Materials / Compare
Stainless 17-4PH vs. Zinc Zamak 3
Compare Stainless 17-4PH vs. Zinc Zamak 3 strength, stiffness, weight and thermal properties.
| Try it on a partA bracket to run stress or thermal on, free in your browser | Open in LessCAD | Open in LessCAD |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | ||
| Yield strength | 1,275MPasourcetypical, transverse, sheet/strip | 221MPasourcetypical |
| Ultimate tensile strength | 1,379MPasourcetypical, transverse, sheet/strip | 283MPasourcetypical |
| Elongation at break | 9%sourcetypical, transverse, in 2 in. (50.8 mm) | 10%sourcetypical, in 2 in. |
| Young's modulus (stiffness) | 197GPasourceH 900 | 85.5GPasourcetypical |
| Density | 7,800kg/m³sourceH 900 | 6,600kg/m³sourcetypical |
| Strength to weight | 163kN·m/kg4.88x higher | 33.5kN·m/kg |
| Stiffness to weight | 25.3MN·m/kg1.95x higher | 13MN·m/kg |
| Poisson's ratio | 0.272sourceH 900 (column) | 0.27sourcetypical, Zamak 3 hot-chamber die cast |
| Shear modulus | 77.4GPa2.3x stiffer in shear | 33.7GPa |
| Bulk modulus | 144GPa | 62GPa |
| Speed of sound | 5,026m/s | 3,599m/s |
| Thermal | ||
| Thermal conductivity | 17.9W/m·Ksourceat 149 °C (300 °F), H 900 | 113W/m·Ksourcetypical |
| Thermal expansion | 10.8µm/m·Ksourcemean, 21–93 °C (70–200 °F), H 900 | 27.4µm/m·Ksourcetypical |
| 100 mm part over a 50 °C swing | 54µm growth2.54x less | 137µm growth |
| Specific heat | 460J/kg·Ksourcemean, 0–100 °C, H 900 | 419J/kg·Ksourcetypical |
| Heats up and cools (diffusivity) | 4.99mm²/s | 40.9mm²/s8.2x faster |
| Thermal shock resistance | 7,809W/m | 7,782W/m |
| Melting point | not sourced | 381–387°Csourcemelting range |
| Max service temperature | 316°Csourcestrength-retention limit (not oxidation) | not sourced |
| Values for | Cleveland-Cliffs 17-4 PH, Condition H 900, sheet/strip, transverse (Product Data Bulletin, May 2021) | Zamak 3 (ASTM B86 die cast), Nathan Trotter (zinc alloy producer) technical data sheet, typical values |
Every value links to the document that states it. "Not sourced" means no citable source states it (or only a specification minimum); figures computed from it are left out too.
Questions
Is Stainless 17-4PH stronger than Zinc Zamak 3?
Stainless 17-4PH is stronger: its yield strength is 1,275 MPa against 221 MPa for Zinc Zamak 3 (5.77x).
Which is lighter, Stainless 17-4PH or Zinc Zamak 3?
Zinc Zamak 3 is lighter: 6,600 kg/m³ against 7,800 kg/m³ for Stainless 17-4PH.
Which is stiffer, Stainless 17-4PH or Zinc Zamak 3?
Stainless 17-4PH is stiffer: Young's modulus 197 GPa against 85.5 GPa for Zinc Zamak 3, so the same part in Stainless 17-4PH deflects less under the same load.
Which is lighter for the same job, Stainless 17-4PH or Zinc Zamak 3?
For the same stiffness or strength: Stainless 17-4PH is lighter for a stiff rod or tie (tension), stiff beam (bending), stiff panel or plate, strong rod or tie, strong beam, strong panel or plate.
| Part that must be | Stainless 17-4PH | Zinc Zamak 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Stiff rod or tie (tension) | lighter | 1.95x heavier |
| Stiff beam (bending) | lighter | 28% heavier |
| Stiff panel or plate | lighter | 12% heavier |
| Strong rod or tie | lighter | 4.88x heavier |
| Strong beam | lighter | 2.72x heavier |
| Strong panel or plate | lighter | 2.03x heavier |
For the same stiffness or strength, mass scales with density over stiffness (or strength) raised to a power set by how the part is loaded: 1 for a rod in tension, 1/2 for a beam in bending, 1/3 for a panel (the standard material-selection indices).
Which conducts heat better, Stainless 17-4PH or Zinc Zamak 3?
Zinc Zamak 3 conducts heat better: 113 W/m·K against 17.9 W/m·K for Stainless 17-4PH.
Which expands less with temperature?
Stainless 17-4PH expands less: 10.8 µm/m·K against 27.4 µm/m·K for Zinc Zamak 3.