Your comparing apples to oranges. ASTM A 29 1010 is a chemical composition specification for low carbon steel, whereas, ASTM A 36 is a specification for carbon structural steel. The ASTM A 36 contains higher carbon content, and will have higher stregnth properties in comparison to product forms supplied as 1010 (which contains lower carbon content).
I would say that a 1020 carbon steel would put you in the ball park in terms of strength properties similar to an ASTM A36 carbon structural steel. Notice I said similar not equivalent.
springhanger,
One selects a steel according to the application and codes.
Otherwise, it's like buying clothes for an unknown person in an unknown climate. You can get high strength very cheaply with a quenched carbon steel, but it will be exceedingly brittle. Read about the comparison of the Titanic's plate steel with 1018 steel & A36 steel. Note especially the chart of impact strength vs. temperature.
metengr, your point of apples to oranges is well taken but if my memory serves, ball park is stretching it a bit for 1020 vs A36. 1020 I think has only about 24ksi min Yield vs 36ksi for A36. This "yields" a 1.5:1 ratio.
metman;
I don't know how familiar you are with steel plate grades and chemical compositions in ASTM. If the OP wanted to use low carbon steel plate, in lieu of ASTM A36, there are several choices for structural applications (where the carbon content ranges from 0.15 up to 0.28%).
As mentioned above, when it comes to selecting one or more suitable grades of steel plate or rounds for a specific application, there are numerous factors that must be considered. This is why I chose my words carefully to not say "equivalent".
metman re your statement "1020 I think has only about 24ksi min Yield." 1020 is only a composition. It is available cold worked, hot rolled, Q+T, normalized, etc.
To illustrate using data from MatWeb for 1022 [1023 has the highest C content < 0.25 wt% C limit of A36 steel, but is less available than 1022 or 1020]. AISI condition YS, psi elongation
1022 annealed at 870°C (1600°F). 45700 35%
1022 as rolled 52200 35%
1022 normalized at 925°C (1700°F). 52200 34%
1022 hot rolled, 19-32 mm round. 34100 23%
1022 cold drawn, 19-32 mm round. 58000 15%
1022 heat treated, reheated to 800°C, 25 mm round 50800 31.5%
1022 normalized at 925°C, air cooled, 25 mm round 52200 34%
1022 annealed 870°C, cooled 17°C/hr to 675°C, air cooled, 25 mm round 45700 35%
1022 heat treated, quenched from pot, 13.7 mm round 60200 30%
1022 cold rolled, 25 mm (1 in.) round 52200 33%
1022 mock carburized at 910°C for 8 hours, 775°C reheat, water quenched, 175°C temper, 25 mm round 55100 25.5%
Thus, 1022 in some treatments meets most A36 room temperature property requirements such as YS 36000 psi min & elongation 20-23% (varies w. size).
But, A36 limits method of steel production (killed or semi-killed) & limits Si to 0.40% max. Supplemental Requirements S5 may require impact tests at lower temperature & S97.1 prohibits using rimmed or capped steel.
So, 1018, 1020, 1022 are "not equivalent" to A36. AS Tim Foecke of NIST, author of the Titanic metallurgy report wrote:
"A36 steel, which is chemically nearly identical to AISI 1018 used in the microstructural comparison, but has a more specialized microstructure. Using 20 ft-pounds (27 J.) for the determination of the ductile-brittle transition temperature, the author [5]obtains a transition temperature of -15oC for the modern A36 steel,"
Whether a plain carbon steel can be substituted for A36 depends upon the unspecified application & governance.
