http://www.smf.phy.cam.ac.uk/Publications/Strength%20papers/717StrWalleyMST28.

pdf

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

S. M. Walley*
Although it has been known for thousands of years that materials differ in hardness, quantitative methods of measuring hardness by performing careful indentation experiments only began to be developed during the nineteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, hardness testing machines began to be commercially available. The methods that have persisted to this day may be divided into two broad categories: (1) those where a hardened steel ball or cone is pressed into a surface under a known load; and (2) those where sharp diamonds of various shapes are pressed into a surface also under a known load. An issue that has long been of interest is the relation of hardness to simpler measures of material strength, particularly the tensile strength. The review will cover the development of the various static and dynamic techniques and their subsequent application to a wide range of materials.
Keywords: Hardness testing, Reviews, Historical development, Indentation, Brinell, Knoop, Vickers, Berkovich, Hertz, Martens, de Re aumur, Shore scleroscope, Rockwell, Meyer

Deep history
It has long been known that some substances are harder than others in that one substance may scratch or cut another but not the reverse. The earliest references to this phenomenon I have been able to nd so far is from the Hebrew prophets (quotations from the English Standard Version): The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart. Jeremiah 17: 1 (seventh century BC) Like emery harder than flint have I made your forehead. Ezekiel 3: 9 (seventh century BC) They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Zechariah 7: 12 (sixth century BC) As in any history, there has to be a cutoff. This I chose to be the 1950s, the decade in which David Tabor published his famous book The Hardness of Metals1 as well as a number of inuential journal papers.25 The writing of this present historical account would have been much more difcult, and probably impossible, without the excellent bibliography put together by Williams in 1942.6 I also acknowledge the excellent historical overviews of all forms of hardness investigations published by Kohn in 19527 and ONeill in 1934 (second edition 1967).8,9 According to Todhunter10 writing in the 1890s, the earliest reported study of the hardness of materials was

Fracture and Shock Physics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK *Corresponding author, email SMW14@cam.ac.uk

by Huygens in his Traite de la Lumie ` re (Leyden, 1690) in which he describes differences in the scratching of Iceland Spar by a knife held at two different angles to the sliding direction.11,12 Huygens interpreted the double refraction of light in this crystalline material in terms of it consisting of attened spheroids. His mechanical experiments with the knife were performed with a view to conrming this hypothesis. Todhunter also helpfully surveys other studies on hardness up to around 1860 and found that they were mostly concerned with minerals, one exception being a Dutch investigator (Musschenbroek) who reported in 1729 that he had used a chisel attached to a pendulum to study the dynamic hardnesses of various woods and metals. After the invention of the telescope and microscope, it became necessary to polish glass lenses to high precision. As a result of doing this, Isaac Newton noticed and wrote in his Opticks that metal is more difcult to polish than glass,13,14 but as Newton himself realised there were a number of reasons why this is so (if the difference were simply due to hardness, the opposite would be true). Detailed descriptions of how to polish metallic mirrors for telescopes were given later in the eighteenth century by Mudge15 and also early in the nineteenth century by Cecil.16 The use of diamonds in machining was described by Wollaston in 1816.17 The anisotropy of diamond was reported by Charles Babbage in 183218 as follows: An experienced workman, on whose judgement I can rely, informed me that he had seen a diamond ground with diamond powder on a cast-iron mill for three hours without it being at all worn, but that, changing its direction with reference to the grinding surface, the same edge was ground down. Mohs19 is widely credited with the idea of a relative and graded scale for the abrasive hardness of minerals. However, Todhunter10 pointed out that at least two

2012 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute Received 23 August 2011; accepted 23 December 2011 DOI 10.1179/1743284711Y.0000000127

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

1 Schematic diagram of Newtons cradle arrangement used by Hodgkinson in the 1830s21 to investigate relative dynamic hardness of range of materials

other researchers, Werner (in Germany) and Hau y (in France) had previously published the idea of a scale of hardness dened by mutual scratchability. By 1848, Dana20 had arranged 10 minerals (ranging from talc to diamond) in sequence. Hodgkinson21 published in 1835 the results of a study of the dynamic hardness of a wide range of materials using the Newtons Cradle arrangement (Fig. 1).

3 Indentation machine developed by Calvert and Johnson in 1850s23

First indentation techniques

Probably the rst machines for performing indentation measurements were reported by Wade in 185622 (Fig. 2) and Calvert and Johnson in 185923 (Fig. 3). Wade wrote: The comparative softness, or hardness of metals, is determined by the bulk of the cavities, or indentations, made by equal pressures; the softness being as a bulk directly, and the hardness, as the bulk inversely. That these are likely to be the rst such investigations is attested by the rst sentence of the paper by Calvert and Johnson: The process at present adopted for determining the comparative degree of hardness of bodies, consists in rubbing one body against another, and that which indents or scratches the other is admitted to be the harder of the two bodies experimented upon. Calvert and Johnson then rank eight substances in decreasing order of hardness, namely, diamond, topaz, quartz,

steel, iron, copper, tin and lead. They continue: This method is not only very unsatisfactory in its results, but it is also inapplicable for determining with precision the various degrees of hardness of the different metals and their alloys. We therefore thought that is would be useful and interesting if we were to adopt a process which would enable us to represent by numbers the comparative degrees of hardness of various metals and their alloys. Unwin (in 1896)24 and Jaggar (in 1897)25 conrm that hardness previous to the 1850s was determined by various scratch tests. Why were people at the end of the nineteenth century dissatised with the long established scratch methods of determining hardness? One reason was given by Auerbach who was of the opinion that scratch hardness was too complicated a concept compared to indentation26 (see also page 143 of Williams book6). Calvert and Johnson used the machine shown in Fig. 3 in a different manner to the indentation machines developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in that: When we wished to determine the degree of hardness of a substance, we gradually added weights on the end of the lever, C, until the steel point,

2 Wades indenting tool for testing of cannon in early 1850s22

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

4 Schematic diagram of Middelbergs knife indentation technique for studying hardness of railway tyres27

5 Indentation hardness machine reported by Unwin in 189624

F, entered 3?5 mm (or 0?128 of an inch) during half an hour, and then read off the weight. An example of one of the tables of results they obtained is given in Table 1. They gave the following reasons for their choice of metals thus: We specially conned our researches to this class, wishing the results to be practically useful to engineers and others who have to employ metals, and often require to know the comparative hardness of metals and alloys. Middelberg in 1886 wrote in a short letter27 that he had used a knife indentation technique for some years to determine the relative hardness of railway tyres (Fig. 4). Unwin in 1896 reported an indentation technique that used a short square section tool steel bar pressed into a bar of the test material (Fig. 5). His measure of hardness was the depth of the indentation produced by a given load when the bar had stopped penetrating. An example of his results is presented in Fig. 6. A method that has been returned to from time to time, which its protagonists say is useful in giving an indication of the relative hardness of two materials and which is claimed to be relevant to machining or cutting, is the crossed cylinders method2830 (see also Fig. 7). Figure 7 is from Cowderys 1930 paper.30 In it he says the rst reported use of the mutual indentation technique was by de Re aumur in 1722.31 However, having read what de Re aumur wrote (or at least its 1922
Table 1 Example of one of tables of results from Calvert and Johnsons studies:23 authors normalised their data with respect to cast iron Weight employed lbs. 4800 4600 4550 1800 1445 1300 1000 880 800 520 250 130 75

reprint), I have come to the conclusion that Cowdery misinterpreted the French text (unless the 1922 reprint left some text out). The tract was about converting iron into steel and techniques then employed to harden and soften the steel. He discusses the hardness of steel in a number of places, but (as far as I can judge) only twice discusses ways of actually measuring it (in his tenth memoir on The Art of Converting Forged Iron into Steel). Both these techniques were proposed as thought experiments: for as you can see from the footnote to Quote 2, he was pessimistic about putting his ideas into practice as skilled workmen were not very well paid or well regarded in French society at the time! Quote 1 Au point de vue durete , on pourra se proposer deux buts diffe rents: ou bien chercher la meilleure tempe rature de trempe, cest-a ` -dire le meilleur grain dun acier, en e tudiant sa durete tout le long dune barre chauffe e a ` un bout et trempe e; ou bien comparer les durete s de deux aciers sur deux barres semblablement traite es, en e tablissant la correspondence entre durete s et grosseurs de grain. Les e prouvettes utilise es pour examen de la cassure serviront donc encore ici; on fait un essai a ` la lime sur une surface plane, en bordure de la cassure. On a employe pour cela un certain nombre de limes en matie ` res de durete s croissants: verre, cristal de roche tender, cailloux transparents et durs, agathe, jaspe, topaze ou saphir, diamant. My translation of quote 1 In considering hardness, one could propose two different objectives: either look for the best quenching temperature (that is to say the one that produces the best grain for a steel) by studying hardness along the length of a bar that has been heated at one end and then quenched, or compare the hardness of two steels on two bars similarly treated, by establishing the correspondence between hardness and grain size. The specimens used to examine fracture will thus serve well here; one makes a test with a file on a plane surface, near the break. One would use files for this purpose made of materials of increasing hardness: glass, soft rock crystals, hard transparent stones, agate, jasper, topaz or sapphire, diamond. Quote 2 Pour essayer en me me temps la durete et le corps, certains ouvriers forgent un ciseau dans le me tal a `

Names of metals Staffordshire cold blast cast iron: grey, no. 3 Steel Wrought iron Platinum Copper: pure Aluminium Silver: pure Zinc do Gold do Cadmium do Bismuth do Tin do Lead do

Calculated cast iron51000 1000 958? 948 375 301 271 208 183 167 108 52 27 16

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

6 Hardness results from machine shown in Fig. 524

e tudier, le trempent a ` un certain degre de chaleur et essayent de lui faire couper du fer a ` froid; si la tentative naboutit pas, ils le trempent a ` une autre tempe rature, et ainsi de suite jusqua ` re ussite. Si on attaque le fer obliquement, laspect des copeaux donne des indications sur la durete du ciseau. Ce proce de tre ` s rudimentaire peut e tre perfectionne ; il suffit de tremper une barre dacier par un bout et de la graduer; lessai du ciseau sur les diffe rentes parties de la barre continue une mesure de la durete du ciseau. On pourrait e galement, au lieu de frapper sur le ciseau a ` laide dun marteau, utiliser un poids tombant dune certain hauteur, la variable de lessai e tant le nombre de coups (1). (1) De Re aumur na dailleurs pas grand espoir de voir pratiquer ses methods dessais; Dans le tat ou ` sont les arts, tant quon ne cherchera pas a ` entretenir une noble e mulation entre les ouvriers, tant quon ne gligera de re compenser ceux qui se distinguent dans leur profession, il ne faut pas se promettre quils sattacheront a ` de pareilles recherches et quils feront quelque chose avec pre cision

My translation of quote 2 In order to measure hardness and malleability at the same time, some workmen forge a chisel out of the metal of interest, quenching it at a certain temperature. They then try to cut iron with it when cold. If this is not successful, they quench it at another temperature, and so on until they are successful. If the chisel is used to attack iron obliquely, the form of the chips produced gives an indication of the chisels hardness. This very rudimentary procedure could be perfected by quenching a steel bar from one end in a graduated manner. Testing the chisel at different places along the bar would give a value for the chisels hardness. Equally one could, instead of hitting the chisel with a hammer, drop a weight on it from a known height, the test variable being the number of blows required (1). (1) de Re aumur did not, however, have great hopes of seeing his testing methods being put into practice: In the present state of the mechanical arts, in so far as improvement to technique is not sought among workmen and those who distinguish themselves in

7 Four different crossed cylinders method for measuring mutual hardness of metals30

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

8 Plot of percentage loss of hardness for steel used for wood working measured as function of tempering temperature using four different hardness methods36

their trades are not rewarded, one must not kid oneself that they will pay any attention to researches such as mine nor that they will make such things with the necessary precision. Both static and dynamic machines for quantifying indentation hardness became commercially available around 1900.3234 Why then? Shore commented in 191133 that: Hardness testing instruments have during the past few years come into practically universal use, both in this country [the United States] and abroad. The apparent suddenness of this popular movement may be due to more than one cause. One is surely the development of the automobile, and another perhaps the appearance, at what may be said to have been the psychological moment, of a cheap and rapid method of performing the test itself. Lysaght34 later reckoned that the reason indentation hardness testing took off so quickly after around 1900 was the transition to mass production of items in the automotive, aeronautic, machine tool and similar industries requiring every item produced to be quality tested. Turner in 1886 (and later, more comprehensively in 1909)35,36 gave a number of reasons why people were interested in the hardness of metals, particularly iron and steel: efcacy of machine tools, wear resistance (including erosion by water and sand) and brittleness after tempering. He published a comparison of the various methods available showing that one tempering technique would imply that the material is suitable for a given application whereas another would not (Fig. 8). According to Clamer in 1908,37 the most widely used hardness measuring technique in the early 1900s was the Brinell Ball Test. This technique was published by Brinell in 1900.38 The technique originally consisted of pressing a hard steel ball under a known load into the material of interest. The Brinell hardness H was then calculated by dividing the load P by the surface area of the indentation (a spherical cap),39 a method also suggested by Martens in 1898,32,40 i.e. P H~ (1) pDd

9 Does hardness give measure of wear resistance?50

where D is the diameter of the ball indenter and d is the depth of the indentation. Meyer later found41 that the load is a function of the diameter of the indentation di i.e. P~adin (2)

where a and n are numbers which both depend on the material being tested. a also depends on the size of the ball. Meyer also suggested that the hardness be dened as the load divided by the projected area of the indentation, i.e. H~ P h 1=2 i pD=2 D{ D2 {di2 (3)

This is a formula that is relatively easy to implement in a workshop or a factory. The validity of Meyers formula has been investigated by a number of authors since then.2,4247 One problem with the Brinell test is that the hardness number increases with increasing load due to a combination of workhardening and increase in the diameter of the indentation. As mentioned above, one very important reason why indentation hardness testing took off so quickly was that it was believed that it would give a more sensitive indication of the wear resistance of materials (particularly steels) used in friction bearings than the previously widely used le or scratch test.48,49 However, as Unwin showed in 1916,50 the relation between Brinell hardness and resistance to abrasion is not straightforward (Fig. 9).

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

10 Method of separating out unwanted soft steel balls:6 originally published in Ref. 60

Nevertheless, in 1937 Tonn51 established an empirical relation between Brinell hardness and abrasive wear 1 Abrasive wear~ : 0 0205|Brinell hardnessz1:32 (4)

Some wear processes (such as solid particle erosion) are so complex that people are still looking for simple relations between wear resistance and indentation hardness to this day.5254 The Brinell hardness is a static measurement. But around the same time, dynamic methods were also being investigated.55 Vincent in 1900 measured the diameter of dents produced by dropping steel balls on various materials.56 Shore in 190757 observed that measuring abrasion hardness using a le (which he said had been standard workshop practice for many years previous) was not able to distinguish the differing machinabilities of the new alloy steels being developed at that time. He thus devised the scleroscope (from the Greek for hardness), a device that measured the rebound of a steel ball or pointed cylinder dropped down a graduated glass tube onto the material of interest.58 He observed that dynamic hardness was proportional to elasticity. Another dynamic method of measuring hardness was patented by Ballentine also in 1907.59 This method (along with a few others, including the static technique due to Brinell) was assessed by Clamer et al. in 1908.37 One amusing and ingenious way dynamic hardness has been used on a production line was to sort out (unwanted) soft steel balls from those of the desired hardness by bouncing the mixture obliquely off a hard anvil: the soft balls rebounded less high and were caught in a lower bin (Fig. 10). Howe and Levy61 investigated the effect of repeating Shore scleroscope tests on the same spot. They found that the hardness increased with the number of tests. This was attributed to workhardening. However, the results from experiments where the frequency of the tests was varied (from once every 6 s, 5 min, 30 min and 60 min) were not as expected. They thought that the high frequency tests (repetition every 6 seconds) would lead to an accumulation of heat so that the rate of workhardening would be decreased. However, they did not nd this to be true [reminding] us of the profundity of our ignorance of the nature and habits of plastic deformation (Fig. 11).

11 Effect of interval between Shore scleroscope tests on hardness values for steel61

Hardness was also used early on as a laboratory research tool to study, for example, internal friction of metals by seeing how hardness varied with temperature62,63 (Figs. 12 and 13). It can be seen from Fig. 13 that duration of loading has an effect on the measured hardness even for classically plastic materials such as metals. It seems that recording indentation load as a function of time only widely began in the early 1950s,64,65 although Martens built a machine that was capable of doing this in 1898!32,66 Such measurements are of particular importance for viscoelastic materials such as polymers (see, for example, Fig. 14) but are now standard in all academic studies of indentation hardness.67

Comparison of techniques
The reasons that indentation methods were preferred in industry to tensile testing are the following: indentation is non-destructive, cheap and can be applied directly to all items of a factorys output.68 However, the various hardness tests give different results. So there were quite a number of detailed studies performed comparing the different techniques in order to derive conversion tables and formulae.34,6874 Some results of these investigations are presented graphically in Figs. 1517. One important issue is that, as Turner36 and Auchy78 pointed out, the Brinell test is static, whereas the Shore test is dynamic (it had been known for several decades that the static and dynamic mechanical properties of materials differ79). To address this issue, Shore and Hadeld performed a large number of experiments69 (see also Fig. 18). One major source of inaccuracy in the Brinell test that they found was the ball attens when materials above a certain hardness are tested. To overcome this, they performed some experiments with

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

12 Plot of hardness (as measured by Brinell himself) of two steels as function of temperature62

13 Effect of temperature on hardness of two elements: times given are duration of loading; data from Ref. 63, replotted in Ref. 6; purpose of this study was investigation of internal friction

a spherical diamond, but they thought that this would not generally be possible in routine laboratory or industrial testing. By 1939, Scott and Gray recommended that materials harder than 450 BHN should not have their hardness measured using a standard Brinell steel ball.80 However, since the Brinell method was a widely trusted technique, by 1943 hard steel balls, tungsten carbide balls, and even hemispherical diamonds were available for testing very hard materials.81 The main problem Shore and Hadeld identied was that the scleroscope gave results closer to the elastic limit of the material whereas Brinell hardness machines produced substantial plastic deformation and hence measured properties closer to ultimate strength. Thus direct comparison was only possible if low loads (less than 1000 kgf) were used in the Brinell test. The issue of comparing the different methods of indentation testing continues to be studied (occasionally) right up to the present day.82,83 Rockwell and Rockwell patented in 191984,85 a method of hardness testing that has the effect of subtracting off the elastic response of the material, i.e. measuring the plastic hardness only. This is done by rst applying an initial small load to the indenter (10 kgf), then adding a

14 Indentation load as function of time for PMMA indented initially using load of 25 gf and secondly by load of 0?5 gf64

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

15 Early comparison (1911) of hardness methods for a range of materials75

much larger load (10 times larger for a ball or 15 times larger for a cone), and then removing the smaller load. The measure of hardness is the depth of the indentation after this has been done. The Rockwell C test (which uses a diamond cone) in particular met the need for hardness testing of materials harder than those which the Brinell test could accurately measure.80 Petrenko68 recommended that balls be used with soft materials and cones for hard materials when using the Rockwell method. In order to preserve geometrical similarity during an indentation, the Vickers test was developed in which the indenter is a square section diamond pyramid.8688 One important advance on previous methods was that it can be used to test very hard materials. It also has no lower limit, so is very versatile. Cone indenters also exhibit geometrical similarity41,89,90 so that ideally the hardness measured will be independent of load.81 However, Fig. 19 presents evidence that using a pyramid does not entirely remove the load dependence of hardness. Scott and

17 Relationships between Brinell and Rockwell numbers given by different investigators: Figure from Ref. 68 containing data from Refs. 70, 76 and 77

Gray80 also reckoned that the Vickers method was not as practical to use in a factory as the Rockwell technique. The change in hardness for small loads became increasingly important when obtaining hardness from very small indentations (microhardness) became both desirable and required.91,92 The Knoop test94 uses a diamond indenter whose diagonals differ from each other by a factor of 7. This means that elastic recovery has the largest effect along the shorter diagonal (BB in Fig. 20) so that it is possible (by measuring the two diagonals after the load has been removed and also knowing the dimensions of the indenter) to determine both the recovered and the unrecovered dimensions of the indentation. A direct comparison of Knoop, Vickers and Brinell indentations made on a single

16 Graph of two Rockwell methods (ball and diamond) against Brinell hardness for wide range of materials76

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

18 Comparison between Brinell ball and Shore scleroscope hardness numbers69

block of metal is given in Fig. 21 (the author does not state what metal these tests were performed on). A problem with the Vickers and Knoop diamond indenters was identied by Berkovich at a time when it was desired to perform very small (micro) hardness tests. The problem was that it is difcult to ensure that all four sides of a four-sided pyramid meet at a point.65 Most indenters instead had a ridge about 0?5 mm long. This does not matter very much if the indenter is large, but becomes increasingly important for small indenters. To

overcome this problem Berkovich introduced the triangular cross-section (or three-faceted) pyramidal indenter.95 It is clear from Fig. 21 that even at the surface the ow of material around an indentation is complicated. In cross-section (Fig. 22), it can be seen that a measurement of the width (or diameter) of an indentation in top view will overestimate the value in the plane of the original surface due to pile-up around the indentation.90 Also the load will be partly supported by this ridge of material, although Devries75 reckoned that the resistance of the material remaining underneath the indenter would be decreased by the ow of material away. Since the change in ow stress of both the piledup material and the material underneath the indenter are both unknown (and the change will not be the same for

20 Schematic drawing of Knoop indentation6

19 Relation of hardness number to load for two different diamond pyramid methods and two materials93

21 Comparison of Knoop (leftmost), Vickers (middle) and Brinell (rightmost) indentations6

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

23 Three different ways (AA, BB or CC) size of Brinell indentation could be measured for indentation where pile-up occurs96

22 Schematic diagram indentation90

showing

pile-up

around

cone

different materials), it called into question how accurately such measurements can discriminate between, say, the machinability of closely related alloys (one of the reasons indentation testing was originally introduced on the shop oor). In 1922, Foss and Brumeld published a detailed study96 of the effect on the Brinell hardness number of three different ways of measuring the size of the

indentation (see Fig. 23 where it is apparent that the size of the indent could be assessed by the chords AA, BB or CC). They found that for low Brinell hardness numbers (less than 150), there was very little difference between the three methods, but as the depth of the indentation decreased, the hardness number computed from the depth of the indentation increased very much more rapidly than the hardness number computed from the true area of the indentation. They also found that the amount of swell (pile-up or sink-in) depended on the material being tested (Fig. 24) and for extruded brass rod, the swell was markedly anisotropic (see inset to Fig. 24).

24 Comparison of amount of swell (pile-up or sink-in) expressed as percentage of depth of indentation for various metals:96 inset shows anisotropy in swell for extruded brass rod

10

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

25 Plot of Brinell hardness number and grain size against annealing temperature for rolled cartridge brass154

27 Comparison of various hardness tests with tensile elastic limit and ultimate strength166

However, Norbury and Samuel97 published a detailed study of both piling-up and sinking-in for Brinell and a number of other tests and found that although it was a large effect, it had a constant value for a given material, irrespective of the size of the impression, if expressed as a percentage of the measured depth of impression.

Ideas why materials differ in properties

The main drivers for investigating the mechanical properties of metals in the nineteenth century, particularly steel, were the development of pressure vessels for steam engines, rails for the railways, guns and iron ships.22,98,99 One of the pioneers of these studies was Kirkaldy in London.100,101 The machine that Kirkaldy developed was so large it was never moved and is now preserved in situ in a museum. A great deal of empirical data was obtained in the latter part of the nineteenth century, but it was not at all clear then why some materials were hard and brittle, others soft and ductile, and yet others hard and ductile.24,102104 Full understanding of these matters would not come about until the development of quantum mechanics105,106 (and its subsequent application to chemical bonding107111) and dislocation112116 and fracture117,118 mechanics.

Before this time, a number of ideas were explored including: atomic weight,119 electrical and magnetic properties,120130 cohesion,131134 crystal structure,135139 amorphous component,140143 thermal properties144146 and density147 (at least for alloys of varying composition). One characteristic of metals that began to be studied intensively in the 1880s148,149 and which has since proved very fruitful was grain size.150153 Papers relating grain size to indentation hardness began to appear after the aumur had First World War154159 (although de Re speculated that there might be a relation between grain size and hardness in 1722:31 see the quote earlier in this paper). Bassett and Davis154 made the qualitative observation that when rolled cartridge brass was annealed the grain size increased and the hardness decreased (Fig. 25). Matthewson160 derived the following relation from Bassett and Daviss154 data Brinell hardness ! number of grains per square millimetre1=2 (5)

Note that Matthewson mistakenly published this as a reciprocal relationship, whereas Bassett and Daviss data clearly show the hardness increasing with the number of grains per square millimetre.

26 Plot of inverse square of grain size against Brinell hardness number for various steels161

28 Plot of relation between maximum stress and Brinell hardness for number of carbon steels subjected to various heat treatments168

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

11

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

29 Plots of a Brinell hardness and b tensile strength against magnetic hysteresis area for nickel steel156

However, Rawdon and Jimeno-Gils observations on steel157 were not as clear cut. Wood in 1930161 found that hardness was inversely proportional to the square of the grain size (determined using an X-ray method) of various steels (Fig. 26).

Y ~0:23H {13:5

(7)

Relation to other mechanical properties

For many applications. the measurement that is really needed is the tensile strength. So ideally one would perform tensile tests, but these are much more expensive to perform than hardness indentations. Tensile tests are also destructive. whereas indentation tests are not162,163 (at least for large objects). So the obvious question soon arose as to the relation of hardness measurements to tensile measurements164167 (see also Fig. 27). The earliest papers I have found comparing indentation hardness and tensile measurements were published in 1915.168,169 Abbott performed a very thorough study on about 300 types of steel subjected to a number of different heat treatments. Each steel in each condition was subjected to a tensile test as well as Brinell (quasistatic) and scleroscope (dynamic) indentation testing. Some idea of the number of tests he performed is given in Fig. 28, the rst of 18 such gures in his paper! It is clear from Fig. 28 that there is a linear relationship between tensile strength and hardness and this was stated explicitly by Unwin in 1918101 as T ~0:2H z6 (6)

30 Hertzs schematic diagram of stresses produced by loading rigid at by elastic sphere183

where T is the tensile strength, Y is the yield point (both in tons per square inch) and H is the Brinell hardness (in kilograms per square millimetre). McWilliam and Barnes also studied a large number of steels (though not as many as Abbott) and found that the ratio of maximum tensile stress to Brinell hardness lay in the range 0?230?26. One of the authors (McWilliam) performed many of the calculations in India and commented about his experience thus: All the above calculations were made in the midst of an Indian jungle to the accompaniment of the threatening note of the mosquito and the wild howls of jackals, so suggestive of hostile criticism, that all the gures were doubly checked. A number of other studies into the relationship between tensile strength and hardness were published between then and 1947170179 (see, for example, Fig. 29) when Tabor published his famous paper2 which, among many other things, explained the relationship between hardness and yield stress (see also Refs. 1, 180 and 181). Even for purely elastic deformation, the stress elds are complicated. Hertz famously derived expressions for the stresses at the surface of an elastic half-space against which an elastic sphere is pressed.182,183 He did not give expressions for the stresses within the half-space, for he states the formulae are far too complicated to allow of our doing this directly. But by considering the stresses near the z-axis and near the surface we can form a rough notion of this distribution. He then gives a gure (reproduced here as Fig. 30) for which he states that arrow-heads pointing towards each other denote a tension, those pointing away from each other a pressure. Huber gave the solution to the problem of the bulk stresses beneath an elastic indentation in a paper published in 1904.184 Coker in 1921185 applied the photoelastic technique (which he had recently developed)186 to the problem of deformation beneath a cylindrical at ended punch (Fig. 31). Timoshenko and Goodier give a more understandable derivation of the Hertz surface stress eld in their textbook on elasticity.187 The formula for the radius of contact a was written by Frank and Lawn in 1967 in the

12

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

hardness H to yield stress (H53Y). Note that Tabor only ever said this was an approximate relation. Many assumptions were made in deriving this factor, e.g. which yield function the material obeys (whether Tresca or von Mises) interfacial friction, etc. Shield197 later redid Ishlinskys calculation using a more accurate method (Fig. 32).

Absolute hardness
A major problem with all hardness testing methods is that they alter the material whose properties you are trying to measure. This was realised in the early 1890s by Auerbach who published a number of papers on the problem of absolute hardness.26,198,199 This issue was helpfully reviewed by Mahin and Foss in 1939.200 Honda132 suggested that intrinsic hardness be dened as the intensity of maximum pressure which just produces yielding. The main problem with this denition is that elastic contact between a ball and a at surface initially produces innite stresses. In practice, of course, the indenter attens and the surface plastically indents.182,183 Mahin and Foss200 favoured the following denition of absolute hardness as the maximum unit stress which a material will support without permanent indentation. The way they achieved this measurement was to drill a number of holes of different depth using a drill with a spherical cutting surface whose diameter was the same as the Brinell ball indenter they used (5 mm). They then loaded each hole with the indenter until they found the one that did not increase the size of the hole. Apart from this being normally impractical to do, Heyer and Kenyon commented in the discussion section of the paper that [Hardness tests] were never designed to measure absolute properties and practically all efforts to eliminate the complicating variables and reduce them to such fundamentals have proved fruitless. When such properties are to be measured, it seems to be much better to design special tests than to try and adapt old ones.

31 Photoelastic fringes showing stress in large rectangular block loaded over small part of its upper surface by cylindrical at ended punch185

form given in equation (8) using Hertzs theory188 (ignoring friction) 3 a3 ~ kPR (8) 4 2 where k~ 1{n2 1 =E1 z 1{n2 =E2 , E1,2 and n1,2 are the Youngs moduli and Poissons ratios of the two materials, P is the normal load and R is the radius of the indenting sphere. The effect of friction on the Hertzian surface stresses was investigated by Johnson and co-workers.189 It should be emphasised that Hertzs analysis is not for plastic indentation as he assumed an elastic response only. However, his analysis is a good approximation for both the static and dynamic interactions of hard metal, ceramic or glass balls with silica glasses and ceramics.188,190193 Detailed analyses of the plastic ow of material around indentations of various shapes were performed by Hencky,194 Prandtl,195 Ishlinsky196 and Shield.197 They all assumed the indented material was rigid perfectly plastic, i.e. no elasticity, no workhardening. Ishlinsky performed a slip line eld analysis for both a at cylindrical punch and a ball indenter. For the at indenter, he found that the hardness was 2?84Y where Y is the yield stress in compression. This is close to what later became known as the Tabor factor relating

Concluding remarks
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear the scratch method used in workshops since time immemorial was no longer adequate for distinguishing between the new types of steels being developed, particularly in regard to their wear resistance. Thus during the rst decade of the twentieth century, indentation techniques (which had rst been described around 50 years before)

32 Slip line eld solution for body occupying space z>0 indented by at ended cylindrical punch centred on r50 and contacting surface out as far as A197

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

13

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

began to be widely used in factories as a non-destructive method of assessing the tensile strength of metals incorporated into nished products. This was needed as in some manufactures, testing of every item produced was required. Understanding of why materials differed in hardness, and indeed what hardness actually is, lagged several decades behind the widespread adoption of indentation methods in industry. In the meantime, several different machines for measuring hardness were developed and sold commercially. The measurements these machines generated were found to be difcult to relate to one another for a variety of reasons. For example, some were dynamic (e.g. Shore scleroscope), others quasistatic (e.g. Brinell) techniques. Also the Shore scleroscope measured hardness close to the elastic limit, whereas Brinell indentations produced a large amount of permanent deformation (plasticity). They also gave conicting results about, for example, the effect of temperature on mechanical properties. The problem may be simply stated that many different properties of a material contribute to the values obtained in indentation testing. Thus, techniques that in some respects started life as rough and ready tests on production lines, designed primarily for quality control, have in later years been interpreted to reveal many fundamental features of plastic ow: ow stress, workhardening and fracture toughness. It is well to remember, however, that it remains widely useful in the machine shop and the production line, and is most useful as a standardised discriminator of materials.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor R. W. Armstrong, Professor L. M. Brown, Dr M. M. Chaudhri, Professor J. E. Field and Professor M. A. Meyers for their comments on this paper. I would also like to thank Dr A. C. A. Woode for advice and help in translating de Re aumurs French. I also thank the referees for their suggestions for improving the paper and informing me about publications I would not otherwise have known about.
25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

References
1. D. Tabor: The hardness of metals; 1951, Oxford, Clarendon Press. 2. D. Tabor: A simple theory of static and dynamic hardness, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1947, 192A, 247274. 3. D. Tabor: Mohs hardness scale: a physical interpretation, Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. B, 1954, 67B, 249257. 4. D. Tabor: The physical meaning of indentation hardness, Sheet Met. Ind., 1954, 31, 749763. 5. D. Tabor: The physical meaning of indentation and scratch hardness, Br. J. Appl. Phys., 1956, 7, 159166. 6. S. R. Williams: Hardness and hardness measurements; 1942, Cleveland, OH, ASM Internaitonal. 7. J. A. Kohn: Survey of the study of hardness, Ind. Diamond Rev., 1952, 12, (Suppl. 1), 116. 8. H. ONeill: The hardness of metals and its measurement; 1934, London, Chapman & Hall. 9. H. ONeill: Hardness measurement of metals and alloys; 1967, London, Chapman & Hall. 10. I. Todhunter: Hardness and elasticity, in A history of the theory of elasticity and of the strength of materials, (ed. K. Pearson), Vol. 2, Part 1, Saint-Venant to Lord Kelvin, 582592; 1893, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 11. C. Huygens: Traite de la Lumie ` re. Ou ` sont explique es les causes de ce qui luy arrive dans la re flexion, & dans la refraction; et particulie ` rement dans le trange refraction du cristal dIslande, 9596; 1690, Leiden, Pierre vander Aa. 12. C. Huygens: Treatise on light: in which are explained the causes of that which occurs in reflexion, & in refraction, and particularly

30. 31.

32. 33. 34.

35. 36. 37.

38.

39. 40. 41. 42.

in the strange refraction of Iceland crystal, 99; 1912, London, Macmillan. I. Newton: Opticks: or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light, 4th edn, Proposition 7, Theorem 6; 1730, London, William Innys. I. Newton: Opticks: or a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light, 4th edn, 104107; 1931, London, G. Bell and Sons Ltd (republ. Dover, 1952). J. Mudge: Directions for making the best composition for the metals of reflecting telescopes; together with a description for the process for grinding, polishing, and giving the great speculum the true parabolic curve, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 1777, 67, 296349. W. Cecil: On an apparatus for grinding telescopic mirrors and object lenses, Trans. Camb. Philos. Soc., 1827, 2, 85103. W. H. Wollaston: On the cutting diamond, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 1816, 106, 265269. C. Babbage: On the economy of machinery and manufactures, 1011; 1832, London, C. Knight. F. Mohs and A. Haidinger: Hardness, inTreatise on mineralogy or the natural history of the mineral kingdom, Vol. 1, 300307; 1825, Edinburgh, A. Constable and Co. J. D. Dana: Hardness, in Manual of mineralogy, including observations on mines, rocks, reduction of ores, and the applications of the science to the arts, 6465; 1848, New Haven, CT, Durrie & Peck. E. Hodgkinson: On the collision of imperfectly elastic bodies, Rep. Br. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1835, 4, 534543. W. Wade: Hardness of metals, in Reports on experiments on the strength and other properties of metals for cannon with a description of the machines for testing metals, and of the classification of cannon in service, (ed. H. K. Craig), 259275, 313314, plate XVI; 1856, Philadelphia, PA, Henry Carey Baird. F. C. Calvert and R. Johnson: On the hardness of metals and alloys, Philos. Mag., 1859, 17, 114121. W. C. Unwin: A new indentation test for determining the hardness of metals, Min. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., 1896, 129, 334 349. T. A. Jaggar: A microsclerometer for determining the hardness of minerals, Am. J. Sci., 1897, 4, 399412. F. Auerbach: Absolute Ha rtemessung, Ann. Phys. Chem., 1891, 43, 61100. G. A. A. Middelberg: The hardness of metals, Engineering, 1886, 42, 481. ber die mechanische Ha A. Fo ppl: U rte der Metalle, besonders des Stahls, Ann. Phys. Chem., 1897, 63, 103108. B. P. Haigh: Prism hardness: a new method of testing hardness in materials yielding a scale that is equally applicable to the hardest and softest metals and expresses the values in units of stress, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1920, 99, 891913. I. H. Cowdery: Hardness by mutual indentation, Proc. ASTM, 1930, 30, (2), 559570. M. de Re aumur: LArt de Convertir le Fer Forge en Acier et lArt dAdoucir le Fer Fondu; 1722, Paris, Michel Brunet (republ. in Rev. Me tall. Me moires, 1922, 19, 441468). A. Martens: Handbuch der Materialenkunde; 1898, Berlin, Springer. A. F. Shore: The property of hardness in metals and materials, Proc. ASTM, 1911, 11, 733743. V. E. Lysaght: Indentation hardness testing. Definition of hardness. Commonly used hardness testers. Conversion of hardness numbers, Can. Chem. Metall., 1936, 20, 380384. T. Turner: The hardness of metals, Proc. Birmingham Philos. Soc., 1886, 5, 282312. T. Turner: Notes on tests for hardness, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1909, 79, 426443. G. H. Clamer, A. E. Outerbridge, Jr, A. W. Allen and W. H. Wahl: Ballentines process of testing the hardness and density of metals, J. Franklin Inst., 1908, 166, 447451. J. A. Brinell: Ein Verfahren zur Ha rtebestimmung nebst einigen Anwendungen desselben, Baumaterialienkunde, 1900, 5, 276280, 294297, 317320, 364367, 392394, 412416. J. F. Springer: Methods of testing materials for hardness, Cassiers Mag., 1908, 34, 387401. H.-R. Wilde and A. Wehrstedt: Introduction of Martens hardness HM, Materialpru fung, 2001, 42, 468470. E. Meyer: Untersuchungen u ber Ha rtepru fung und Ha rte, Phys. Z., 1908, 9, 6674. R. F. Bishop, R. Hill and N. F. Mott: The theory of indentation and hardness tests, Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., 1945, 57, 147159.

14

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

43. H. M. Finniston, E. R. W. Jones and P. E. Madsen: Meyer analysis of metals, Nature, 1949, 164, 11281129. 44. M. A. Meyer and K. J. B. van Laer: Plastic deformation and the Meyer constants of metals, Nature, 1952, 169, 237238. 45. A. A. Lankov: The Meyer law and strain hardening of elastoplastic materials, J. Frict. Wear, 1993, 14, (6), 1827. 46. G. Berg and P. Grau: Meyers hardness law and its relation to other measures of ball hardness tests, Cryst. Res. Technol., 1997, 32, 149154. 47. M. Sakai: The Meyer hardness: a measure for plasticity?, J. Mater. Res., 1999, 14, 36303639. 48. C. A. M. Smith and H. J. Humphries: Some tests on white antifriction bearing metals, J. Inst. Met., 1911, 5, 194211. 49. R. A. Hadfield and S. A. Main: Note on Brinell and scratch tests for hardened steel, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1919, 97, 581586. 50. W. C. Unwin: Report of the hardness test research committee, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1916, 91, 677778. 51. W. Tonn: Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Verschleivorganges beim Kurzversuch am Beispiel der reinen Metalle, Z. Metallkd, 1937, 29, 196198. 52. S. G. Sapate and A. V. R. Rao: Effect of material hardness on erosive wear behavior of some weld-deposited alloys, Mater. Manuf. Processes, 2002, 17, 187198. 53. M. Divikar, V. K. Agarwal and S. N. Singh: Effect of the material surface hardness on the erosion of AISI 316 steel, Wear, 2005, 259, 110117. 54. G. Pintaude, F. G. Bernardes, M. M. Santos, A. Sinatora and E. Albertin: Mild and severe wear of steels and cast irons in sliding abrasion, Wear, 2009, 267, 1925. 55. M. Martel: Sur la mesure de la durete des me taux a ` la pe ne tration, au moyen dempreintes obtenues par choc avec un couteau pyramidal, in Commission des Me thodes dEssai des Mate riaux de Construction, Vol. III, Section A (Me taux), Rapports Particuliers (Deuxie ` me Se rie), 261277; 1895, Paris, Ministe ` re des Travaux Publics. 56. J. H. Vincent: Experiments on impact, Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., 1900, 10, 332357. 57. A. F. Shore: An instrument for testing hardness, Am. Mach., 1907, 30, 747751. 58. A. F. Shore: The scleroscope, Proc. ASTM, 1910, 10, 490517. 59. W. I. Ballentine: Processing of testing the hardness and density of metals and other materials, US Patent 855,923, 1907. 60. E. K. Hammond: Manufacture of steel balls, Machinery, 1917, 23, 753760. 61. H. M. Howe and A. G. Levy: Notes on the Shore scleroscope test, Proc. ASTM, 1916, 16, (2), 3652. 62. J. A. Brinell: Researches on the comparative hardness of acid and basic open-hearth steel at various temperatures by means of balltesting, Iron Steel Mag., 1905, 9, 1619. ber die A nderung der inneren Reibung der Metalle 63. P. Ludwik: U mit der Temperatur, Z. Phys. Chem., 1916, 91, 232247. 64. P. Grodzinski: Hardness testing of plastics, Plastics, 1953, 18, 312314. 65. D. Newey, M. A. Wilkins and H. M. Pollock: An ultra-low-load penetration hardness tester, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum., 1982, 15E, 119122. 66. A. Martens: Die Festigkeitsiegenschaften und die Ha rte, in Handbuch der Materialenkunde, (ed. E. Heyn), 2nd edn, 248 418; 1912, Berlin, Springer. 67. M. R. VanLandingham: Review of instrumented indentation, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., 2003, 108, 249265. 68. S. N. Petrenko: Relationships between Rockwell and Brinell numbers, Bur. Stand. J. Res., 1930, 5, 1950. 69. A. F. Shore and R. Hadfield: Report on hardness testing: Relation between ball hardness and scleroscope hardness, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1918, 98, 5988. 70. E. C. Brumfield: Some comparisons between Rockwell and Brinell hardness, Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat., 1926, 9, 841856. 71. R. R. Moore: Relationships between Rockwell, Brinell and Scleroscope numbers, Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat., 1927, 12, 968 975. 72. T. N. Holden: New conversion tables show relations among hardness tests, Iron Age, 1930, 126, (8081), 932. 73. W. E. J. Beeching: Relationships of hardness numbers, Met. Ind., 1934, 44, 188. 74. R. H. Heyer: Hardness conversion relationships, Proc. ASTM, 1942, 42, 708726. 75. R. P. Devries: A comparison of five methods of hardness measurement, Proc. ASTM, 1911, 11, 709725.

76. J. H. Cowdery: Relation between Rockwell and Brinell hardness scales, Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat., 1925, 7, 244260. 77. S. C. Spalding: Comparison of Brinell annd Rockwell hardness of hardened high speed steel, Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat., 1924, 6, 499504. 78. G. Auchy: The hardness of steel. It is both static and dynamic: the Brinell and Shore tests differentiated, Iron Age, 1910, 85, 13981399. 79. W. K. Hatt and E. Marburg: Bibliography on impact tests and impact testing machines, Proc. ASTM, 1902, 2, 283297. 80. H. Scott and T. H. Gray: Relation between the Rockwell C and diamond pyramid hardness scales, Trans. ASM, 1939, 27, 363381. 81. S. R. Williams: Present types of hardness tests, Proc. ASTM, 1943, 43, 815834. 82. V. E. Lysaght: Hardness conversion tables for copper, J. Mater., 1971, 6, 503513. 83. N. A. Sakharova, J. V. Fernandes, J. M. Antunes and M. C. Oliveira: Comparison between Berkovich, Vickers and conical indentation tests: a three-dimensional numerical simulation study, Int. J. Solids Struct., 2009, 46, 10951104. 84. H. M. Rockwell and S. P. Rockwell: Hardness tester, US Patent 1,294,171, 1919. 85. S. P. Rockwell: Hardness testing machine, US Patent 1,516,207, 1924. 86. R. L. Smith: Apparatus for determining the hardness of a body, UK Patent 11,936, 1916. 87. R. Smith and G. Sandland: An accurate method of determining the hardness of metals, with particular reference to those of a high degree of hardness, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1922, 102, 623641. 88. R. L. Smith and G. E. Sandland: Some notes on the use of a diamond pyramid for hardness testing, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1925, 111, 285304. 89. P. Ludwik: Die Kugeldruckprobe, ein neues Verfahren zur Ha rtebestimmung von Materialen; 1908, Berlin, Springer. 90. E. Meyer: Untersuchungen u ber Ha rtepru fung und Ha rte, Z. Ver. Dtsch Ing., 1908, 52, 645654, 740748, 835844. 91. P. Grodzinski: An automatic light-load Bergsman type hardness tester, J. Sci. Instrum., 1951, 28, 117121. 92. W. Weiler: Hardness testing: a new method for economical and physically meaningful microhardness testing, Br. J. Non-Destr. Test., 1989, 31, 253258. 93. D. R. Tate: A comparison of microhardness indentation tests, Trans. ASM, 1945, 35, 374389. 94. F. Knoop, C. G. Peters and W. B. Emerson: A sensitive pyramidal diamond tool for indentation measurements, J. Res. Natl Bur. Stand., 1939, 23, 3961. 95. E. S. Berkovich: Three-faceted diamond pyramid for microhardness testing, Ind. Diamond Rev., 1951, 11, 129132. 96. F. E. Foss and R. C. Brumfield: Some measurements on the shape of Brinell ball indentation, Proc. ASTM, 1922, 22, (2), 312 334. 97. A. L. Norbury and T. Samuel: The recovery and sinking-in or piling-up of material in the Brinell test and the effects of these factors on the correlation of the Brinell with certain other hardness tests, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1928, 117, 673687. 98. M. Merriman: The work of the International Association for Testing Materials, Proc. ASTM, 1899, 1, 1725. 99. W. K. Hatt and E. Marburg: Preliminary report on the present state of knowledge concerning impact tests, Proc. ASTM, 1899, 1, 2750. 100. D. Kirkaldy: Results of an experimental enquiry into the comparative tensile strength and other properties of various kinds of wrought iron and steel etc.; 1862, Glasgow, Bell & Bain. 101. W. C. Unwin: The experimental study of the mechanical properties of materials, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1918, 95, 405439. 102. R. A. Hadfield: Memorandum on hardness, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1916, 91, 707711. 103. H. E. Degler: A comparison of methods for testing hardness, Am. Mach., 1925, 63, 381384. 104. E. C. Bingham: Some fundamental definitions of rheology, Proc. ASTM, 1929, 29, (2), 909923. ber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im 105. M. Planck: U Normalspectrum, Ann. Phys., 1901, 4, 553563. ber die Elementarquanta der Materie und der 106. M. Planck: U Elektricita t, Ann. Phys., 1901, 4, 564566. 107. P. P. Ewald: The mechanical structure of solids from the atomic viewpoint, in The physics of solids and fluids with recent developments, (ed. J. Dougall and W. M. Deans), 81152; 1930, Glasgow, Blackie & Son Ltd.

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

15

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

108. L. Pauling: Quantum mechanics and the chemical bond, Phys. Rev., 1931, 37, 11851186. 109. L. Pauling: The nature of the interatomic forces in metals, Phys. Rev., 1938, 54, 899904. 110. L. Pauling: The nature of the chemical bond; 1939, New York, Cornell University Press. 111. N. F. Mott and H. Jones: The theory of the properties of metals and alloys; 1936, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 112. G. I. Taylor: Faults in a material with yields to shear stress while retaining its volume elasticity, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1934, 145A, 118. 113. G. I. Taylor: The mechanism of plastic deformation of crystals. 1: Theoretical, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1934, 145A, 362387. 114. G. I. Taylor: The mechanism of plastic deformation of crystals. 2: Comparison with observations, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1934, 145A, 388404. 115. E. Orowan: Zur Kristallplastizita t, Z. Phys., 1934, 89, 605659. ber eine Art gitterstorung, die einen Kristall 116. M. Polanyi: U plastisch machen konnte, Z. Phys., 1934, 89, 660664. 117. A. A. Griffith: The theory of rupture, Proc. 1st Int. Cong. on Applied mechanics, 5563; 1925, Delft, Technische Boekhandel en Drukkerij J. Waltman Jr. 118. J. J. Gilman: Commentary on Griffiths crack theory The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Trans. ASM, 1968, 61, 861907. 119. S. Bottone: On a relation subsisting between the atomic weights, specific gravities, and hardness of the metallic elements, Chem. News, 1873, 27, 215216. 120. C. Barus: On the relation between the thermoelectric properties, the specific resistance, and the hardness of steel, Philos. Mag., 1879, 8, 341368. ber den Einfluss der mechanischen Ha 121. L. M. Cheesman: U rte aur die magnetischen Eigenschaften des Stahles und des Eisens, Ann. Phys. Chem., 1882, 15, 204224. ber den Einfluss der mechanischen 122. L. M. Cheesman: Erratum: U Ha rte aur die magnetischen Eigenschaften des Stahles und des Eisens, Ann. Phys. Chem., 1883, 16, 712. 123. C. Barus: On the probability of an inherent relation of the electrical resistance and the hardness of steel, Phys. Rev. (Ser. I), 1910, 30, 347349. 124. C. W. Burrows: Magnetic criteria of the mechanical properties of a 1% carbon-steel, Proc. ASTM, 1913, 13, 570581. 125. J. A. Mathews: Magnetic habits of alloy steels, Proc. ASTM, 1914, 14, (2), 5071. 126. C. W. Burrows: Correlation of the magnetic and mechanical properties of steel, Bull. Bur. Stand., 1916, 13, 173210. 127. C. Nusbaum: Certain aspects of magnetic analysis, Proc. ASTM, 1919, 19, (2), 96116. 128. K. Heindlhofer: Mechanical and magnetic hardness. Studies in practical magnetic inspection of ball bearing races heat-treated in quantity: correlation of hardness, Iron Age, 1925, 116, 606608. 129. H. Styri: Relation between magnetic properties, impact strength, and hardness, Proc. ASTM, 1931, 31, (2), 94106. 130. J. V. Emmons and R. L. Sanford: A correlation of some mechanical and magnetic properties of 1?21% carbon tool steel, Proc. ASTM, 1932, 32, (2), 380397. 131. G. H. Gulliver: Cohesion of steel and relation between tension and compression yield points, Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh, 1908, 28, 374381. 132. K. Honda: On a mechanical theory of the hardness of metals, Sci. Rep. Tohoku Imp. Univ., 1917, 6, 9599. 133. T. W. Richards: A brief review of a study of cohesion and chemical attraction, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1928, 24, 111120. 134. S. Dushman: Cohesion and atomic structure, Proc. ASTM, 1929, 29, (2), 764. 135. J. A. Ewing and W. Rosenhain: The crystalline structure of metals, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1900, 193A, 353375. 136. J. A. Ewing and W. Rosenhain: The crystalline structure of metals. 2, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1900, 195A, 279301. 137. F. Osmond and G. Cartaud: The crystallography of iron, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1906, 71, 444492. 138. F. Osmond and G. Cartaud: The crystallography of iron, Trans. AIME, 1906, 37, 813859. 139. J. E. Lennard-Jones and P. A. Taylor: Some theoretical calculations of the physical properties of certain crystals, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1925, 109A, 476508. 140. G. T. Beilby: The hardening of metals: introductory paper, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1915, 10, 212215. 141. J. C. W. Humfrey: The part played by the amorphous phase in the hardening of steels, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1915, 10, 240247.

142. A. McCance: The interstrain theory of hardness, Trans. Faraday Soc., 1915, 10, 257264. 143. T. Turner: Hardness and hardening, J. Inst. Met., 1917, 18, 87 114. 144. A. H. Stuart: The modulus of elasticity and its relation to other physical quantities, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1912, 83, 11551159. 145. J. Innes: The mechanics of solidity, Nature, 1920, 106, 377. 146. R. G. Durrant: Comment on The mechanics of solidity, Nature, 1920, 106, 440441. 147. H. Heape: The density and the hardness of the cast alloys of copper with tin, J. Inst. Met., 1923, 29, 467489. 148. H. C. Sorby: On the application of very high powers to the study of the microscopical structure of steel, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1886, 29, 140147. 149. H. C. Sorby: On the microscopical structure of iron and steel, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1887, 31, 255288. 150. E. O. Hall: The deformation and ageing of mild steel. 3: Discussion of results, Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. B, 1951, 64B, 747753. 151. N. J. Petch: The cleavage strength of polycrystals, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1953, 174, 2528. 152. R. W. Armstrong, I. Codd, R. M. Douthwaite and N. J. Petch: The plastic deformation of polycrystalline aggregates, Philos. Mag., 1962, 7, 4558. 153. P. C. Jindal and R. W. Armstrong: The dependence of the hardness of cartridge brass on grain size, Trans. Metall. Soc. AIME, 1967, 239, 18561857. 154. W. H. Bassett and C. H. Davis: Comparison of grain size measurements and Brinell hardness of cartridge brass, Trans. AIME, 1919, 60, 428457. 155. Z. Jeffries: Effect of temperature, deformation and grain size on the mechanical properties of metals, Trans. AIME, 1919, 60, 474 576. 156. N. J. Gebert: A systematic investigation of the correlation of the magnetic and mechanical properties of steel, Proc. ASTM, 1919, 19, (2), 117129. 157. H. S. Rawdon and E. Jimeno-Gil: A study of the relation between the Brinell hardness and the grain size of annealed carbon steels, Sci. Pap. Bur. Stand., 1920, 16, 557593. 158. Z. Jeffries and R. S. Archer: Mechanical properties as affected by grain size, Chem. Metall. Eng., 1922, 27, 789792. 159. L. B. Pfeil: The effect of cold work on the structure and hardness of single iron crystals and the changes produced by subsequent annealing, Carnegie Scholarship Mem. Iron Steel Inst., 1927, 16, 153210. 160. C. H. Matthewson: Discussion on Effect of temperature, deformation and grain size on the mechanical properties of metals, Trans. AIME, 1919, 60, 562569. 161. W. A. Wood: X-ray study of grain size in steels of different hardness values, Philos. Mag., 1930, 10, 10731081. 162. G. R. Gohn: A hardness conversion table for copperberyllium alloy strip, Proc. ASTM, 1955, 55, 230245. 163. J. T. Richards and E. M. Smith: Problems associated with hardness conversion of several copper alloys, Proc. ASTM, 1957, 57, 161169. 164. A. Wahlberg: Brinells method of determining hardness and other properties of iron and steel, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1901, 59, 243298. 165. A. Wahlberg: Brinells method of determining hardness and other properties of iron and steel. 2, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1901, 60, 234 271. 166. R. P. DeVries: Hardness in its relation to other physical properties, Proc. ASTM, 1911, 11, 726732. 167. G. L. Norris: Resistance of steels to wear in relation to their hardness and tensile properties, Proc. ASTM, 1913, 13, 562569. 168. R. R. Abbott: The relation between maximum strength, Brinell hardness and scleroscope hardness in treated and untreated alloys and plain steels, Proc. ASTM, 1915, 15, (2), 4261. 169. A. McWilliam and E. J. Barnes: Brinell hardness and tenacity factors of a series of heat-treated special steels, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1915, 91, 125139. 170. A. L. Norbury and T. Samuel: Experiments on the Brinell-tensile relationship, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1924, 109, 479491. 171. H. P. Hollnagel: Hardness numbers and their relation: stress strain curve in practice and its interpretation in the light of hardness, Iron Age, 1925, 115, 770773. 172. R. H. Greaves and J. A. Jones: The ratio of the tensile strength of steel to the Brinell hardness number, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1926, 113, 335353.

16

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

Walley

Historical origins of indentation hardness testing

173. H. P. Hollnagel: Stressstrain curves and physical properties of metal with particular reference to hardness, Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat. 1926, 10, 87108. ber den Zusammenhang zwischen Brinellha 174. H. Bohner: U rte und Zugfestigkeit bei Reinaluminium und vergu tbaren Aluminiumlegierungen, Z. Metallkd, 1927, 19, 211214. 175. S. Kokado: Hardness and hardness measurements, Tech. Rep. Tohoku Imp. Univ., 1927, 6, 201260. 176. C. H. Davis and E. L. Munson: Hardness relationships and physical properties of some copper alloys, Proc. ASTM, 1929, 29, (2), 422437. 177. W. Rosenhain: Brinell hardness and tensile strength, Metallurgist, 1931, 7, 8385. 178. R. H. Heyer: Factors affecting hardness relationships in the range 50 to 250 Brinell, Proc. ASTM, 1944, 44, 10271050. 179. J. T. MacKenzie: The Brinell hardness of gray cast iron and its relation to some other properties, Proc. ASTM, 1946, 46, 1025 1038. 180. A. Krupkowski and W. Truszkowski: On the relation between the hardness number and coefficients of the tensile test, Arch. Mech. Stos., 1950, 2, 235259. 181. D. Tabor: The hardness and strength of metals, J. Inst. Met., 1951, 79, 118. 182. H. Hertz: On the contact of elastic solids, in Miscellaneous papers by Heinrich Hertz, (ed. D. E. Jones and G. A. Schott), 146162; 1896, London, Macmillan. 183. H. Hertz: On the contact of rigid elastic solids and on hardness, in Miscellaneous papers by Heinrich Hertz, (ed. D. E. Jones and G. A. Schott), 163183; 1896, London, Macmillan. 184. M. T. Huber: Zur Theorie der Beru hrung fester elastischer Ko rper, Ann. Phys., 1904, 14, 153163. 185. E. G. Coker, K. C. Chakko and M. S. Ahmed: Contact pressures and stresses, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1921, 100, 365467. 186. E. G. Coker and H. F. Donaldson: The applications of polarized light to mechanical engineering problems of stress distribution, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1913, 84, 83102.

187. S. P. Timoshenko and J. N. Goodier: Theory of elasticity, 3rd edn, 398422; 1970, Tokyo, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha. 188. F. C. Frank and B. R. Lawn: On the theory of Hertzian fracture, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1967, 299A, 291306. 189. K. L. Johnson, T. J. OConnor and A. C. Woodward: The effect of the indenter elasticity on the Hertzian fracture of brittle materials, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1973, 334A, 95117. 190. T. R. Wilshaw: The Hertzian fracture test, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 1971, 4D, 15671581. 191. M. M. Chaudhri and S. M. Walley: Damage to glass surfaces by the impact of small glass and steel spheres, Philos. Mag. A, 1978, 37A, 153165. 192. M. M. Chaudhri and L. Chen: The orientation of the Hertzian cone crack in soda-lime glass formed by oblique dynamic and quasi-static loading with a hard sphere, J. Mater. Sci., 1989, 24, 34413448. 193. B. R. Lawn: Indentation of ceramics with spheres: a century after Hertz, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 1998, 81, 19771994. ber einige statisch bestimmte Fa 194. H. Hencky: U lle des Gleichgewichts in plastischen Ko rpern, Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 1923, 3, 241251. ber die Eindringungsfestigkeit (Ha 195. L. Prandtl: U rte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden, Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 1921, 1, 1520. 196. A. J. Ishlinsky: The axial-symmetrical problem in plasticity and the Brinell test (in Russian), Prikl. Matem. Mekh., 1944, 8, 201 224. 197. R. T. Shield: On the plastic flow of metals under conditions of axial symmetry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1955, 233A, 267287. 198. F. Auerbach and C. Barus: Absolute hardness measurements, Misc. Doc. House Represent., 1891, 43, 207236. 199. F. Auerbach: Die Ha rtescala in absolutem Maasse, Ann. Phys. Chem., 1896, 58, 357380. 200. E. G. Mahin and G. J. Foss, Jr: Absolute hardness, Trans. ASM, 1939, 27, 337362.

Materials Science and Technology

2012

VOL

NO

17