05292016Sun
Last updateFri, 27 May 2016 2pm

i

Industry and Regulatory Changes in Offshore Operations

Industry and Regulatory Changes in Offshore Operations

On May 13, 2016, the offshore oil and ga...

Strategies for Successful SIS Valve Diagnostic Implementation

Strategies for Successful SIS Valve Diagnostic Implementation

End users and contractors alike strive t...

Stop Check Valves

Stop Check Valves

Stop check valves are vital to several i...

Subscribe

SUBSCRIBE

•  Digital magazine

•  Print magazine

•  VALVE eNews

Read the latest issue of VALVE Magazine

BUYERS GUIDE 300x220

New Products

  • ja-news-2
  • ja-news-3

Industry Headlines

Advertisement
i

Industry Headlines

ValvTechnologies Names Garcia, Mermelstein to New Positions

4 DAYS AGO
ValvTechnologies Names Garcia, Mermelstein to New Positions

ValvTechnologies, Inc. has named David Garcia director of manufacturing and Steve Mermelstein as regional director, Americas and director, channel management.

Previously, West Point graduate Garcia served as director of operations for Merla Wellhead Solutions and held plant manager positions at Hallib...

Readmore

Emerson Automating UK Waste-to-Energy Plant

4 DAYS AGO

Emerson will provide control systems and project services for a new waste-to-energy power plant near Knaresborough Allerton, North Yorkshire, UK. Construction is expected to be completed in 2017, with the plant fully operational in 2018.

The plant , which will also incorporate biogas and recycling faci...

Readmore

U.S. Still Top Producer of Petroleum, Natural Gas Hydrocarbons

3 DAYS AGO

The U.S. remained the world's top producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in 2015, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates . U.S. petroleum and natural gas production first surpassed Russia in 2012, and the U.S. has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 20...

Readmore

Why $50/Barrel Oil Means Stability to U.S. Producers

3 DAYS AGO

The rise to $50-per-barrel oil means a return to stability, particularly for domestic shale producers, according to Dan K. Eberhart, CEO, Canary, LLC. At this level , companies that saw the value of their product drop more than 75% in less than two years might have the confidence to resume drilling ac...

Readmore

Survey: Manufacturing Execs Investing in Advanced Tech

3 DAYS AGO

 A convergence of disruptive factors such as new technologies, increasing competition, and pricing pressures, is forcing manufacturers to increase investment in new products and services as they seek to innovate manufacturing capabilities, according to the 2016 KPMG Global Manufacturing Outlook ...

Readmore

Durable Goods Orders Surge 3.4%, But Demand Soft

3 DAYS AGO

New orders for manufactured durable goods in April increased $7.7 billion or 3.4% to $235.9 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau announced today. This increase, up three of the last four months, followed a 1.9% March increase. Excluding transportation, new orders increased 0.4%. Excluding defense, new or...

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