06232017Fri
Last updateFri, 23 Jun 2017 4pm

i

Why Air Valves are Needed in Water Applications

Why Air Valves are Needed in Water Applications

Air valves are hydromechanical devices d...

Achieving Profitability Through Maintenance Management

Achieving Profitability Through Maintenance Management

One of the distinctions between maintena...

Control Valve Positioner Performance Diagnostics

Control Valve Positioner Performance Diagnostics

There has been discussion for some years...

Are Your Safety Instrumented Systems Proof Tests Effective?

Are Your Safety Instrumented Systems Proof Tests Effective?

Many people assume that a proof test of ...

Subscribe vmspr17

FREE SUBSCRIPTION*

•  Print magazine
•  Digital magazine
•  VALVE eNews
Read the latest issue

*to qualified valve professionals in the U.S./Canada

The Weekly Report

New Products

  • ja-news-2
  • ja-news-3

Industry Headlines

Advertisement
i

Industry Headlines

ITT Announces President of Industrial Process Business

23 HOURS AGO

ITT Inc. has appointed David J. Malinas as president of its Industrial Process business, reporting to Luca Savi, ITT's COO. In this role, Malinas will be responsible for delivering the strategic and operating plans of ITT's Industrial Process business, which employs about 2,500 people globally and h...

Readmore

Chesterton Expands Environmental Consulting Expertise

3 DAYS AGO

A.W. Chesterton Company  is expanding its global environmental solutions expertise with the addition of two highly experienced industrial emissions specialists, Bronson Pate and Beau Stander. Both will be joining FluidEfficiency, a Chesterton business group. Pate and Stander will serve in the ro...

Readmore

Smart Technology Transforming Oil & Gas Industry

1 DAY AGO

“A new cadre of services companies, trying to sell the energy industry on the promise of a more efficient digital age, is fighting to get smart technology onto pipes, tanks, platforms and drills, in some cases deeply discounting prices to gain market share,” the Houston Chronicle reports .

C...

Readmore

U.S. Refineries Running at Peak Levels

2 DAYS AGO

Gross inputs to U.S. petroleum refineries, also referred to as refinery runs, averaged a record high 17.7 million barrels per day (b/d) for the week ending May 26, before dropping slightly to 17.5 million b/d for the week ending June 2 and 17.6 million b/d for the week ending June 9. According to th...

Readmore

Economic Indicators Index Rises for Fifth Straight Month

-1 DAYS AGO

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index (LEI) for the U.S. increased 0.3% in May to 127.0, following a 0.2% increase in April, and a 0.4% increase in March.

“The U.S. LEI continued on its upward trend in May, suggesting the economy is likely to remain on, or perhaps even moderately above, its...

Readmore

U.S. Manufacturing Technology Orders Continue Strong Recovery

1 DAY AGO

Manufacturing technology orders made year-over-year gains in April according to the latest U.S. Manufacturing Technology Orders report from The Association For Manufacturing Technology (AMT). It was also the first month that orders showed gains year to date for 2017.

Monthly orders were up 12.3% compar...

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