Minimal Match — 47.4% match
based on chemical composition and mechanical property overlap.
JIS G4801 SUP9A (JIS G 4801:2005) and EN 10083-3 51CrV4 (EN 10083-3:2006) are both steel grades.
Both fall under the Spring Steel category.
JIS G4801 SUP9A is typically used for heavy duty leaf springs, torsion bars, while EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is commonly used for valve springs, clutch springs, high duty coil springs.
JIS G4801 SUP9A is defined under Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), originating from Japan, while EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is defined under European Standard (EN), originating from Europe.
As per chemical composition, JIS G4801 SUP9A vs EN 10083-3 51CrV4 is a 71.1% match.
As per mechanical properties, the match is 0%.
Combined, this makes them a minimal match overall at 47.4%.
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 SUP9A
EN 10083-3 51CrV4
Tensile Strength
≥1180 MPa
1100 to 1300 MPa
Yield Strength
≥1030 MPa
900 MPa min
Elongation
≥7%
9% min
Condition
Not specified
Quenched and tempered (+QT), ruling section d <= 16 mm
Hardness
Not specified
Soft annealed (+A): 248 HBW max
Typical Applications
JIS G4801 SUP9A
Heavy duty leaf springs, torsion bars
EN 10083-3 51CrV4
Valve springs, clutch springs, high duty coil springs
Key Differences
EN 10083-3 51CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for JIS G4801 SUP9A.
Can JIS G4801 SUP9A Be Substituted With EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
JIS G4801 SUP9A and EN 10083-3 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 SUP9A and EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
EN 10083-3 51CrV4 specifies V which is not specified for JIS G4801 SUP9A.
Can JIS G4801 SUP9A be substituted with EN 10083-3 51CrV4?
JIS G4801 SUP9A and EN 10083-3 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.