05022016Mon
Last updateMon, 02 May 2016 9pm

i

Food and Beverage Processing

Food and Beverage Processing

When wandering the grocery store aisles,...

Variable Frequency Drives in Electric Actuators

Variable Frequency Drives in Electric Actuators

Electric actuators are vital for operati...

Braided Packing: An Old Technology with a Modern Twist

Braided Packing: An Old Technology with a Modern Twist

Compression packing is the primary metho...

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

MRC Global Announces First Quarter 2016 Results

-1 DAYS AGO  |  Chris Guy

MRC Global Inc. today announced first quarter 2016 results. The company's sales were $783 million for the first quarter of 2016, which were 39% lower ...

Readmore

Loading...
Advertisement
i

Industry Headlines

MRC Global Announces First Quarter 2016 Results

-1 DAYS AGO

MRC Global Inc. today announced first quarter 2016 results. The company's sales were $783 million for the first quarter of 2016, which were 39% lower than the first quarter of 2015 and 19% lower than the fourth quarter of 2015. As compared to last year, reduced customer activity across all segments ...

Readmore

CIRCOR Reports First-Quarter 2016 Financial Results

1 HOUR AGO

CIRCOR International announced financial results for the first quarter ended April 3, 2016. In the quarter CIRCOR delivered revenue of $151 million and Adjusted EPS of $0.52.

“CIRCOR delivered solid first-quarter financial results , demonstrating ongoing progress on our margin expansion and simpl...

Readmore

Energy Sector Weighs on Construction Starts

3 DAYS AGO

At a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $660.5 billion, new construction starts in March receded 1% from February’s pace, according to Dodge Data & Analytics. Total construction starts had jumped 13% in February, led by a huge gain for the electric utility and gas plant category. The dolla...

Readmore

Chevron Investing Billions in The Permian Basin

5 DAYS AGO

At Chevron’s annual security analyst meeting last month, chairman and CEO John Watson said that his company plans on investing billions into oil & gas projects in the Permian Basin.

According to the Hobbs News-Sun , Watson predicted they could be pumping up to 350,000 barrels a day out of West ...

Readmore

ISM: Manufacturing Activity Increased in April

-1 DAYS AGO

Manufacturing expanded in April as the PMI registered 50.8%, a decrease of 1% from the March reading of 51.8%, indicating growth in manufacturing for the second consecutive month, following five consecutive months of contraction in manufacturing.

The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) reports that 15...

Readmore

House Passes Bill To Lower Import Tariffs On Manufacturers

4 DAYS AGO

This week, the House voted 415-2 for the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016. The bipartisan, bicameral bill reforms the way Congress considers legislation for suspending tariffs on products not made in the U.S., what some are calling, “manufacturing tax breaks.” The legis...

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.

 

 

Advertisement

  • Latest Post

  • Popular

  • Links

  • Events