Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:58:55.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Hardness Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2021

T. W. Clyne  and
J. E. Campbell
T. W. Clyne
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
J. E. Campbell
Affiliation:
Plastometrex, Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Hardness test procedures of various types have been in use for many decades. They are usually quick and easy to carry out, the equipment required is relatively simple and cheap, and there are portable machines that allow in situ measurements to be made on components in service. The volume being tested is relatively small, so it’s possible to map the hardness number across surfaces, exploring local variations, and to obtain values from thin surface layers and coatings. The main problem with hardness is that it’s not a well-defined property. The value obtained during testing of a given sample is different for different types of test, and also for the same test with different conditions. Identical hardness numbers can be obtained from materials exhibiting a wide range of yielding and work hardening characteristics. The reasons for this are well established. There have been many attempts to extract meaningful plasticity parameters, particularly the yield stress, from hardness numbers, but these are mostly based on neglect of work hardening. In practice, materials that exhibit no work hardening at all are rare and indeed quantification of the work hardening behavior of a metal is a central objective of plasticity testing. The status of hardness testing is thus one of being a technique that is convenient and widely used, but the results obtained from it should be regarded as no better than semi-quantitative. There are procedures and protocols in which they are accorded a higher significance than this, but this is an unsound approach.

Keywords

Hardness numbers: BrinellRockwellVickersKnooprebound hardnessMohs scale.
Type
Chapter
Information
Testing of the Plastic Deformation of Metals , pp. 123 - 147
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Walley, SM, Historical origins of indentation hardness testing. Materials Science and Technology, 2012. 28(9–10): 1028–1044.Google Scholar
Broitman, E, Indentation hardness measurements at macro-, micro-, and nanoscale: a critical overview. Tribology Letters, 2017. 65(1).Google Scholar
Bishop, RF and Mott, NF, The theory of indentation and hardness tests. Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, 1945. 57(321): 147–159.Google Scholar
Tabor, D, Hardness of Metals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.Google Scholar
Mott, BW, Microindentation Hardness Testing. London: Butterworths, 1956.Google Scholar
Tabor, D, Indentation hardness: fifty years on – a personal view. Philosophical Magazine A: Physics of Condensed Matter, Structure, Defects and Mechanical Properties, 1996. 74(5): 1207–1212.Google Scholar
Hutchings, IM, The contributions of David Tabor to the science of indentation hardness. Journal of Materials Research, 2009. 24(3): 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, K, Hardness Testing: Principles and Applications. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 2011.Google Scholar
Herrmann, K, Jennett, NM, Wegener, W, Meneve, J, Hasche, K and Seemann, R, Progress in determination of the area function of indenters used for nanoindentation. Thin Solid Films, 2000. 377: 394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, O, Morrison, HL and Devenpeck, ML, Sphere indentation with application to Brinell hardness test. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 1974. 16(1): 75–82.Google Scholar
Hill, R, Storakers, B and Zdunek, AB, A theoretical study of the Brinell hardness test. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 1989. 423(1865): 301–330.Google Scholar
Biwa, S and Storakers, B, An analysis of fully plastic Brinell indentation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1995. 43(8): 1303–1333.Google Scholar
Campbell, JE, Thompson, RP, Dean, J and Clyne, TW, Experimental and computational issues for automated extraction of plasticity parameters from spherical indentation. Mechanics of Materials, 2018. 124: 118–131.Google Scholar
Kang, SK, Kim, JY, Park, CP, Kim, HU and Kwon, D, Conventional Vickers and true instrumented indentation hardness determined by instrumented indentation tests. Journal of Materials Research, 2010. 25(2): 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernot, X, Moussa, C and Bartier, O, Study of the concept of representative strain and constraint factor introduced by Vickers indentation. Mechanics of Materials, 2014. 68: 1–14.Google Scholar
Tiryakioglu, M and Robinson, JS, On the representative strain in Vickers hardness testing of 7010 aluminum alloy. Materials Science and Engineering: A Structural Materials: Properties, Microstructure and Processing, 2015. 641: 231–236.Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, AE, Larsson, PL and Vestergaard, R, Analysis of Vickers indentation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1994. 31(19): 2679–2708.Google Scholar
Alcala, J, Barone, AC and Anglada, M, The influence of plastic hardening on surface deformation modes around Vickers and spherical indents. Acta Materialia, 2000. 48(13): 3451–3464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antunes, JM, Menezes, LF and Fernandes, JV, Three-dimensional numerical simulation of Vickers indentation tests. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006. 43(3–4): 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakharova, NA, Fernandes, J, Antunes, JM and Oliveira, MC, Comparison between Berkovich, Vickers and conical indentation tests: a three-dimensional numerical simulation study. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2009. 46(5): 1095–1104.Google Scholar
Weiss, HJ, On deriving Vickers hardness from penetration depth. Physica Status Solidi A: Applied Research, 1987. 99(2): 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, M, Further analysis of the size effect in indentation hardness tests of some metals. Journal of Materials Research, 1995. 10(11): 2908–2915.Google Scholar
Wheeler, JM, Oliver, RA and Clyne, TW, AFM observation of diamond indenters after oxidation at elevated temperatures. Diamond & Related Materials, 2010. 19: 1348–1353.Google Scholar
Haddow, JB, A study of Knoop hardness test. Journal of Basic Engineering, 1966. 88(3): 682–&.Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, AE and Zisis, T, Analysis of Knoop indentation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2011. 48(1): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, TY, Oliver, WC and Pharr, GM, Influences of stress on the measured mechanical properties using nanoindentation: part I. Experimental studies in an aluminium alloy. Journal of Materials Research, 1996. 11(5): 752–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suresh, S and Giannakopoulos, AE, A new method for estimating residual stresses by instrumented sharp indentation. Acta Materialia, 1998. 46(16): 5755–5767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, N and Heerens, J, On the effect of a general residual stress state on indentation and hardness testing. Acta Materialia, 2008. 56(20): 6205–6213.Google Scholar
Rickhey, F, Lee, JH and Lee, H, A contact size-independent approach to the estimation of biaxial residual stresses by Knoop indentation. Materials & Design, 2015. 84: 300–312.Google Scholar
Kim, YC, Ahn, HJ, Kwon, D and Kim, JY, Modeling and experimental verification for non-equibiaxial residual stress evaluated by Knoop indentations. Metals and Materials International, 2016. 22(1): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseinzadeh, AR and Mahmoudi, AH, An approach for Knoop and Vickers indentations to measure equi-biaxial residual stresses and material properties: a comprehensive comparison. Mechanics of Materials, 2019. 134: 153–164.Google Scholar
Aydin, A and Basu, A, The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Engineering Geology, 2005. 81(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Altindag, R and Guney, A, ISRM suggested method for determining the Shore hardness value for rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2006. 43(1): 19–22.Google Scholar
Kovler, K, Wang, FZ and Muravin, B, Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers. Materials and Structures, 2018. 51(5).Google Scholar
Brencich, A and Campeggio, F, Leeb hardness for yielding stress assessment of steel bars in existing reinforced structures. Construction and Building Materials, 2019. 227.Google Scholar
Tabor, D, Mohs hardness scale – a physical interpretation. Proceedings of the Physical Society of London Section B, 1954. 67(411): 249–257.Google Scholar
Gerberich, WW, Ballarini, R, Hintsala, ED, Mishra, M, Molinari, JF and Szlufarska, I, Toward demystifying the Mohs hardness scale. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2015. 98(9): 2681–2688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, JA, Analytical models of scratch hardness. Tribology International, 1996. 29(8): 675–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Useinov, AS and Useinov, SS, Scratch hardness evaluation with in-situ pile-up effect estimation. Philosophical Magazine, 2012. 92(25–27): 3188–3198.Google Scholar
Kareer, A, Hou, XD, Jennett, NM and Hainsworth, SV, The existence of a lateral size effect and the relationship between indentation and scratch hardness in copper. Philosophical Magazine, 2016. 96(32–34): 3396–3413.Google Scholar
Narayanaswamy, B, Ghaderi, A, Hodgson, P, Cizek, P, Chao, Q, Saf, M and Beladi, H, Abrasive wear resistance of ferrous microstructures with similar bulk hardness levels evaluated by a scratch-tester method. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A: Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science, 2019. 50A(10): 4839–4850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Hardness Testing
  • T. W. Clyne, University of Cambridge, J. E. Campbell
  • Book: Testing of the Plastic Deformation of Metals
  • Online publication: 24 May 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943369.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Hardness Testing
  • T. W. Clyne, University of Cambridge, J. E. Campbell
  • Book: Testing of the Plastic Deformation of Metals
  • Online publication: 24 May 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943369.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Hardness Testing
  • T. W. Clyne, University of Cambridge, J. E. Campbell
  • Book: Testing of the Plastic Deformation of Metals
  • Online publication: 24 May 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943369.008
Available formats
×