International Cross-Reference • Standard Harmonization
Equivalent Grades & Cross-Reference
Cross-reference designations across UNS, EN/DIN, ISO, SAE, and JIS standards. Comparable does not mean directly interchangeable. Always verify composition tolerance limits and mechanical requirements.
!
Mandatory Engineering Substitution Governance:
International standard designations are established by distinct standards bodies with differing testing standards (e.g. ASTM E8 vs ISO 6892-1). Even when chemical compositions overlap, allowable trace impurities (such as phosphorus, sulfur, or iron), grain size requirements, temper nomenclature, and minimum elongation criteria can differ.
Never authorize a structural alloy substitution without verifying the governing procurement specification, temper, ruling section size, and environmental compatibility.
Relationship Classification Governance
Exact Designation
Identical chemical composition and mechanical requirements across different naming authorities.
Rule: Direct 1:1 dual specification permissible subject to certified mill test reports (MTR).Standard Cross-Reference
Officially recognized counterpart in another national or international engineering standard (e.g. ASTM to EN).
Rule: Chemical limits or testing protocols may have subtle differences (e.g. tighter P/S ceilings or impact requirements). Engineering review required before substitution.Close Equivalent
Substantially identical chemistry and overlapping mechanical envelope, but slight variations in allowable trace elements or testing protocols exist across governing standards.
Rule: Direct commercial substitution is generally permissible subject to certified Mill Test Report (MTR) confirmation for critical applications.Approximate Equivalent
Similar base alloy chemistry and general functional properties, but noticeable divergence in allowable impurity ceilings, cold-work response, or minimum yield requirements.
Rule: Engineering substitution review required. Design calculations must verify temper, formability, and corrosion limits before specifying as a direct replacement.Comparable Grade
Similar base chemistry and functional performance envelope, but not officially harmonized by standards organizations.
Rule: Comparable does not mean equivalent. Heat treatment response and dimensional tolerances may diverge.Nearest Alternative
Close metallurgical alternative when the primary grade is unavailable or obsolete.
Rule: Design parameters (weldability, hardenability, fatigue limit) must be re-evaluated for the specific application.Commonly Compared
Frequently evaluated side-by-side during trade-off studies or alloy selection.
Rule: Materials serve different design priorities (e.g. higher strength vs superior corrosion resistance or cost).Not Equivalent (Caution)
Materials superficially mistaken for equivalents that exhibit critical metallurgical incompatibilities.
Rule: DO NOT SUBSTITUTE without full engineering re-qualification.Verified Relationships (27 Mappings)100% Item-Level Provenance
Scroll horizontally for relationship classifications & standard mappings
| Source Alloy (UNS) | Relationship Type | Target Grade / Standard | Engineering Scope & Nuance | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine Silver 999Fine Silver | Commonly Compared | Sterling Silver 925Confidence: HIGH | Fine Silver 999 provides peak electrical and thermal conductivity (106% IACS vs 84% IACS) and immunity to firescale oxidation, but Sterling Silver 925 provides substantially higher mechanical hardness (70 HV vs 28 HV annealed) and yield strength. | |
| Fine Silver 999Fine Silver | Commonly Compared | C11000 ETP CopperConfidence: HIGH | Fine Silver is the only elemental engineering metal possessing higher electrical conductivity (106% IACS) and thermal conductivity (429 W/(m·K)) than standard C11000 ETP Copper (100% to 101% IACS, 388 W/(m·K)). | |
| Fine Silver 999Fine Silver | Commonly Compared | Britannia Silver 958Confidence: HIGH | Britannia 958 incorporates 4.16% copper to increase yield strength to ~90 MPa while retaining closer conductivity and ductility to pure silver than sterling 925. | |
| Sterling Silver 925Sterling Silver | Commonly Compared | Fine Silver 999Confidence: HIGH | Sterling Silver 925 offers more than 2.4× the yield strength of Fine Silver 999 (135 MPa vs 55 MPa) and responds to precipitation heat treatment, at the cost of reduced conductivity (84% vs 106% IACS) and increased susceptibility to firescale. | |
| Sterling Silver 925Sterling Silver | Commonly Compared | C11000 ETP CopperConfidence: HIGH | Sterling silver provides high electrical conductivity (84% IACS) with superior atmospheric tarnish resistance and higher annealed hardness than pure C11000 copper. | |
| Sterling Silver 925Sterling Silver | Commonly Compared | Silver 900Confidence: HIGH | Adjacent standard alloy; 900 coin silver incorporates 10% Cu yielding higher wear resistance and higher hard-drawn hardness (165 HV vs 160 HV). | |
| EN-GJL-150 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A48 Class 20 Gray Cast IronConfidence: MEDIUM | EN-GJL-150 is the closest European counterpart to ASTM A48 Class 20 (min 150 vs 138 MPa), sharing high thermal conductivity and excellent vibration damping. | |
| EN-GJL-200 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A48 Class 30 Gray Cast IronConfidence: MEDIUM | EN-GJL-200 (min 200 MPa) corresponds closely to ASTM A48 Class 30 (min 207 MPa), serving equivalent automotive and industrial housing applications. | |
| EN-GJL-200 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJL-250 Gray Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJL-200 is more easily cast in thin complex walls without chilling, but EN-GJL-250 provides higher tensile and compressive strength for machine tools. | |
| EN-GJL-250 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A48 Class 35 Gray Cast IronConfidence: MEDIUM | EN-GJL-250 (min 250 MPa tensile on 15–30 mm wall) closely mirrors ASTM A48 Class 35 (min 241 MPa on 30.5 mm Test Bar B) in microstructure, hardness, and machine tool engineering service. | |
| EN-GJL-250 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJS-500-7 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | Comparison of flake vs spheroidal graphite: EN-GJL-250 provides higher vibration damping, thermal conductivity, and machinability, while EN-GJS-500-7 offers double the tensile strength (500 vs 250 MPa) and true elongation (7%). | |
| EN-GJL-300 Gray Cast IronGray Cast Iron | Commonly Compared | ASTM A48 Class 40 Gray Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJL-300 provides higher tensile strength (300 MPa) than Class 40 (276 MPa), serving severe load cases in European engineering designs. | |
| EN-GJS-400-18 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A536 Grade 60-40-18 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | Direct trans-Atlantic counterpart: EN-GJS-400-18 and ASTM A536 60-40-18 both require 18% elongation and fully ferritic matrix for shock-loaded pressure service. | |
| EN-GJS-400-18 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJS-400-15 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-400-18 requires higher purity charge materials (lower Mn and P) to guarantee 18% elongation and sub-zero impact toughness, while EN-GJS-400-15 provides 15% elongation with lower foundry processing costs. | |
| EN-GJS-400-15 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJS-500-7 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-400-15 provides superior ductility (15% vs 7%) and impact energy, whereas EN-GJS-500-7 delivers 25% higher tensile strength (500 vs 400 MPa) and better wear resistance. | |
| EN-GJS-500-7 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A536 Grade 80-55-06 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-500-7 (min 500 MPa UTS, 320 MPa YS, 7% elongation) and ASTM A536 80-55-06 (min 552 MPa UTS, 379 MPa YS, 6% elongation) occupy comparable medium-strength engineering positions with mixed ferritic-pearlitic matrices. | |
| EN-GJS-500-7 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJS-600-3 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-500-7 provides higher impact elongation (7% vs 3%), whereas EN-GJS-600-3 provides higher proof stress (370 vs 320 MPa) and better abrasive wear endurance. | |
| EN-GJS-600-3 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Commonly Compared | EN-GJS-700-2 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-600-3 provides better machinability and slightly higher ductility (3% vs 2%), whereas EN-GJS-700-2 delivers 100 MPa higher tensile strength (700 vs 600 MPa) for heavy abrasive wear environments. | |
| EN-GJS-700-2 Ductile Cast IronDuctile (Nodular) Iron | Approximate Equivalent | ASTM A536 Grade 100-70-03 Ductile Cast IronConfidence: HIGH | EN-GJS-700-2 (min 700 MPa UTS, 420 MPa YS, 2% elongation) is the European counterpart to ASTM A536 100-70-03 (min 689 MPa UTS, 483 MPa YS, 3% elongation), sharing fully pearlitic microstructures. | |
| Natural Rubber (NR)General-Purpose Diene Rubbers | Commonly Compared | Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR)Confidence: HIGH | NR provides higher tensile strength, tear resistance, and resilience due to strain crystallization; SBR offers lower cost and superior dry sliding abrasion resistance. | |
| Natural Rubber (NR)General-Purpose Diene Rubbers | Nearest Alternative | Ethylene Propylene Diene Rubber (EPDM)Confidence: HIGH | NR is selected for high dynamic resilience and tear resistance; EPDM is selected when outdoor ozone, UV, hot water, or steam exposure would degrade NR. | |
| Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR)General-Purpose Diene Rubbers | Commonly Compared | Natural Rubber (NR)Confidence: HIGH | SBR provides superior dry roadway sliding wear and lower manufacturing cost; NR offers superior tear strength, dynamic resilience, and low-temperature flexibility. | |
| Styrene-Butadiene Rubber (SBR)General-Purpose Diene Rubbers | Nearest Alternative | Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR)Confidence: HIGH | SBR is unsuited for oil-wetted applications; NBR replaces SBR whenever direct exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons, lubricating oils, or diesel fuel occurs. | |
| Chloroprene Rubber (CR / Neoprene)Oil & Fuel Resistant Elastomers | Commonly Compared | Nitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR)Confidence: HIGH | NBR offers superior petroleum oil and fuel resistance; CR provides superior ozone/weathering resistance and flame retardancy. | |
| Chloroprene Rubber (CR / Neoprene)Oil & Fuel Resistant Elastomers | Commonly Compared | Ethylene Propylene Diene Rubber (EPDM)Confidence: HIGH | EPDM provides superior weather/ozone endurance and higher steam resistance; CR provides moderate petroleum oil resistance and self-extinguishing flame properties where EPDM would dissolve or burn. | |
| Butyl Rubber (IIR)Weathering & Chemical Resistant Elastomers | Commonly Compared | Natural Rubber (NR)Confidence: HIGH | IIR provides roughly 10x lower air and gas permeability and superior damping; NR provides far superior rebound resilience and dynamic fatigue life. | |
| Butyl Rubber (IIR)Weathering & Chemical Resistant Elastomers | Commonly Compared | Ethylene Propylene Diene Rubber (EPDM)Confidence: HIGH | Both polymers exhibit good ozone and weather resistance; IIR is chosen for gas and moisture impermeability, while EPDM is chosen for higher temperature continuous steam/hot water service. |