09272016Tue
Last updateMon, 26 Sep 2016 7pm

i

An Alternative Basics Education: Valve Ed Comes to You!

An Alternative Basics Education: Valve Ed Comes to You!

For the first time in the seven-year his...

Give Your Flow Meter a Happy Home

Give Your Flow Meter a Happy Home

Increased emphasis on the need to improv...

What’s in Store for the Construction Market?

What’s in Store for the Construction Market?

As was the case with many of the present...

The Weekly Report

New Products

  • ja-news-2
  • ja-news-3

Industry Headlines

Alaska, ConocoPhillips Forming LNG Joint Venture

Monday, 26 September 2016  |  Chris Guy

The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), and ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. have executed a Memorandum of Understan...

Readmore

Loading...
Advertisement
i

Industry Headlines

Flowserve's Mark Blinn Announces Retirement

9 HOURS AGO

Mark Blinn plans to retire as Flowserve president, CEO and a member of the board of directors. To ensure an orderly transition, Mr. Blinn will remain in those roles until the appointment of his successor.

Flowserve’s board of directors has a robust succession planning process and, in an effort to...

Readmore

Powell Valves Names Niagara Controls as Exclusive Representative

12 HOURS AGO

The Wm. Powell Company (Powell Valves) and Niagara Controls LLC., a division of The Collins Companies, have entered into an exclusive agreement to represent and distribute Powell Valves to Praxair.

Based in Buffalo, NY, Niagara Controls is a technical sales representative and stocking distributor for m...

Readmore

Alaska, ConocoPhillips Forming LNG Joint Venture

8 HOURS AGO

The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), and ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. have executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding negotiations to form a joint venture (JV) that could facilitate marketing LNG from the Alaska LNG project to global LNG markets and acqui...

Readmore

Many Houston Chemical Facilities Could Be Operating Illegally

8 HOURS AGO

“Firefighters once routinely visited buildings in their districts to plan for emergencies — including ferreting out hazmat sites — but those visits stopped in April 2014. The department had started entering old plans into a new, sophisticated database and didn't want to create a ba...

Readmore

Manufacturing Growth Eases Again in September

3 DAYS AGO

At 51.4 in September, the seasonally adjusted Markit Flash U.S. Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) was down from 52.0 in August and pointed to the weakest improvement in overall business conditions since June. The latest PMI reading marked seven years of continuous growth across the ...

Readmore

Leading Economic Indicators Down Slightly in August

4 DAYS AGO

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index (LEI) for the U.S. declined 0.2% in August to 124.1, following a 0.5% increase in July, and a 0.2% increase in June.

“While the U.S. LEI declined in August, its trend still points to moderate economic growth in the months ahead,” said Ataman Ozy...

Readmore

Conversion of Hardness

materials_q_and_a_graphicQ: Are there any issues regarding conversion of hardness from one method or scale to another?

A: 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.

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 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 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 indications 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.

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:

  • 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?

The conversion issue becomes even more problematic for materials that are not covered by the standard conversion tables. Many people use ASTM E140 Tables 1 and 2 for hardness conversions for materials that are not covered in any of the tables in E140. For example, assume a specification (such as one of the NACE sour service standards) calls for a particular maximum Rockwell C hardness for a duplex stainless steel (such as 28 Rockwell C), and the hardness for the part is reported in Brinell (e.g., 286 Brinell). The existing ASTM E140 Table 1 for non-austenitic steels would indicate a conversion of 286 Brinell = 30 Rockwell C, which would cause rejection of the material. However, some private testing indicates that 286 Brinell actually converts to less than 28 HRC in at least one duplex stainless-steel material. Unfortunately, verified and standardized tables of conversion values for duplex stainless steels do not exist. This results in false rejection of materials, leading to increased costs and equipment delivery delays.

In summary, hardness conversion is a very complex subject. 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. Furthermore, hardness requirements for materials should be specified using methods and scales that are most appropriate for the material (e.g., Brinell for large castings instead of Rockwell B or C). This approach eliminates the need for conversion and the issues that can result.


Don Bush is a principal materials engineer at Emerson Process Management-Fisher Valve Division (www.emersonprocess.com). Reach him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Thomas Spence, director of materials engineering of Flowserve Corporation (www.flowserve.com).


References

 

1. ASTM E140-07 Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, and Scleroscope Hardness, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

 

 

  • Latest Post

  • Popular

  • Links

  • Events

Advertisement

Looking for a career in the Valve Industry?

ValveCareers Horiz

To learn more, watch the videos below or visit ValveCareers.com a special initiative of the Valve Manufacturers Association