1.4845 vs 1.4841: Which Heat-Resistant Forging Grade Actually Survives Longer in Your Furnace?
Both are 25Cr-20Ni austenitics. Only two elements separate them — silicon and carbon — and those two elements decide which one you pull out of the furnace intact in year seven. Here is the decision, mechanism by mechanism, from a shop that forges both.
Key facts at a glance
- Grades compared
- 1.4845 (X8CrNi25-21 / 310S) and 1.4841 (X15CrNiSi25-21 / 314)
- Governing standard
- EN 10095 — heat resisting steels and nickel alloys
- Max service temperature in air
- 1.4845 — 1050 °C. 1.4841 — 1150 °C. (EN 10095 Table B.2)
- Elements that differ
- Silicon and carbon only. Everything else is identical.
- Silicon
- 1.4845 ≤ 1.50 % with no minimum · 1.4841 1.50–2.50 % mandatory
- Carbon
- 1.4845 ≤ 0.10 % · 1.4841 ≤ 0.20 %
- Identical in both
- Cr 24.0–26.0 %, Ni 19.0–22.0 %, Mn ≤ 2.00 %, N ≤ 0.11 %
- ASME forging route
- 1.4845 — SA-182 F310 / F310H. 1.4841 — none.
- Sigma phase window
- Approximately 550–900 °C. Affects both grades; faster in 1.4841.
- Thermal expansion (20–800 °C)
- Roughly 17–18 × 10-6/K in both. Not a differentiator.
Where each grade stops
Maximum service temperature in air, per EN 10095 Table B.2 (guidance values).
550–900 °C: the sigma-phase precipitation window. Both grades are affected inside this band.
The short answer
If your component sits above 1050 °C, cycles thermally, or breathes a carburising atmosphere, 1.4841 lasts longer. The silicon buys you a silica sub-scale that keeps the chromia layer attached to the metal.
If your component lives between 550 and 900 °C, gets welded, gets inspected, or has to be code-stamped, 1.4845 lasts longer — not because it scales less, but because it stays tougher, stays weldable, and is the only one of the two with an ASME forging route.
Most engineers ask which grade is "better." The grade that survives longer is simply the one whose weakness your furnace does not attack.
Start with the failure mode, not the grade
Framing the decision
Nearly every 1.4845-versus-1.4841 comparison online opens with a chemistry table and a maximum temperature, then declares a winner. That is the wrong order of operations, and it is why plants keep re-ordering the same component every four years.
Heat-resistant forgings almost never fail because someone picked a grade with too low a temperature rating. They fail because a specific degradation mechanism — scale spallation, carbon ingress, sigma embrittlement, sensitised weld metal, sulfur attack — was not on the specifier's radar. Two grades with identical chromium and nickel can differ by a factor of three in service life in one furnace and be indistinguishable in the furnace next to it.
So the useful question is not which grade is stronger at temperature. It is: what is actually eating my component, and which of these two chemistries resists that particular thing? The rest of this article works through the mechanisms one at a time and says plainly who wins each.
The only real difference: two elements
Chemistry
Under EN 10095 the chromium and nickel bands of the two grades are identical. Cr 24.0–26.0 %. Ni 19.0–22.0 %. Manganese, phosphorus, sulfur and nitrogen limits are also the same. Only silicon and carbon move.
| Element | 1.4845 · X8CrNi25-21 | 1.4841 · X15CrNiSi25-21 | Why it moves |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon | ≤ 0.10 | ≤ 0.20 | Creep strength via M23C6 vs. sensitisation risk |
| Silicon | ≤ 1.50 (no min.) | 1.50 – 2.50 | Forms the SiO2 sub-scale |
| Chromium | 24.0 – 26.0 | 24.0 – 26.0 | Identical |
| Nickel | 19.0 – 22.0 | 19.0 – 22.0 | Identical |
| Manganese | ≤ 2.00 | ≤ 2.00 | Identical |
| Nitrogen | ≤ 0.11 | ≤ 0.11 | Identical |
| Nearest ASTM grade | 310S · S31008 | 314 · S31400 | Ranges overlap but do not match |
The silicon myth worth killing
A great deal of published material describes 1.4845 as a "low-silicon" grade and quotes figures around 0.75 %. That is not what the standard says. EN 10095 permits silicon up to 1.50 % in 1.4845 and sets no minimum at all. ASTM A240 for 310S allows the same 1.50 % ceiling.
The practical consequence is real: two heats can both certify as fully compliant 1.4845 and behave measurably differently in a cycling furnace, because one ran 0.35 % Si and the other 1.30 %. If oxidation life matters to you, write a minimum silicon requirement into the purchase order. The grade designation alone will not deliver it. We flag incoming heats by silicon level for exactly this reason.
Mechanism 1 — Isothermal oxidation: a real 100 °C gap
Winner: 1.4841
Table B.2 of EN 10095 gives maximum service temperature in air as 1050 °C for 1.4845 and 1150 °C for 1.4841. That 100 °C is genuine and it comes entirely from silicon.
Both grades build a chromia (Cr2O3) scale — that is what 25 % chromium is for. In 1.4841 the silicon additionally forms a thin, extremely dense silica (SiO2) layer at the metal–oxide interface, underneath the chromia. Silica is a far poorer conductor of oxygen ions and metal cations than chromia is, so it throttles the diffusion that drives further scale growth. The result is a lower parabolic rate constant and less base metal consumed per thousand hours.
Why two datasheets can disagree by 100 °C
North American mill literature routinely lists 310S for continuous service to about 1150 °C, which flatly contradicts the EN figure of 1050 °C. Neither is wrong. They use different acceptance criteria — EN 10095 anchors its number to a specific permissible scaling rate, while US datasheets often quote the temperature at which the alloy remains structurally serviceable. The British Stainless Steel Association sets out the same caution about treating these tables as interchangeable.
If your specification cites EN, design to 1050 °C for the 1.4845 grade. If it cites an ASTM or mill datasheet, get the criterion in writing before you rely on the higher number. This single mismatch causes more specification disputes than any other item in heat-resistant procurement.
Mechanism 2 — Thermal cycling: where the gap widens
Winner: 1.4841, decisively
Steady-state oxidation data flatters both grades, because almost nothing in industry actually runs steady. Furnaces trip. Reformers come down for catalyst change. Heat-treatment fixtures see a full thermal cycle every shift.
Every cycle strains the oxide layer. When scale spalls, fresh metal is exposed and the clock resets at the fast, early-stage oxidation rate rather than the slow parabolic one. Repeated enough times, a component that would have lasted a decade isothermally loses section in three years.
The advantage under cycling is not thermal expansion. It is mechanical keying — the silica sub-scale pins the chromia layer to the substrate.
This is worth stating precisely, because it is frequently misexplained. The mean coefficient of thermal expansion of both grades over 20–800 °C sits in the same region, roughly 17–18 × 10-6/K. There is no meaningful expansion mismatch advantage. What 1.4841 has is an interfacial layer that anchors the scale so it survives the strain instead of shedding it. The mechanism is described in more detail in the Informationsstelle Edelstahl Rostfrei reference on stainless steels at high temperatures.
If you are specifying 1.4841 forgings for furnace rolls, radiant tube supports, burner blocks, quench fixtures or door hardware, this mechanism is the reason — not the headline temperature rating.
Mechanism 3 — Carburisation and coking
Winner: 1.4841
In cracking furnaces, reformer environments and carbon-potential heat-treatment atmospheres, carbon diffuses inward through defects in the oxide, precipitates as internal chromium carbides, and locally strips the matrix of the chromium it needs to keep rebuilding its scale. The alloy embrittles from the inside and then, having lost its chromium reservoir, starts oxidising rapidly.
The same silica sub-scale that resists oxygen ingress resists carbon ingress. This gives 1.4841 a clear edge in any carburising or partially carburising service. Nickel helps both grades — 19–22 % Ni lowers carbon solubility and diffusivity relative to lower-nickel steels — but the sub-scale is the differentiator between these two.
One honest caveat: this advantage is a delay, not immunity. In severe carburisation or metal-dusting service, both grades are the wrong material and the answer is a high-nickel alloy such as Alloy 601 or a cast HP-modified grade.
Mechanism 4 — Sigma phase and the 550–900 °C trap
Winner: 1.4845
Sigma is a hard, brittle Fe–Cr intermetallic that precipitates at grain boundaries in high-chromium austenitics held roughly between 550 °C and 900 °C. At 24–26 % Cr, both grades form it. Neither is immune, and any comparison that claims otherwise is wrong.
But the kinetics differ, and they differ in 1.4845's favour, for two reasons:
- Silicon is a strong sigma promoter. It raises the chromium equivalent and accelerates nucleation. The very element that wins 1.4841 the oxidation argument works against it here.
- Higher carbon means more grain-boundary M23C6, and those carbides act as preferential nucleation sites for sigma once the surrounding matrix chemistry shifts.
Why this matters operationally: a sigma-embrittled forging is usually fine while it stays hot. The damage shows up at ambient. Charpy energy typically reported at 120–180 J in the as-annealed condition can fall below 20 J after tens of thousands of hours in the sigma window. The component then cracks during an emergency cooldown, during rigging at a turnaround, or under a dropped-object impact — long after anyone was thinking about metallurgy.
Design it out, or plan around it
The recovery is straightforward and rarely planned for: re-solution anneal above 1050 °C with rapid cooling dissolves sigma and restores ambient toughness. If your component is removable and your plant has turnaround windows, build this into the maintenance schedule for anything living in the 700–850 °C band, in either grade.
If the component cannot be removed and must retain handling toughness, that argues for 1.4845 forgings even where the peak temperature would nominally favour 1.4841.
Mechanism 5 — Sensitisation, welding and condensate
Winner: 1.4845
This is 1.4845's clearest structural advantage and it follows directly from carbon: 0.10 % maximum against 0.20 %.
When either grade is held in the roughly 450–850 °C range — during welding, during slow cooling of a heavy section, or in service — chromium carbides precipitate on grain boundaries and deplete the adjacent matrix of chromium. In dry high-temperature service that is largely cosmetic. It becomes a failure mechanism the moment aqueous corrodents appear: shutdown condensate, washdown water, acid cleaning, a chloride-bearing dew point. The depleted boundaries then corrode intergranularly and the part disintegrates along its grain structure.
Half the carbon means roughly half the driving force. That is why 1.4845 is the default for welded fabrications, for anything that sees a wet shutdown, and for components subject to an ASTM A262 Practice E acceptance test. 1.4841 is also weldable, but the higher carbon and the elevated silicon — which promotes low-melting-point interdendritic constituents — together raise hot-cracking sensitivity in the weld and widen the sensitised zone beside it.
Practical rule from our shop: if the drawing shows a weld prep and the part will ever be wet, start from 1.4845 and only move up if a mechanism in section 3, 4 or 5 forces you.
The criterion missing from every comparison table: ASME
Often decisive
For pressure-retaining components this frequently ends the discussion before any metallurgy is considered, and it appears in almost no published comparison.
310S and 310H have a direct forging route into the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: SA-182 grades F310 and F310H, with allowable stresses published in Section II Part D. Type 314 — the nearest ASTM analogue to 1.4841 — has no equivalent forging specification and no published allowable stresses.
The consequence is blunt. If your part is a pressure boundary on code-stamped equipment, 1.4841 is not a candidate no matter how well it would perform thermally. It belongs to the world of furnace internals, fixtures, rolls, trays, supports and structural hardware, where no code stamp applies.
Two checks before you commit
Verify against the edition in force. Code listings change. Confirm the current SA-182 grade list and the Section II Part D stress tables with your Authorised Inspector before you write the specification.
For EN-code equipment, ask earlier than you think you need to. Under PED, whether a heat-resistant grade is covered by a harmonised material standard or needs a Particular Material Appraisal is a question for your Notified Body — and getting that answer after the forging is on order is expensive.
What changes on the forge floor
Manufacturing reality
Datasheets stop at the mill. These differences show up in press tonnage, yield and delivery date, and they are the part of the comparison a forge shop is actually qualified to write.
Hot flow stress and press capacity
Silicon raises the flow stress of austenite at forging temperature. For the same section and the same reduction, 1.4841 needs meaningfully more press force than 1.4845. On heavy sections this is not a nuance — a press comfortably sized for 1.4845 can be working at the edge of its envelope on the same geometry in 1.4841. When you are evaluating suppliers for large 1.4841 parts, ask what tonnage they are putting on it and how many reheats the pass schedule assumes.
Hot ductility and finishing temperature
Both grades have a hot ductility trough, but 1.4841's is less forgiving. Finishing below the safe threshold produces surface or sub-surface tearing that may only appear after rough machining or NDT — by which point the value of the part has multiplied. Our practice is contact thermocouple verification on witness pieces, a logged finishing-temperature floor for every pass, and a return to furnace whenever surface temperature drops below the reheat trigger. Press and furnace capability is listed on our equipment page.
Machining
Both grades work-harden aggressively — that is the austenitic penalty. 1.4841 is worse: higher silicon and higher carbon make it more abrasive, and tool life typically drops relative to 1.4845 on the same operation. If your part has high machining content, that difference can outweigh the raw material comparison entirely.
Ultrasonic inspection
Neither grade is easy. Coarse austenitic grain scatters and attenuates the beam, and heavy sections in either material can be difficult to examine to EN 10228-3 Level 3 with conventional single-crystal probes. Plan for low-frequency dual-element or phased-array technique, and — critically — agree the acceptance level and the technique in the purchase order, not after the first scan fails.
Cost and availability: not what people assume
Commercial
A common assumption is that 1.4841 carries a significant alloy premium. It does not, at least not from the chemistry. Both grades carry the same 25Cr-20Ni load, nickel dominates the alloy surcharge, and silicon and carbon are cheap. Raw material cost is close to a wash.
The delivered cost gap comes from three other places:
- Processing. More press capacity, more reheats, tighter temperature discipline, lower machining productivity.
- Availability. 310S is one of the most widely produced heat-resistant grades in the world. 1.4841 is produced by far fewer mills. Ingot lead time is the usual casualty, and it is the reason a 1.4841 schedule can slip where a 1.4845 schedule holds.
- Batch economics. For a one-off or a small qualification batch, the ingot minimum on a less common grade can dominate the whole quotation.
Net effect: for a comparable finished part, expect 1.4841 to land somewhat above 1.4845, with the size of the gap driven by machining content and order quantity rather than by the steel.
Decision matrix
Cross-reference by service condition
| Dominant condition | 1.4845 · 310S | 1.4841 · 314 | Deciding factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuous air, up to 1050 °C | Suitable | Suitable | Both fine — decide on other criteria |
| Continuous air, 1050–1150 °C | Above EN limit | Preferred | EN 10095 scaling limit |
| Above 1150 °C | No | No | Move to Alloy 601 / 800H / cast HK-HP |
| Frequent thermal cycling | Acceptable | Preferred | SiO2 keys the scale on |
| Carburising / coking atmosphere | Acceptable | Preferred | Silica sub-scale delays carbon ingress |
| Long hold 600–900 °C, part gets handled | Preferred | Sigma risk | Si accelerates sigma kinetics |
| Welded fabrication | Preferred | Acceptable | Half the carbon, less hot cracking |
| Wet shutdown / condensate exposure | Preferred | Avoid | Intergranular attack on sensitised HAZ |
| ASME code pressure part | SA-182 F310 / F310H | No route | No listed allowable stresses for 314 |
| Sulfidising gas above ~600 °C | Avoid | Avoid | High Ni is a liability, not an asset |
| Chloride flue gas (WTE, biomass) | Avoid | Avoid | Active oxidation by alkali chlorides |
| Aqueous chloride, ambient | SCC risk | SCC risk | Use duplex or super duplex |
| High machining content | Cheaper | Tool cost | Si and C increase abrasiveness |
| Short lead time required | Better | Fewer mills | Ingot availability |
When both grades are the wrong answer
Know the exits
A supplier who only ever recommends what they happen to stock is not giving you engineering. Four conditions should push you out of the 25Cr-20Ni family entirely:
- Sulfidising atmospheres above roughly 600 °C. This is counter-intuitive and it catches people. High nickel, normally an asset, becomes a liability — nickel-sulfide eutectics melt low, and a high-Ni austenitic can lose section faster than a cheaper, lower-nickel steel in the same gas. Read the sulfur partial pressure before you read the temperature.
- Chlorine or alkali salts in the flue gas — waste-to-energy, some biomass, certain recovery boilers. Alkali chlorides drive active oxidation that neither chromia nor silica reliably resists.
- Peak metal temperature above 1150 °C. Alloy 601, Alloy 800H, or a cast HK/HP grade, depending on whether the part is wrought or cast and whether it is pressure-retaining.
- Aqueous chloride service. Both grades are austenitic and both are susceptible to chloride stress corrosion cracking. That is duplex or super duplex territory, not heat-resistant grade territory.
The verdict
Choose one
Choose 1.4845
X8CrNi25-21 · 310S
- Peak metal temperature stays at or below 1050 °C
- The part is a pressure boundary needing an ASME route
- There are welds, and the part will ever be wet
- Service sits in the 600–900 °C band and the part must be removed, inspected and handled
- Machining content is high
- Schedule is tight and ingot availability matters
- An ASTM A262 Practice E acceptance test is specified
Choose 1.4841
X15CrNiSi25-21 · 314
- Peak metal temperature runs between 1050 and 1150 °C
- The component cycles thermally — every trip, every shift, every campaign
- The atmosphere carries carbon activity or forms coke
- The part is furnace internals or structural hardware, not a code pressure boundary
- Section loss from scale spallation is the observed failure mode on the incumbent part
- The part is not welded, or is welded and then fully solution annealed
Where the two overlap — and they overlap across a wide band of ordinary industrial service — the tiebreaker is rarely metallurgical. It is the code route, the weld map, the machining hours and the delivery date. Those are commercial questions with metallurgical consequences, which is exactly why they should be settled at RFQ stage rather than at first article inspection.
If you want a second opinion on a specific set of operating conditions, send the service data rather than the grade you have been quoting. Our engineering team reviews the mechanism list above against your actual atmosphere, cycle count and inspection regime, and will tell you when the answer is neither grade.
Frequently asked questions
Quick answers
Is 1.4841 always better than 1.4845 at high temperature?
No. EN 10095 gives 1.4841 the higher maximum service temperature in air — 1150 °C against 1050 °C — so it wins on isothermal scaling and on cyclic oxidation. But above roughly 550 °C both grades precipitate sigma phase, and 1.4841 does it faster because silicon accelerates the kinetics.
For a component that lives between 600 and 900 °C and must be removed and handled during turnarounds, 1.4845 usually retains more ambient toughness. Temperature alone does not decide it; the dominant degradation mechanism does.
What is the actual chemical difference between the two grades?
Under EN 10095, chromium (24.0–26.0 %) and nickel (19.0–22.0 %) are identical, as are the manganese, phosphorus, sulfur and nitrogen limits. Only two elements move: silicon is capped at 1.50 % with no minimum in 1.4845 but is a mandatory 1.50–2.50 % range in 1.4841, and carbon is capped at 0.10 % versus 0.20 %.
Every behavioural difference discussed in this article traces back to those two elements.
Can 1.4841 forgings be used for ASME code pressure parts?
Generally no. 310S and 310H forgings have a direct route through SA-182 grades F310 and F310H with allowable stresses published in Section II Part D. Type 314, the nearest analogue to 1.4841, has no matching forging specification and no published allowable stresses, so it cannot normally serve as a code-stamped pressure-retaining part.
1.4841 is specified for non-pressure furnace hardware. Verify against the code edition in force with your Authorised Inspector before finalising the specification.
Which grade is cheaper as a finished forging?
Raw material cost is close to identical — same 25Cr-20Ni load, and nickel dominates the alloy surcharge. The gap comes from processing and availability: 1.4841 has higher hot flow stress so it needs more press capacity and more reheats, it is more abrasive to machine, and fewer mills run it, which lengthens ingot lead time.
In practice a finished 1.4841 part typically lands somewhat above the 1.4845 equivalent, with the size of the gap driven by machining content and quantity rather than by the steel.
Do 1.4845 and 1.4841 have different thermal expansion?
Not meaningfully. Both sit around 17–18 × 10-6/K averaged over 20–800 °C, which is normal for a 25Cr-20Ni austenitic.
This matters because the better scale adhesion of 1.4841 under cycling does not come from a favourable expansion match. It comes from the silica sub-scale mechanically keying the chromia layer to the substrate. Getting that mechanism right changes how you predict behaviour in a new atmosphere.
Should I specify silicon content when ordering 1.4845?
Yes, if oxidation life matters. EN 10095 permits up to 1.50 % silicon in 1.4845 but sets no minimum, and typical mill heats run well below the ceiling. Two heats can both certify as compliant and behave differently in a cycling furnace.
If you want the upper part of the range, write a minimum silicon requirement into the purchase order. The grade designation alone will not deliver it.
When should I abandon both grades and move to a nickel alloy?
Four triggers: peak metal temperature above about 1150 °C in air; strongly sulfidising atmospheres above roughly 600 °C, where high nickel becomes a liability rather than an asset; flue gas carrying chlorine or alkali salts, as in waste-to-energy plant; and carburisation severe enough that even the silica sub-scale cannot hold.
Typical destinations are Alloy 601, Alloy 800H, or a cast HK or HP grade, depending on whether the part is wrought, cast or pressure-retaining.
Glossary
Terms used in this article
- Chromia scale (Cr2O3)
- The protective chromium oxide layer that forms on high-chromium steels at elevated temperature. It is the primary diffusion barrier against oxygen and the reason 24–26 % chromium is specified in both grades.
- Silica sub-scale (SiO2)
- A thin, dense silicon dioxide layer that forms beneath the chromia scale in silicon-bearing grades such as 1.4841. It further slows oxygen and metal ion diffusion and mechanically anchors the chromia layer to the substrate, improving resistance to spallation under thermal cycling.
- Sigma phase (σ)
- A hard, brittle Fe–Cr intermetallic that precipitates at grain boundaries in high-chromium austenitic steels held roughly between 550 °C and 900 °C. It severely reduces ambient-temperature toughness. Dissolved by re-solution annealing above 1050 °C followed by rapid cooling.
- Sensitisation
- Precipitation of chromium carbides on grain boundaries in the approximate range 450–850 °C, depleting chromium in the adjacent matrix and leaving the material susceptible to intergranular corrosion when aqueous corrodents are present.
- Carburisation
- Inward diffusion of carbon from a carbon-bearing atmosphere, forming internal chromium carbides that embrittle the alloy and consume the chromium reservoir needed to maintain the protective oxide scale.
- Metal dusting
- An aggressive form of carburisation attack in strongly carburising gas at roughly 400–800 °C, which disintegrates the alloy into a dust of metal particles and carbon.
- Scale spallation
- Detachment of the protective oxide layer from the metal surface, typically caused by strain during thermal cycling. Each spallation event exposes fresh metal and resets oxidation to its fast early-stage rate.
- Solution annealing (+AT)
- Heating an austenitic stainless steel forging to approximately 1050–1150 °C and cooling rapidly, to dissolve carbides and sigma phase and return the material to a homogeneous austenitic condition.
- Hot ductility trough
- A temperature range in which an alloy has locally reduced ductility during hot working. Finishing a forging inside this range can cause tearing that may only become visible after machining or NDT.
- Parabolic rate constant
- The coefficient describing diffusion-controlled oxide growth, where scale thickness increases with the square root of time. A lower value means slower long-term metal loss.
Standards and sources
Standards referenced
- EN 10095 — Heat resisting steels and nickel alloys: composition limits and, in Table B.2, maximum service temperatures in air (guidance values).
- ASTM A240 / A240M — Chromium and chromium-nickel stainless steel plate, sheet and strip: 310S composition limits.
- ASTM A182 / ASME SA-182 — Forged or rolled alloy and stainless steel pipe flanges, forged fittings, valves and parts for high-temperature service: grades F310 and F310H.
- ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II Part D — maximum allowable stress values. Verify against the edition in force.
- EN 10228-3 — Non-destructive testing of steel forgings: ultrasonic testing of ferritic and austenitic steel forgings.
- ASTM A262 Practice E — Detecting susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenitic stainless steels.
- EN 10204 — Metallic products: types of inspection documents (3.1 and 3.2 mill test certificates).
Further reading
- British Stainless Steel Association — Maximum service temperatures in air for stainless steels
- Informationsstelle Edelstahl Rostfrei — Stainless steels at high temperatures (PDF)
- MakeItFrom — EN 1.4845 (X8CrNi25-21) property summary
Trademark notice: Inconel® is a registered trademark of Special Metals Corporation. Alloy 601 is used here as a generic alloy designation. Jiangsu Liangyi Co., Limited is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or a licensee of Special Metals Corporation, Haynes International, Carpenter Technology, or any other trademark holder named in this article. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Values quoted are specification limits and published guidance figures intended for material selection. They are not a substitute for the governing standard or for a project-specific engineering assessment. Actual forging properties are confirmed on the mill test certificate for each heat.
Notes, trademarks and disclaimers
Standards
Composition limits, temperature values and test-method references in this article are summarised from the standards named, for material-selection guidance only. They are not reproductions of those standards and are not a substitute for them. The governing text is the current edition of the relevant standard, obtainable from CEN, ASTM International and ASME.
Certification and code status
Jiangsu Liangyi Co., Limited holds ISO 9001:2015 certification (certificate number [INSERT NUMBER], issued by [INSERT CERTIFICATION BODY]). We do not hold the ASME Certification Mark, an API Monogram licence, or approval as a PED Notified Body, and we make no such claim.
We manufacture forgings to customer drawings and purchase specifications that may reference ASME, API, PED or other code requirements, and we supply the material and documentation those routes call for. Code stamping, conformity assessment and CE marking of finished equipment remain the responsibility of the equipment manufacturer and its chosen certifying body. References to ASME SA-182, Section II Part D and similar documents in this article describe the status of the materials, not of this company.
Trademarks
Inconel® and Incoloy® are registered trademarks of Special Metals Corporation. Hastelloy® is a registered trademark of Haynes International, Inc. Nitronic® is a registered trademark of Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. Jiangsu Liangyi Co., Limited is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by any of these companies. Where such names appear on this website they are used only to identify the corresponding alloy composition, which we supply under its generic UNS, EN or ASTM designation.
Technical content
Values given are indicative and intended for initial material selection. The properties of any individual forging are those stated on its mill test certificate. Nothing in this article constitutes an engineering design, a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, or a guarantee of service life.