FE-PL45 Steel Chemical Compostion? 3

[Kenneth]

If someone could post the chemical composition limits for "FE-PL45" Steel (per DIN Standard EN 3330), I would really appreciate it. I have ordered an english language translation of the complete document through my company, but I'm afraid it will be some time before I get it. I've searched the usual places without success...

Thanks!

 

[TVP]

Kenneth,

Can you check on that DIN EN standard again? I cannot find any reference to that document.

What I did find in Stahlschluessel was the following:

FE-PL 45 being referenced as a grade from AECMA

The DIN equivalent being Werkstoff # 1.7220

The symbolic nomenclature being G34CrMo4 or GS-34 CrMo 4

The DIN standard in which this grade appears is DIN 17205 QUENCHED AND TEMPERED STEEL CASTINGS FOR GENERAL APPLICATIONS; TECHNICAL DELIVERY CONDITIONS

Chemical composition as follows:

C = 0.30-0.37
Mn = 0.50-0.80
Si = 0.60 max
P = 0.020 max
S = 0.015 max
Cr = 0.80-1.20
Mo = 0.20-0.30

 

[Kenneth]

A search for "DIN EN 3330" at

http://www2.din.de/index.php?lang=en

(or IHS) will bring it up.

TVP: Thank you very much for your help!

 

[TVP]

Kenneth,

I found the reference to this standard using the DIN/Beuth site, but could not find it using Global or IHS. This is most likely because it is only a draft standard, not a fully approved one, but I tried every conceivable permutation, and could not find it. Anyway, glad you found my reply helpful. Keep up the good work yourself.

 

[Kenneth]

My access to IHS is via a company internal intranet hookup, where I can see summary info for "DIN DIN EN 3300", but as my company doesn't "subscribe" to this "series", I don't have access to the document itself. I just tried to find it via the external IHS web and couldn't either.

I think your take on the draft nature of the standard is correct. The only other refernce I could find was to a "prEN 3330" (a "pr" draft). The apparent draft nature of the document hasn't stoped someone from proposing to include it as a material option on a "NAS" fastener standard however...

Thanks again.

 

[yates]

Kenneth,
AECMA is the body responsible for EN standards. EN3330 is a pr EN, pr meaning project. This in not a draft however, standard has been fully approved and is available to the public. This is a common steel used in aerospace fasteners. Another AECMA publication TR3775 (Bolts -equivalent materials) gives as an equivalent AISI 8740 or 4340, S147 or S154 to BS.S100, depending on what strength grade you need and what country you're in. By the way, new designation (since 1993) is FE-PL 1503.

 

[Kenneth]

Thanks for the information, yates. I still haven't received the prEN 3330 document. Do you know if the "FE-PL 1503" designation has replaced "FE-PL45" as the material called out in the current revision of prEN 3330 (

http://www.aecma-stan.org/standards/Qstandards.asp?RecNo=3255),

or is this material designation invoked/defined in TR3775 (

http://www.aecma-stan.org/standards/Qstandards.asp?RecNo=4168)?

Am I correct in interpreting your post as saying that a "FE-PL45" "material" callout on a part standard would not, in itself, limit material to single, specific alloy/chemistry?

While I must profess my ignorance of European standards bodies and the specifics of approval process for standards generated by them, I believe I was correct in referring to this document as a "draft" (albeit a published, publically available, and -- perhaps? -- "final draft&quot. See the AECMA's own definition of the "prEN" prefix at

http://www.aecma.org/Publications/glossary/gp.htm

and the CEN’s at

http://www.cenorm.be/helpers/about/acronyms.htm)

A review of the AECMA-STAN process flow at the AECMA site(

http://www.aecma-stan.org/standards/general_process.html

and

http://www.aecma-stan.org/standards/docum/Process_Manual_Issue_3.pdf

-- see Table 1 on the bottom of page 14) also seems to support this. I have also seen the "prEN" prefix identified on various European sites as "preliminary" or "provisional" in addition to "draft". A "prEN" is apparently considered a "draft" until such time as it is formally approved by the CEN members as a "EN" Standard, or it is "withdrawn for the following reasons:

availability of the relevant national implemented EN standard (BS EN, NF EN, DIN EN etc ..);

modifications of the technical content affecting Interchangeability;

unsatisfactory results when attempting to apply the standard."

The fact that "DIN EN 3330 " (with a 1991 publication date) is still listed as a "draft" at

http://www2.din.de/index.php?lang=en

tells me that the European Standards Organizations apparently don't work any faster than their American counterparts ...

 

[yates]

Kenneth,
Yes, all old AECMA material designations were changed in 1993 (see old/new table in TR3900) most of the relevant call-outs in specs have not yet been changed however. Theoretically, FE-PL1503 (or old FE-PL45) is defined only by relevant EN spec. The TR 3775 equivalence just tells you what your customer is likely to accept as an alternative if you ask him, since these 'equivalent' materials were those in use in each AECMA member country before EN specs ever existed.Specifying FE-PL 45 is not enough - in my business(bolts) the only EN spec useable for this material is EN 2446 (1100 MPa or 160 ksi)and may not necessarily have the same chemistry or characteristics as EN 3330 (of which I do not have a copy unfortunately - it appears to be a cast material from what TVP says). So, if your customer actually specified EN 3330, then all this info I'm giving you is irrelevant anyway, you're stuck with that spec.
I sit on AECMA-STAN committees and am afraid to say that the process of getting pr EN's adopted by CEN into full-blooded EN's is indeed very slow, whcih is why nobody really takes any notice if a 'pr' creeps into the spec number.

 

[Kenneth]

Yates,

Thanks for the wealth of information! The situation I am faced with is that a proposal has been made to add a material option callout of "FE-PL45 with chemistry per EN3330" via a "ten day letter" to an existing NASC (AIA) nut standard drawing. In reviewing the proposed change for comment, I'm having a heck of a time figuring out what exactly that callout entails without having a copy of the specification in front of me...

Thanks again!