M. Gako, G.

Rosenberg: Correlation between hardness and tensile properties

in ultra-high strength dual phase steels short communication

155

CORRELATION BETWEEN HARDNESS AND

TENSILE PROPERTIES IN ULTRA-HIGH STRENGTH
DUAL PHASE STEELS SHORT COMMUNICATION
Martin Gako1,*, Gejza Rosenberg1
1
*

Institute of materials research, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Watsonova 47, 040 01 Koice - Slovakia
corresponding author: Tel.: +421 55 729 2473, e-mail: mgasko@imr.saske.sk

Resume
The possibility to predict yield strength, strength limit, fatigue live
estimation as well as other mechanical properties depending on values of
materials hardness is commonly known and it is often used in practice.
The main aim of this contribution is to review the possibilities of
application of correlation relationships between hardness and ultimate
tensile strength of steel sheets in various structural states. The
experiments were performed on advanced steels with structure which is
composed from ferrite and martensite (dual phase steels).

Available online: http://fstroj.uniza.sk/PDF/2011/27-2011.pdf

1. Introduction
Although, basically the hardness test of
the metal materials evaluates only surface
resistance of the material against the plastic
deformation, the hardness test is frequently used
because it represents cheap non-destructive and
simple method for assessment of various
material properties like yield strength, tensile
strength, fatigue limit, but also distribution of
residual strains and, in a case of brittle materials,
fracture toughness [2-4]. In order to determine
the relationship between the ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) and hardness (H) a number of
relations were established [2-4]. In practice, the
simplest equation is most often used:

UTS = H .k

(1)

where k is coefficient. In contribution [1], the

coefficient was in range from 3.38 to 3.55 for
steel, from 3.48 to 3.21 for brass and from 2.86
to 3.63 for nodular iron (the hardness was
measured according to Brinell, HB). Fig. 1
shows the progress of UTS in dependence on

Article info
Article history:
Received 27 May 2011
Accepted 28 July 2011
Online 3 November 2011
Keywords:
Dual phase steel
Vickers hardness
Mechanical properties
ISSN 1335-0803

HB for different materials [1-3]. For aluminium

alloys, in comparison with steels, generally the
smaller values of coefficient k are observed
(Fig.1). This can be well seen from results
mentioned in Fig. 1 based on work [3]. In this
contribution the fact that the value of coefficient
k, in dependence on microstructure state (SDAS
secondary dendrite arm spacing), is in the range
from 2.63 to 2.88 was found. At the steels, the
coefficient k ranges the most frequently in the
interval from 3.0 to 3.6.
According to standard SN 420379,
which is replaced now by STN EN ISO 18265, in
dependence on applied heat treatment or heat
mechanical treatment, the influence of
microstructure on correlation of TS-HB is
reflected by the ratio of yield strength and
tensile strength of steel. By this standard [2], for
the ratio YS/TS in range from 0.5 to 0.9 the
coefficient k in the range from 3.54 to 3.21 (with
increase the ratio YS/TS low value of k is
recommended to use) is recommended to use. In
present, there exist a number of correlation

Materials Engineering - Materilov ininierstvo 18 (2011) 155-159

M. Gako, G. Rosenberg: Correlation between hardness and tensile properties

in ultra-high strength dual phase steels short communication

156

UTS - HB
1400

UT S [M Pa]

1200

Al-Si-Mg (A356)
fine SDAS

1000

Steel [2]
Brass
Steel[1]

800

Cast iron
(nodular)

600

Al-Si-Mg
large SDAS

400
200
90

140

190

240

290

340

HB
Fig. 1. Plot of ultimate tensile strength of various materials as a function of hardness [1-3]

relationships HB UTS a HB YS type, where

besides the empirical coefficients, many other
material characteristics are involved. For
example, the equations by Cahoon et al. are
among the most known which include the strain
hardening exponent [3].
The utilizing of the high strength steels
constantly increases in the entire area of
industry. The high demands on strength and
plastic properties of the steel sheets for
automotive industry intended for the autobody
are placed. Among all advanced high strength
steels the dual phase steels (DP) are most often
used for automotiv industry. By comparison to
conventional steels, DP steels have significantly
better combination values of strength versus
ductility and a very good compressibility. The
high plasticity of DP steels is given by
microstructure consisting of soft ferrite and hard
martensite. In consequence of this, these steels
are also known by low value of YS/TS ratio
(mostly YS/TS = 0.6 to 0.7, valid even for steels
with strength over the 1000 MPa) [5,6].
The main aim of this work was to find out
how
the
individual
composition
of
microstructure and low ratio YS/TS results in
value of coefficient k and, at the same time, with
which accuracy it is possible to predict YS and
TS of these steels, by the Vickers hardness
testing.

2. Experimental material
For experiments five low carbon steels
with carbon content C = 0.07 - 0.15 % and
manganese content Mn = 1.0 - 1.8 % were used.
All steels were processed with two modes of
intercritical annealing consisting of heating on
750 C or 800 C (10 minutes hold) and
consequential quenching in water. The volume
fraction of martensite was in range from 20 to 60
%.
The tensile properties was measured on
specimens, which were 120 mm long, and
10 mm wide, with starting measured length
L0 = 50 mm (thickness of specimens was in
range from s = 1.0 to s = 1.2 mm). In this study
the correlation of relationship in form TS - HV,
YS - HV, YS/TS - HV5 as well as the
correlation between strain hardening exponent
and hardness: n - HV was examined.
3. Results and discussion
Among the all studied correlations, as
expected, the highest coefficient of correlation
was found between hardness and strength.
However, also in this case, the correlation
coefficient did not attain the value R2 = 0.9,
therefore the interdependence between strength
and hardness is relatively low. The results show
that the prediction of UTS value based on the
measurement of values of HV5 could be loaded

Materials Engineering - Materilov ininierstvo 18 (2011) 155-159

M. Gako, G. Rosenberg: Correlation between hardness and tensile properties

in ultra-high strength dual phase steels short communication

by considerable error. The biggest scatter of data

is observed in the range from 270 to 325 HV5.
The anticipated strength (UTS calculated from
equation on Fig. 2) is in comparison with the
strength based on tensile test measurement in the
range UTS 125 MPa.

157

The slope in the established equations

reaches more than three times higher values
(Fig. 3). It is likely that for the YS - HV5
correlation using the equation in exponential
form would be more suitable.
Also in the relation YS / UTS = f (HV5),
for the same hardness, it is possible to observe
the break. From the set of correlation
equations it is clear that, for the hardness of
about 330 units HV5, the relation shows a
minimum (Fig. 4). In practical terms we
cannot speak about correlation of YS / UTS HV5, because correlation coefficient is low.
The data in Fig. 4 show that in the range from
210 to 330 units of HV5 the values of ratio
YS / UTS are in the range from 0.5 to 0.7, and
the hardness from 370 to 430 units
of HV5 results in the ratio YS / UTS = 0.7 to
0.85.

When we take into account all measured

values mentioned in Fig.1, and the shape of
correlation equation (1) then we detect that the
coefficient k is in the range from 2.8 to 3.6. The
correlation coefficient for the relation YS = f
(HV5) is less than R2 = 0.8.
This result clearly shows that the
prediction of the yield stress of steel through the
measured values of hardness is loaded with
larger error as it was in the case of strength
prediction. Measured results in Fig. 3 indicate
that the relation YS = f (HV5) at hardness over
the 325 units HV5 is steeper.

UTS - HV5
1400
1300

y = 2,77x + 92,754

1100

R2 = 0,8786

UTS

1200
1000
900
800
700
600
200

250

300

350

400

450

HV5

Fig. 2. Ultimate tensile strength as a function of hardness HV5

YS - HV5
1200
1000

y = 1,5703x + 76,165
R = 0,5694

YS

800

y = 2,5009x - 181,44
R = 0,7695

600

y = 5,4035x - 1312,5
R = 0,736

400
200
200

250

300

350

400

450

HV5

Fig. 3. Yield strength as a function of hardness HV5

Materials Engineering - Materilov ininierstvo 18 (2011) 155-159

M. Gako, G. Rosenberg: Correlation between hardness and tensile properties

in ultra-high strength dual phase steels short communication

158

YS/UTS - HV5
0,9
0,8

y = -0,0003x + 0,6852
R2 = 0,0562

y = 0,0006x + 0,417
R2 = 0,2303

Y S /U T S

0,7
0,6
y = 0,0027x - 0,3592
R2 = 0,5422

0,5
0,4
200

250

300

350

400

450

HV5

Fig. 4. The yield strength to tensile strength ratio, as a function of hardness (HV5)

n - HV5
0,2
0,18
0,16

0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
200

y = -0,0003x + 0,2344
R = 0,5518
250

300

350

400

450

HV5

Fig. 5. The strain hardening exponent as a function of hardness (HV5)

Fig. 5 shows the dependence of strain
hardening exponent for hardness HV5. Unlike
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 it is possible to describe the
measured data by one equation, but with low
correlation coefficient R2 = 0.55. The practical
use of correlation equation n - HV5, referred in
Fig. 5, is limited. It is proved by the fact that for
the steels with n = 0.14 hardness from 225 up to
320 units HV5 was measured.
From the measured results in this work it
is evident that the possibility to predict
mechanical properties of dual phase steels by
means of the measured values of hardness is
very limited, if not impossible.
As seen in the Table 1, from known
hardness of steels, also in this case it is possible
to predict the strength of steel with the accuracy
about 10 % UTS. Also we can see the correlation

coefficients and relationships among the hardness

and other mechanical properties which suggest the
possibility of using the hardness measurements. On

the other hand, it should be noted that the

measured data (in the case of relationship
between hardness and ultimate tensile strength)
are not very different from the results measured
for different steels and different structural states
observed by other authors [4, 7].
Table 1
Table of regression analysis for all data sets
Relationship

Best fit equation

Coefficient of
determination

UTS= f (HB)

y = 2.77x + 92.754

R2 = 0.8786

YS = f (HB)

y = 2.5009x 181.44

R = 0.7695

YS/UTS=f(HB) y = 0.0006x + 0.417

R2 = 0.2303

n = f(HB)

y = -0.0003x + 0.2344

R = 0.5518

Materials Engineering - Materilov ininierstvo 18 (2011) 155-159

M. Gako, G. Rosenberg: Correlation between hardness and tensile properties

in ultra-high strength dual phase steels short communication

159

UTS - HB
1400

U T S [M Pa]

1200

Al-Si-Mg (A356)
fine SDAS

1000

Steel [2]
Brass
Steel[1]

800

Cast iron
(nodular)

600

Al-Si-Mg
large SDAS

400

DP

200
90

140

190

240

290

340

HB
Fig. 6. Dependence of ultimate tensile strength of various materials as a function of hardness [1-3]

Evidence of this is Fig. 6 that is identical to

Fig. 1, but complemented with the data
measured in this work (values of HV5 were
converted using the table of values for HB).

Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to grant agency
VEGA of SR for financial support of this work, which
was realized within the frame of project with No.
2/0195/09.

4. Conclusions
In this work the possibility of prediction
of selected mechanical properties of dual phase
steels by means of Vickers hardness tests was
verified. It was shown that from all correlation
relations established in the work it is practically
applicable only the correlation between hardness
HV5 and UTS (on the basis of known values
HV5 it is possible to predict the strength with an
accuracy of 10%). Results of work clearly
shows that for the prediction of mechanical
properties of dual phase steels with higher
accuracy the influence of the microstructural
parameters in the correlation equations is
necessary to include. That is the aim of our
further research.

References
[1] http://www.calce.umd.edu/TSFA/Hardness_ad_.
htm#6 [1 November 2011].
[2] SN 42 0379 (in Slovak)
[3] L. Ceschini, A. Morri, A. Morri, G. Pivetti:
Mater Des 32 (2011) 1367-1375.
[4] E.J. Pavlina and C.J. Van Type: J. Mater. Eng.
Perform, 17 (2008) 6 888-893.
[5] G. Rosenberg, K. Burkov, . Juhr: Manufact.
Eng. 3 (2009) 49-52.
[6] Xin-sheng Liao, Xiao-dong Wang, Xu-fei Li,
Yheng-hong Guo, Yong-hua Rong: Adv. Mater.
Res. 97-101 (2010) 728-732.
[7] J. Pavlina, C.J. Van Tyne: J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 17(6) (2008) 888-893.

Materials Engineering - Materilov ininierstvo 18 (2011) 155-159