MATERIALS Q&A BYDONBUSH
QUESTION:
Are there any issues
regarding conversion of
hardness from one method or
scale to another?
ANSWER:
In one simple word, yes. Hardness is
not a fundamental property of a material. In other words, it is not a property
like density or elastic modulus. In the
case of fundamental properties, conversion factors from one scale to
another (such as from pounds per cubic
inch to grams per cubic centimeter for
density, or pounds per square inch to
megapascals for tensile strength)
involve simple unit conversion that can
be as accurate as necessary depending
on the number of significant digits used
in the conversion factor.
in a variety of different manners. For
example, Brinell testing involves using
a very high load (usually 3000 kgf) to
load a 1 cm tungsten carbide ball into
the part, measuring the indentation
and calculating the hardness based on
an equation. Vickers testing is similar,
except it indents the specimen with a
square-based diamond pyramid using
loads usually ranging from 1 gf to 30
kgf. Rockwell testing uses a round-based conical diamond indenter (A, C
and N scales) or a spherical tungsten
carbide indenter (B, F and T scales),
and loads the material in two stages
(minor and major loads). The differential penetration of the indenter between
the minor and major loads is measured
and used to determine the Rockwell
hardness.
Indentation hardness readings are
cations that hardness conversion is not
as straightforward as one would like to
believe. Paragraphs 6. 1 through 6. 3
also include a number of cautionary
statements regarding conversions.
Conversion of readings from one scale to
another or one method to another should be
performed only when absolutely necessary,
and with great care and consideration.
1. 12 Conversion of hardness values
should be used only when it is impossible
to test the material under the conditions
specified, and when conversion is made it
should be done with discretion and under
controlled conditions. Each type of
hardness test is subject to certain
errors, but if precautions are carefully
observed, the reliability of hardness
readings made on instruments of the
indentation type will be found comparable. Differences in sensitivity within
the range of a given hardness scale
(for example, Rockwell B) may be
greater than between two different
scales or types of instruments. The
conversion values, whether from the tables
or calculated from the equations, are only
approximate and may be inaccurate for
specific application. 1
The following examples using the
tables in ASTM E140 show that hardness conversion is a very risky business:
The word “hardness” is usually used
in reference to indentation hardness,
which is the resistance of metal to plastic deformation by indentation. Indentation hardness may be measured by a
number of different hardness test
methods, including Brinell, Rockwell,
Vickers, comparison and ultrasonic
contact impedance (UCI) testers, as
discussed in the previous column
(Spring 2008, page 60). Indentation
hardness is also sometimes determined
by using a rebound hardness method
(such as a Leeb tester) and converting
the value to one of the indentation
hardness scales.
Unfortunately, these test methods
produce and measure the indentations
affected to various degrees by the fundamental properties of the material
being tested, such as the elastic modulus, the yield strength and the work-hardening coefficient. Since the indentation methods are different, the
various methods are measuring different combinations of these factors. This
makes correlation of hardness readings
taken with various methods difficult,
even when only one material is
involved.
This fact does not seem to be well-recognized in industry, but is known
among hardness testing experts. For
example, the following paragraph,
extracted from ASTM E140-07
(emphasis added), provides strong indi-
In Table 1 (Approximate Hardness Conversion Numbers for
Non-Austenitic Steels [Rockwell
C Hardness Range]), 248 Vickers is “equivalent” to 61.5 Rockwell “A”. In Table 2 (
Approximate Hardness Conversion
Numbers for Non-Austenitic
Steels [Rockwell B Hardness
Range]), Rockwell A 61.5 is
“equivalent” to 240 Vickers.
Which is correct?
In Table 2, 240 Brinell is equal
to 240 Vickers, but in Table 1,
240 Brinell is equal to 251 Vickers (by interpolation). Which is
correct?