Request Material Grade Standard Convertion from UNI to AISI

This is not something to be taken lightly. Fe37,St37,42CrMo4,4140,40CrMo4 are all 'nominal' equivalents. 4140 is the common U.S.A. designation, the 4140 H designation offers a wider chemical range to better provide for meeting the hardenability requirements. Milo

Hi Milo,

may I know what is the meaning of 'nominal' equivalent? can you explain it detailly?

besides, isn't 4140 is a molybdenum steel?how does it related to Fe 37 which definitely is a iron alloy?

The equivalent quality - you have to compare through:"Stahlschlussel"

The Fe-37 quality,is used for steel tubes (C<=0.20% ;P/S<=0.045%) equivalent to;

WrNr:1.0315 The nearest UNS (USA;Unifying Numbering System) - is:K00100

The nearby equivalent;Fe 37-3 (Wr.Nr:1.0116)

- has US STD equivalent : ASTM-A570,Gr:36,C

Hopefully this will satisfy....

Jacob's answer "The Fe-37 quality,is used for steel tubes (C<=0.20% ;P/S<=0.045%)" is correct.

Chemical Composition

I erred in my response when I mis read an adjacent table on an online link which gave a false equivalency. (I was not at work)

I have confirmed with Stahlschlussel that 1.0315 is captioned ST37.8 and is close to the requirement at 0.17 max carbon. however that does not at all match the spirit of the K00100 UNS spec cited.

Continuing my word of Caution:

K00100 is Different from the >0.20 max carbon chemistry cited ; K00100 is enameling steel of the analysis 0.008 C max, 0.60 max Mn, 0.040 Sulfur Max. It is cross referenced to ASTM A 424 enamelling steel. 0.008 C is a far cry from 0.20 max!!!

The consideration of 1.0116 St 37-3 is similar to the 1.0315 Chemistry cited except implies aluminum fine grain. Stating that it is equivalent to ASTM A 570 Gr 36,C is not helpful since That specification was withdrawn in 2000.

When I say Nominal equivalent, I mean that the performance implied by the measured/ defined characteristics would be generally expected by a metallurgist to have substantial overlap rather than be two separate distributions. There is no way that the K00100 for example, is a nominal equivalent of the 0.17Max Carbon steel given the Carbon differences.

I apologize for the confusion my earlier post provided, and continue to advise caution regarding decisions for 'Steel equivalency' based solely on the published chemistry. Thermal treatment, cold work, grainsize and a host of other factors are ignored at the peril of performance in mnaufacture and end use by such decisions.

Milo

Dear MILO

Was quite astonished that ASTM-A570 was withdrawn,but it doesn't matter - you can acquire steel products under this Standard anyway

The problem of compatibility between European and American STD is based on

their assignation versus designation purposes

As so Fe 37 is designed for carbon steels with UTS of;37 >=kgf/mmsq this is based

mostly on Carbon Equivalent function - and steels comparison derived accordingly

My proposal is to use ASTM-A1008 Equivalent,with appropriate chemical compatibility