801 SUP9 vs EN 10083-1 51CrV4 is a 72.2% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 48.1%.
Matched by chemical composition and mechanical properties, not a formal equivalence claim. Always verify against the applicable standard before substitution.
Mechanical Properties
Property
JIS G4801 SUP9
EN 10083-1 51CrV4
Tensile Strength
1180 MPa min (oil hardened)
1100 to 1300 MPa
Yield Strength
≥1030 MPa
900 MPa min
Elongation
≥7%
9% min
Hardness
363–429 HB
Soft annealed: 248 HB max
Condition
Not specified
Quenched and tempered, ruling section d <= 16 mm
Typical Applications
JIS G4801 SUP9
Automotive leaf springs, suspension springs
EN 10083-1 51CrV4
Quenched and tempered machine parts (clause 1.1)
Key Differences
EN 10083-1 51CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for JIS G4801 SUP9.
Can JIS G4801 SUP9 Be Substituted With EN 10083-1 51CrV4?
JIS G4801 SUP9 and EN 10083-1 51CrV4 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 G4801 SUP9 and EN 10083-1 51CrV4?
EN 10083-1 51CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for JIS G4801 SUP9.
Can JIS G4801 SUP9 be substituted with EN 10083-1 51CrV4?
JIS G4801 SUP9 and EN 10083-1 51CrV4 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.