Testing Methods and Techniques in Materials Science Hardness testing

Piotr Kalaczyski March 22, 2013

Introduction
One of the most important mechanical properties of metals is their hardness. It is a measure of a material's resistance to local plastic deformation. The rst hardness scale was Mohs scale, based on a comparison between the hardness of dierent materials and the fact that the harder one could not be scratched by the second one. The scale started with talc (1) and ended with diamond (10). In order to obtain some more precise information on the material, several quantitative methods were devised. They are all based on the comparison of indentation results with the applied force. Among them we distinguish 4 basic ones: Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers, and Knoop. The last two are used to measure microhardness. Every technique has some limited range in which it can be applied, however if we are in the common range for dierent hardness types, we can translate between them and compare the hardness measured in dierent conditions. It is of course just an approximation and such comparison does not oer very good precission. Another characteristic features of each method are the indenter used and the formula for hardness number. For Brinell we used a 10 mm sphere made either of steel or tungsten carbide. The hardness number can be P where P is the applied load, D is the diameter of the ball and d is the diameter calculated from HB = D D2 D 2 d2 ] [ of the indent. Vickers hardness test uses a diamon pyramid with equal sides and an angle of 136 between its arms. The P hardness formula is HV =1.854 d 2 where d1 is the diagonal of the indent. 1 In the case of Knoop method we also use a diamond pyramid, but this time a non-symmetric one with following l proportions: b = 7.11, b t = 4.00 where l is the longer diagonal of the indent , b is the shoreter one and t is the P depth. The formula is HK =14.2 l 2. In the Rockwell method either a diamond cone with an angle of 120 between opposite edges or a steel sphere 1 1 1 with diameter 16 , 1 8 , 4 or 2 inches is employed. For the rst option we may apply three dierent weigths: 60, 100 or 150 kg and it is simply called Rockwell test. The second one is so-called Supercial Rockwell test and we use there either 15 or 30 or 45 kg.

Procedure
In the rst hardness test type  Brinell hardness test we used a ball indenter to investigate the hardness. After the indentation, knowing the force we applied, we had simply to calculate the surface area, which in our case was actually done by the machine and the only thing we were doing was controlling via the microscope if the selected area is proper. After conrming it, we recieved the full data with hardness in HB, the average hardness for performed measurements, standard deviation and some more. For Rockwell hardness the procedure was a little bit less automatic, since the machine did not count anything nor showed any image of the surface. We indented our surface with a diamond cone loaded initially with 1000N and with 1500N during the indentation. Since the equipment was analogue, we had to read the hardness value from the scale. Finally, the Vickers method was quite similar, however we used a diamond pyramind with a load of 10N. There was also a dierence in the second part of the measurement, after the indentation, namely we had to determine the diameter of the indent in order to compare it with the tables and get the hardness. We achieved this using a special metallographic microscope with a scale, allowing us to read this value (in microns).

Results
We performed our rst test series on the austenitic stainless steel 304. We measured its hardness in the Brinell scale, obtaining the following results: Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hardness [HB] 249 265 240 239 250 245 249 Table 1: Austenitic steel 304, Brinell The average hardness for our sample thus is (2484)HB. Next we tested one of the samples which we prepared during the previous laboratory. It was made of High speed steel (HSS). The results look as follows: Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hardness [HB] 221 215 224 235 240 228 Table 2: HSS, Brinell The average hardness is (2274)HB. Afterwards we tested another samples which we prepared during the previous laboratory, but this time we performed Rockwell tests, obtaining following results: Measurement 1 2 3 4 Hardness [HRC] 17 18 19 18 Table 3: HSS, Rockwell The average hardness is (181)HRC. The initial load used was 1000N and the indentaion load was 1500N. Then we investigated a given, harder HSS, namely tool steel M4 (sintered one) with the same method: Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hardness [HRC] 64 65 64 65 65 65 Table 4: M4, Rockwell Our averaged result from this one is (651)HRC. 2

Next we proceeded to Vickers hardness tests with load of 10N. The rst specimen we investigated was an another one prepared by us. We obtained the following data: Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 Hardness [HV1] 266 273 260 248 239 Table 5: HSS, Vickers The average hardness  (2577)HV1. Finally we measured the Vickers hardness of the M4 sample: Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hardness [HV1] 1131 916 962 1008 1003 873 Table 6: M4, Vickers The average of the results from the table is (98040)HV1.

Conclusions
Having analysed the results and compared them using hardness conversion table [1], one can denitely conclude that these hardness methods are really more comparative, than absolute. One can arrive e.g. at a contradiction while comparing the hardness of exatly the same material measured in two dierent scales, say tool steel M4. According to the reference [5] it should be at around 65 HRC. We measured it to be indeed 65 HRC, however when we investigated the same sample with Vickers method we got approximately 980 HV1, which gives us hardness above 68 HRC after conversion. It is quite close, of course, but as we can see the results are not identical and it is always a better idea to compare measurements done using the same method, since it improves the reliability of our estimation. We can make similar comparison for the material we were preparing during the laboratory exercise 1. We actually used dierent samples for dierent testing mehods, however it was still the same material. We found it to have hardness 227 HB, 18 HRC (214 HB) and 257 HV1 (244 HB). Again, the results are similar, but reveal some deviations. Comparing all the materials one can denitely state that the hardest one was HSS M4. What concerns the measurements, there is one thing that one should always consider while choosing a method. Sizes of an indenter and of the grains must be in proper proportion, i.e. the indenter must be several times bigger than the single grain. It is because we always want to measure the more or less average hardness of the material, not the hardness of a particular grain.

References
[1] http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-hardness.htm, 18.03.2013 [2] http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=1748ca73d11e4353b2aa700bfb119dfb&ckck=1, 18.03.2013 [3] http://www.tribology-abc.com/calculators/hardness.htm, 18.03.2013

[4] Callister William D., Jr., Fundamentals 2001.

of Materials Science and Engineering, eigth edition, John Wiley & Sons The science and engineering of materials,
sixth

[5] Askeland Donald R., Fulay Pradeep P., Wright Wendelin J., edition, Cengage Learning 2010.

[6] http://www.crucibleservice.com/eselector/general/generalpart1.html, 18.03.2013