We often find ourselves involved
in disputes regarding hardness. The first issue to explore is to
ensure that the specified hardness is appropriate for that material.
We then investigate how the hardness was measured and if was it an
appropriate method for that sample. While, there can be shades of
gray and varying levels of uncertainty between labs we expect some
level of consensus
if the methods are correct.
ASTM guidelines states to report the rockwell readings
results to the nearest integer. We have calculated our internal uncertainty
for the rockwell C scale at 1 point over a ten year period., so we
dissuade clients from conflicts of 1 rockwell point or less.
We don’t expect our clients to be experts
in details of hardness testing, they leave that to us. However, it
is important that the casual user understand the inherent geometric
and equipment limitations of hardness testing as well as the repercussions
of using a particular hardness testing method or scale where it may
not be appropriate. This can lead to errant interpretations of the
true material condition and properties.
Hardness testing labs should have the following
ASTM specifications on file: E18, E3, E384 and E140. These specifications
address proper sample preparations, selection of loads and penetrators,
sample geometry, minimum sample thickness considerations, roundness
corrections, spacing and edge considerations and conversions between
scales.
We recently had an after hours voice mail inquiry
for rockwell hardness testing. During a discussion with the client
the following day, we learned that the samples were taken to another
lab equipped with only a standard rockwell tester. Our services were
still needed as the specification called for superficial rockwell
testing using a 15N scale. Despite hardness certifications from the
heat treater, one lot of parts were failing. After hearing a more
detailed description of the samples, the combination of the specified
hardness and part thickness did not meet the minimum thickness requirements
per ASTM E18. Hence, we informed the client that microhardness testing
was required for proper hardness measurements. We found good and
failing parts to have the same hardness and that the actual hardness
was out of their specified range. We took this a bit further as there
can different microstructures exhibiting the same final hardness.
Microstructural examinations revealed that in addition to the errant
hardness, the offending lot was poorly heat treated (under austenitized).
Remedial action included revising the print to
specify microhardness testing to verify the hardness and to restrict
errant microstructures resulting from heat treating. |