2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress

Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

Brinell Hardness Testing Methods and Their Applicability

Devin R. Hess, Ph.D.,

General Motors Engine Materials Engineer, Pontiac, Michigan

Herbert W. Doty, Ph.D.

General Motors Materials Technology, Pontiac, Michigan

Copyright 2020 American Foundry Society

ABSTRACT test, better known as the Product A, was introduced in

Hardness is one of the most commonly specified
requirements on automotive propulsion system
engineering drawings. It is used as a process control
check and as a proxy for strength, wear resistance, and
machinability. It is commonly assumed harder means
stronger, and while this is generally true, what are we
really controlling when we measure hardness? Depending
on the material and the manufacturing process, hardness
can be used to verify that the material has been exposed to
the appropriate thermal conditions and that the proper
microstructure is present.
This paper explores some of the issues that can arise when
trying to compare between different scales within a given
Product And when trying to convert from one test method
to another and offers some rationale for these limitations.
The focus of this paper is limited to cast iron and
aluminum engine components and the Brinell, Rockwell,
and Equotip (noted from here on as “Product A”) test
methods.
Keywords: Hardness, Brinell, Rockwell, cast iron,
aluminum
INTRODUCTION
Different hardness test methods have been developed and
adopted to address a variety of problems. There are at
least 12 different methods that can be used for measuring
hardness. One of the earliest hardness testing methods
was the scratch test which was attributed to Reaumur in
1722.1 File hardness is one type of scratch test which has
been used to ensure that proper surface hardening has
been achieved in applications such as the induction heat
treating of valve seats in cast iron cylinder heads. In 1900,
Johan August Brinell’s ball hardness test was showcased
at the Paris Exhibition.2 The Brinell test has become one
of the most commonly used hardness tests. Another
commonly used hardness test is the Rockwell hardness
test which was introduced in 1919 by Stanley P.
Rockwell.1 The Vickers hardness test was introduced in
1922 by R. L. Smith and G. E. Sandland.3 The Vickers
test was a variation on the Brinell test. The Leeb rebound
1975.4 The Leeb test is a form of the scleroscope test.
One definition of hardness is a materials resistance to
indentation. This is typically determined by measuring the
permanent depth or diameter of the indentation left by the
testing method. The resulting hardness value depends on
the Product And the test parameters being used. Hardness
therefore is not a fundamental physical property of a
material. Thus, it is critical that the Product A parameters
be clearly defined when specifying or reporting a
hardness value. One concern that often arises is how to
compare hardness values obtained from different test
methods.
HARDNESS TEST METHODS REVIEWED IN THIS
PAPER
BRINELL HARDNESS
The Brinell hardness test is an indentation type of test. It
is commonly specified to test materials that have a
structure that is too coarse or that have a surface that is
too rough to be tested using another test method, e.g.
castings and forgings. The Brinell method is performed
by applying a predetermined test load (F) to a carbide ball
of fixed diameter (D) into the workpiece. The load is held
for a predetermined time period and then removed. The
diameter of the resulting indentation is then measured
using a specially designed Brinell scope or an optical
system across at least two diameters, usually at right
angles to each other. These diameters are averaged (d)
and used to determine the surface area of the indentation.
The hardness number is generated by dividing the test
force by the surface area of the indentation, Equation 1.
The Brinell test was originally developed for determining
the hardness of steels but has since been applied to almost
all metals.
2𝐹𝐹
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = Eqn. 1
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋(𝐷𝐷 − �𝐷𝐷2 − 𝑑𝑑 2 )
Where:
HBW = the Brinell hardness number
F = the test force in kgf
D = the diameter of the indenter ball in mm
d = the measured mean diameter of the indentation

Page 1 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

Standards for Brinell Hardness Testing indicates recommended force-diameter ratios for certain
The two most commonly utilized standards for measuring materials and hardness ranges. That table is re-created in
Brinell hardness are ASTM E10 and ISO 6506. ASTM Table 1.6 It is important to note that the standards use
E10 is the standard followed in North America while ISO force-diameter ratio, but it is actually the force in kgf
6506 is the standard followed throughout much of the rest divided by the diameter squared.
of the world. While these standards are essentially
equivalent there are subtle differences which have been Table 1. Ratio 0.102xF/D2 for Different Metallic
shown to result in different hardness readings. In Materials6
comparing these standards, it is important not only to
Material Brinell Force-diameter
point out the differences which exist but also to point out
hardness ratio 0.102xF/D2
common requirements between the standards.
(HBW) (N/mm2)
Common Requirements Between Standards Steel, nickel 30
ASTM E10 and ISO 6506 both describe equipment alloys, titanium
requirements, test piece requirements, and the test alloys
procedure for performing Brinell hardness measurements. Cast iron a < 140 10
Both standards require the use of a hard metal or tungsten ≥ 140 30
carbide ball as the indenter.5,6 Both standards show how Copper and < 35 5
to designate Brinell hardness by calling out the hardness copper alloys 35 to 200 10
number followed by the indenter type (e.g. HBW for hard > 200 30
metal ball), followed by the diameter of the indenter used Light metals and < 35 2.5
and the applied load in kgf.5,6 For example, 109 HBW their alloys 35 to 80 5, 10, 15
10/500 would be a hardness value of 109 using a tungsten > 80 10, 15
indenter with a diameter of 10 mm (0.39 in.) and an Lead, tin 1
applied load of 500 kgf (4903 N). Both standards also Sintered metal According to ISO 4498-1
recommended that the test be carried out at a temperature a - For the testing of cast iron, the nominal
between 50 F(10 C) and 95 F(35 C).5,6 diameter of the ball shall be 2.5 mm, 5 mm, or 10
mm.
A rather interesting commonality between the two
standards is a comment made with respect to converting While ASTM E10 does not provide any recommendations
to other hardness scales or to tensile strength. Both for what load should be used it does state that different
standards make a statement cautioning against converting Brinell hardness numbers may be obtained if different
to other hardness scales or into tensile strength, stating loads are used on the same diameter ball on the same
that these conversions are approximations at best and material.5 ASTM E10 also states that direct comparisons
should be avoided unless a reliable basis has been of results using different scales (indenter and load
established through comparative tests.5,6 This cautionary combinations) can only be made using the same force-
statement will be explored in further detail later in this diameter ratios.5
paper.
In North America it has been common practice to use a
An important, and often overlooked, requirement that is 500 kgf (4903 N) load with a 10 mm (0.39 in.) diameter
common between both standards is the minimum and indenter when testing aluminum.7 This results in a force-
maximum diameter of the indentation. Both standards diameter ratio of 5. According to ISO 6506, as shown in
indicate that the test force be selected so that the resulting Table 1, a force-diameter ratio of 5 should only be used
indentation is between 24% and 60% of the ball for light metals that have a hardness between 35 and 80.
diameter.5,6 This common requirement also leads to one of Also as shown in Table 1, ISO 6506 recommends a force-
the most significant differences between the two diameter ratio of 10 or 15 be used for light metals and
standards which will be discussed in the next section. alloys with a hardness number greater than 80.

Differences Between Standards Most automotive cast aluminum components have a

One difference between the ASTM E10 and ISO 6506
standards is the required thickness of the test sample.
ASTM E10 suggests that the thickness of the material
should be at least 10 times the depth of the indentation.5
Whereas ISO 6506 only requires the thickness to be at
least 8 times the depth of the indentation.6
Probably the most important difference between ASTM
E10 and ISO 6506 resides in the recommendation for
what test force to use. ISO 6506 provides a table which
hardness that exceeds 80 HBW 10/500 with some
components approaching 120 HBW 10/500. Figure 1
shows an overlay of this typical hardness range with both
the HBW 10/500 scale and the HBW 10/1000 scale.
The graph in Figure 1 has been created to show the
hardness as a function of the indentation diameter. The
indentation diameter has been limited to fall within the
24% to 60% range specified by ASTM E10 and ISO
6506. As is illustrated in Figure 1, the typical range of

Page 2 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)
hardness values for automotive cast aluminum alloys is
fully covered using the HBW 10/1000 scale whereas the
maximum hardness value that falls within the 24% to
60% range is only 109 HBW 10/500. It is important to
note that the HBW 10/500 scale is a force-diameter ratio
of 5 while the HBW 10/1000 scale is a force-diameter
ratio of 10. Figure 1 supports the ISO 6506
recommendation that a scale with a force-diameter ratio
of 10 should be used if the hardness exceeds 80.
Figure 1. Graph showing hardness versus indentation
diameter between 24% and 60% for a 10 mm diameter
indenter with typical hardness ranges for aluminum
alloys overlaid.
ROCKWELL HARDNESS
The Rockwell hardness method measures the permanent
depth of indentation produced by a load applied to a
material via an indenter. A variety of indenters may be
used: conical diamond with a round tip for harder metals
to ball indenters with a diameter ranging from 1/16 in.
(1.5875 mm) to ½ in. (12.7 mm) for softer materials.
A preload is first applied to a sample using a diamond or
ball indenter. Preloads range from 3 kgf (29.4 N) used in
the “Superficial” Rockwell scale to 10 kgf (98.1 N) used
in the “Regular” Rockwell scales. After holding the
preload force for a specified dwell time, the baseline
depth of indentation is measured. After the preload an
additional load, called the major load, is added to reach
the total required test load. Total test load ranges from 15
kgf (147.1N) to 150kgf (1471N) with the superficial and
regular Rockwell tests while Rockwell microhardness test
loads range from 500 kgf (4903 N) to 3000 kgf (29420
N). This force is held for a predetermined amount of time,
known as the dwell time, to allow for elastic recovery.
The major load is then released, returning to the minor
load. After holding the minor load for a specified dwell
time, the final depth of indentation is measured.
The Rockwell hardness value is derived from the
difference in the baseline and final depth measurements.
This difference is converted to a hardness number on a
100-point scale.
Page 3 of 10
VICKERS HARDNESS
The Vickers hardness test method, also referred to as a
microhardness test method, is mostly used for small parts,
thin sections, or case depth work. Vickers is based on an
optical measurement system. ASTM E384 specifies a
range of light loads using a diamond indenter to make an
indentation which is measured and converted to a
hardness value.8 Test samples must be highly polished to
enable accurate measurement of the size of the
impressions. A square base pyramid shaped diamond
indenter is used for testing in the Vickers scale. Typically
loads are very light, ranging from 10 gf (0.098 N) to 1 kgf
(9.8 N); although “macro” Vickers loads can range up to
30 kgf (294.2 N) or more.
LEEB HARDNESS
The Leeb hardness test is commonly referred to as the
Product A. In this test method, a device fires a hard
indenter sphere towards the surface of the material being
tested. The velocity of the impact body is recorded in
three main test phases:
1. The pre-impact phase, where the impact body is
accelerated by spring force towards the surface of the
test piece
2. The impact phase, where the impact body and the test
piece are in contact. The hard indenter tip causes the
test material to elastically and plastically deform and
is itself elastically deformed. After the impact body is
fully stopped, elastic recovery of the test material and
the impact body takes place and causes the rebound
of the impact body.
3. The rebound phase, where the impact body leaves the
test piece with residual energy that was not consumed
during the impact phase.
The L-value, also known as the Leeb-number or Leeb
hardness (HL), is the ratio of the rebound velocity to the
impact velocity of the impact body multiplied by 1000.
COMPARING BETWEEN BRINELL HARDNESS
SCALES
Within the Brinell test, each combination of indenter and
load defines a different hardness scale. Similar to how
Rockwell A, B, and C are different scales within the
Rockwell hardness test procedure; HBW 10/500, HBW
10/1000, HBW 10/3000, HBW 2.5/62.5, HBW 5/250, etc.
are all different scales within the Brinell hardness test
procedure. Both ASTM E10 and ISO 6506 caution
against comparing between scales but suggest that if the
force-diameter ratio is maintained then the resulting
hardness value would be approximately the same.5, 6
Some part print requirements callout a Brinell hardness
number without a scale leaving the part manufacturer to
use the ‘common industry practice’ to perform the
measurement. As has been implied by the comparison in
the previous section, the ‘common industry practice’
could be different depending on what region of the world
the manufacturer resides. Some part print requirements
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

require Brinell hardness be measured in areas where a and the HBW 2.5/62.5 scale. Both of these scales have a
smaller indenter and lighter load is required. Studies were force-diameter ratio of 10 so according to ISO 6506 and
carried out to understand the effect of using different ASTM E10 the resulting hardness values should be
Brinell hardness scales to measure aluminum castings and approximately the same.5, 6 Figure 3 shows a graph with
to quantify any differences. the HBW 2.5/62.5 scale on the y-axis and the HBW
10/1000 scale on the x-axis. For the samples tested, the
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE HBW 2.5/62.5 scale read on average 7 points higher than
Samples of castings were obtained such that the the HBW 10/1000 scale. Individual readings were found
microstructure in a localized region would be similar and to be as much as 17 points different.
with sufficient material to enable measurement with
different Brinell hardness scales. Comparisons were made
looking at the HBW 10/500 versus the HBW 10/1000
scales, the HBW 10/1000 versus the HBW 2.5/62.5
scales, and the HBW 10/500 versus the HBW 2.5/62.5
scales. These are the most common scales used and
represent a comparison between different force-diameter
ratios, 5 versus 10, and different scales but with a
common force-diameter ratio of 10.

Six different aluminum alloy and heat treatment

combinations were sampled. The results from all of the
combinations were plotted on the same graph to see if
alloy and heat treatment had an influence on the results,
Figure 2. The graph was formatted to create an isoplot
with a range of 80 to 130 on both the x and y axis. The
expectation is that if the readings for both scales were Figure 3. Graph showing a comparison between the
HBW 2.5/62.5 scale and the HBW 10/1000 scale.
equivalent, then all of the data would lie on the 45-degree
line formed by drawing a line from the origin (80 HBW
The difference between the HBW 10/500 and HBW
10/500 – 80 HBW 10/1000) to the upper right corner (130
2.5/62.5 scales were also examined, Figure 4. It was
HBW 10/500 – 130 HBW 10/1000). The results were
found that the average differences were additive going
very close to equivalent, but the hardness readings
from HBW 10/500 to HBW 10/1000 to HBW 2.5/62.5.
obtained using the HBW 10/1000 scale were higher than
On average the difference between the HBW 10/500 scale
those obtained using the HBW 10/500 scale. On average,
and the HBW 2.5/62.5 scale was 10 points with individual
the HBW 10/1000 readings were approximately 3 points
measurements being as high as 21 points different.
higher than the HBW 10/500 readings. Individual
readings were found as high as 9 points different between
the two scales.

Figure 4. Graph showing a comparison between the

Figure 2. Graph showing a comparison between the
HBW 10/1000, force-diameter ratio = 10, and HBW
10/500, force-diameter ratio = 5, for six different
aluminum alloy–heat treatment combinations.
The same six alloy and heat treat combination samples
were then evaluated to compare the HBW 10/1000 scale
HBW 2.5/62.5 scale and the HBW 10/500 scale.
Based on these findings, a universal offset probably
cannot be applied to adjust readings from one scale to
another. Also published equations or charts that convert
between one scale and another most likely are not
accurate for applying to cast aluminum materials. There
was a lot of scatter in the Brinell hardness readings as

Page 4 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

well which compounds the issues of trying to convert to ensure that the presence of the mount material did not
between scales. impact the hardness readings.

MEASUREMENT APPARATUS Figure 6 is a micrograph showing the indentation made in

There are a couple of types of devices that can be used for a fine microstructure 319-F sample using the HBW
measuring the diameter of the indentations made.5, 6 The 10/500 scale. This is the standard scale used in foundries
Type A device is a microscope that can make in North America. When the indentation was read using
continuously variable measurements such as image the metallograph a hardness value of 80.2 HBW 10/500
analysis equipment.5 The Type B device is a hand-held was calculated. When the indentation was read using a
scope with fixed graduated lines.5 A couple of different stereoscope a hardness value of 84.6 HBW 10/500 was
Type A measurement devices were examined. A calculated.
comparison was made between measuring the diameter
using a stereoscope connected to a computer with image
analysis software and a metallograph connected to a
computer with the same image analysis software. Figure 5
shows the average results of the study.

Figure 5. Graph showing that the average hardness

reported when measuring the indentation with a
stereoscope is higher than the average hardness
reported when measuring the indentation with a
metallograph.
The study was performed on six 319-F samples. Two
samples were a fine microstructure, two samples were a
coarse microstructure, and two samples were selected in
between the extremes. On average, the stereoscope
resulted in a slightly higher reported hardness value than
when the reading was taken using a metallograph. This is
likely due to the greater ability to resolve the edge of the
indentation in the metallograph than in a stereoscope. An
evaluation of the Type B device was not performed
however it is anticipated that since the resolution is lower
with a Type B device, the reported hardness would be
higher.
EFFECTS FROM MICROSTRUCTURE
There were concerns that the microstructure may affect
the hardness readings. Perhaps Silicon particles were
influencing the hardness or even porosity. Micrographs
were prepared and then indentations were performed on
the polished micrographs so that we could see the
microstructure that is covered by the indentations. The
readings taken on the micrographs were compared to
hardness readings that were taken on unmounted samples
Figure 6. Micrograph showing the microstructure
sampled using the HBW 10/500 scale.
Figure 7 is a micrograph showing the indentation made in
the same sample as shown in Figure 6 using the HBW
10/1000 scale. This would be the recommended scale
based on requirements in ISO 6506. When the indentation
was read using the metallograph a hardness value of 81.1
HBW 10/1000 was calculated. When the indentation was
read using a stereoscope a hardness value of 88.2 HBW
10/1000 was calculated.
Figure 8 is a micrograph showing the indentation made in
the same sample as shown in Figures 6 and 7 using the
HBW 2.5/62.5 scale. This is an equivalent force-diameter
ratio as the HBW 10/1000 scale. When the indentation
was read using the metallograph a hardness value of 85.0
HBW 2.5/62.5 was calculated. When the indentation was
read using a stereoscope a hardness value of 86.7 HBW
2.5/62.5 was calculated.

Page 5 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)
Figure 7. Micrograph showing the microstructure
sampled using the HBW 10/1000 scale.
Figure 8. Micrograph showing the microstructure
sampled using the HBW 2.5/62.5 scale.
Figure 9 is a micrograph showing the indentation made in
a coarse microstructure 319-F sample. The coarse
microstructure shows more porosity than the fine
microstructure sample. When the indentation was read
using the metallograph a hardness value of 85.2 HBW
2.5/62.5 was calculated. When the indentation was read
using a stereoscope a hardness value of 88.9 HBW
2.5/62.5 was calculated. Porosity can be seen in the
bottom of the indentation. Even though porosity was
sampled in this measurement, the hardness value did not
read softer than the fine microstructure sample which had
no porosity.
Page 6 of 10
Figure 9. Micrograph showing the microstructure
sampled using the HBW 2.5/62.5 scale in a coarse
microstructure.
While an exact influence of the microstructure was not
able to be determined, the micrographs shown in Figure 6
through Figure 9 do show that the indentations in all
scales used were sufficiently large enough to average any
minor influences from eutectic volume and porosity.
CONVERTING BETWEEN HARDNESS TEST
MEASUREMENT METHODS
The previous section demonstrated some of the risks in
converting between scales within the Brinell hardness test
method. Sometimes because of test equipment limitations,
production feasibility, or sample limitations a different
hardness test method may be used to perform the test and
the results are converted back to the hardness test method
that is specified for the component. A couple of examples
of this would be the use of the Product A hardness test
unit and the use of the Rockwell test method for cast iron
components and then converting the results back to
Brinell hardness values.
PRODUCT A HARDNESS TESTING
The Product A hardness test is a quick and portable test
which makes it a desirable alternative to the benchtop
Brinell hardness test for many foundries. In North
America, the hardness value obtained from the Product A
hardness test is usually reported as an HBW 10/500 value.
A correlation study between the Product A unit and a
benchtop Brinell hardness unit was performed. A
tolerance parallelogram was used to understand how
process control limits are influenced by using a Product A
hardness test unit versus a stationary bench Brinell
hardness test unit, Figure 10.
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

Figure 10. Tolerance parallelogram showing a

comparison between a stationary bench Brinell test
unit on the y-axis and a Product A handheld test unit
on the x-axis.

Figure 10 indicates that the process control range between Figure 11. Hardness impressions on cylinder bore wall
the Product A test unit and the benchtop Brinell hardness sections using various hardness scales.
unit is not equivalent. In this particular study, the process
control range for the Product A unit is slightly lower than
for the benchtop Brinell unit.

Figure 10 is only an example showing that a difference

exists between the Product A hardness test unit and the
benchtop Brinell hardness unit. Extensive studies of this
difference have not been undertaken. It is recommended
that if a portable device is going to be used a correlation
study between the readings obtained with the portable
device and a benchtop Brinell hardness unit be performed.

ROCKWELL TO BRINELL CONVERSION

In a large gray cast iron diesel block application, the
cylinder bores are induction hardened to improve wear
resistance. In order to obtain consistent response to Figure 12. Average hardness of heat-treated gray cast
induction hardening, the as-cast cylinder bore iron measured using 4 different hardness scales and
on 2 levels of microstructural fineness.
microstructure must be controlled to very low levels of
ferrite. For process control, the Brinell hardness of the
In Figure 12 notice that the spread in the data are roughly
bore was specified as the control method. Figure 11
the same at each hardness level / heat treat condition;
visually shows what can happen when the scale normally
however, the ranking of the hardness scales changes with
specified for gray cast iron is used ignoring the ASTM
both test scale and microstructural fineness. Wall sections
E10 requirements on indentation diameter size and
are denoted with dashed lines and open markers whereas
location with respect to test piece dimensions.
the bearing journal locations exhibit solid lines and solid
markers. Figure 12 indicates a lack of a systematic bias
Several hardness scales were compared in order to
and thereby renders any attempt to provide direct
determine the appropriate specification for these as-cast
conversion from one scale to another problematic.
bores. Samples of both cylinder bores and main bearing
saddles were subjected to various heat treatments in order
HARDNESS AND PROPERTIES
to obtain test pieces with a range of hardness values. The
heat treatments used were as-cast, annealed at 1652F
The measurement of Brinell hardness is sometimes used
(900C) for 1 hour and furnaced cooled, and Normalized at
as a proxy for mechanical properties. One popular
1787F (975C), 1751F (955C), 1571F (855C), and 1391F
relationship is shown in Equation 2 below.9
(755C) each for 1 hour followed by air cooling. Each
material combination was hardness tested using Rockwell
𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 500 ∗ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 Eqn. 2
B and three Brinell scales; HBW 10/3000, HBW 5/750,
and HBW 2.5/187.5. The hardness results are compared
There have been several papers written trying to correlate
in Figure 12. Each point represents the average of 6
hardness to strength and even to microstructure. Basaj, et.
hardness readings.
al. showed that Brinell hardness could be correlated with
the pearlite content and the tensile and yield strength in

Page 7 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)
as-cast ductile iron.10 Tash, et. al. developed a model for
predicting the hardness value in 319 aluminum.11 These
correlations have limited use, however.
Cáceres investigated the relationship between Vickers
hardness, flow stress, and yield strength in cast Mg-Al
alloys.12 In this paper Cáceres showed a strong correlation
between the Vickers hardness and the strain hardening
exponent. Cáceres also showed a strong correlation
between the proof stress and the strain hardening
exponent. This work showed that as the strain hardening
exponent increases both the proof stress and the Vickers
hardness decreased.
From a physics perspective, the hardness value has to
relate to some physical property of the material that is
being tested. For indentation tests, as the indenter is being
pressed into the material the local stress is decreasing as
the surface area over which the load is being applied is
increasing. An attempt was made to experimentally
determine this by using a Mechanical Testing System
(MTS) and wrought aluminum plates. A fixture was
manufactured that would allow a Brinell hardness
indenter to be mounted to the MTS test frame. The Brinell
hardness indenter was a 5 mm (0.197 in.) diameter ball so
a 250 kgf (2452 N) load was used. The load and
displacement were recorded as the load was applied. The
crosshead displacement was used to calculate the surface
area of the spherical cap formed by the indenter being
pressed into the material. This surface area was used to
calculate the applied stress during loading and the
decrease in the localized stress. A compression test on the
material was also performed and overlain on the stress-
displacement graph, Figure 13.
Figure 13. Graph showing an overlay of compression
test, hardness indentation, and local instantaneous
stress for a 6061 aluminum sample.
It was anticipated that the compression test curve and the
hardness curve would be able to align and that the point at
which the local instantaneous stress and the compression
curve intersected would be between the proof stress and
compressive yield strength of the material. This
experimental attempt did not prove to be successful
however as the system stiffness in the hardness tests were
apparently higher than the system stiffness in the
Page 8 of 10
compression test resulting in non-correlated modulus
values.
TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE
Hardness testing is used for evaluating the temperature
that some components in an engine are exposed to.
Specifically, temperature check valves and valve seats are
used to understand the temperature that those components
reach during engine operation. Temperature check valves
and valve seats are specially made using a steel that has a
known and documented hardness response to temperature.
Cylinder heads are built using these temperature check
valves and valve seats and then run for a short duration on
a dynamometer. The valves and valve seats are then
evaluated for hardness profile and the resulting hardness
values are used to predict what temperature the material
saw.
Philosophically, this same technique should be applicable
in age hardenable aluminum alloys. When an age
hardenable aluminum alloy is exposed to temperature, the
strengthening precipitates coarsen through diffusion of the
elements from smaller precipitates to larger precipitates.
Depending on the starting condition of the material, the
precipitate growth could result in either an increase or a
decrease in strength. Since the rate of diffusion is time-
based, if the hardness value is known and the exposure
time can be estimated then the temperature that the
material was exposed to can also be estimated.
Figure 14 shows the effect that various temperature and
time exposures have on a heat treated A356 sample. This
particular A356 material was supposed to be heat treated
to a T7 condition by aging at 374 F (190 C) for 3 hours
with a resulting initial hardness of 101 HBW 2.5/62.5.
However, as can be seen in Figure 17, additional aging of
the material at 302 F (150 C) increased the hardness thus
it may be concluded that the initial heat treat condition of
the material did not actually result in a T7, overaged,
condition. Exposure to temperatures of 392 F (200 C) and
above did result in a rapid initial decrease in hardness
becoming asymptotic around 40 HBW 2.5/62.5. The fact
that the hardness values at 482 F (250 C) and 572 F (300
C) converged towards 40 HBW 2.5/62.5 might suggest
that this is the intrinsic hardness limit for this particular
composition.
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

Figure 14. Graph showing the effect of temperature Figure 16. Change in hardness for 319-F aluminum
and time exposure on the hardness of an A356-T7 showing a hardness increase at 302 F (150 C) and a
aluminum. hardness decrease at higher temperatures.

Figure 15 shows the change in hardness as a function of

time and temperature. A change in hardness that is
positive might indicate that the sample is not truly in an
overaged condition but rather slightly underaged while a
change in hardness that is negative should indicate
overaging and softening of the material.

The change in hardness graph for as-cast (F temper)

aluminum 319 clearly shows this aging effect, Figure 16.
There is a marked increase in hardness when 319-F is
exposed to 302 F (150 C) and a smaller, more immediate
increase in hardness when exposed to 392 F (200 C) with
a subsequent drop in hardness indicating that the material
has now become overaged. This conclusion is supported
by the mechanical property data shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17. Tensile strength for 319 aluminum as a
function of temperature.

While it does appear to be possible to use hardness to

determine the temperature exposure of age hardenable
aluminum alloys, it is clear that each alloy decreases
hardness to a different level. Al-Si-Mg-Cu alloys (e.g.
319) tend to maintain their hardness better at elevated
temperatures than do Al-Si-Mg alloys (e.g. 356).
Sufficient experimentation was performed in this study to
indicate trends, but additional experimentation would
need to be performed before a predictive model could be
developed.

Figure 15. Graph of the change in hardness for A356-
T7 aluminum exposed to different temperature and
times.
SUMMARY
The measurement of hardness can be used for a variety of
purposes. While hardness itself is not an inherent physical
property of materials it is a physics-based measurement
and can be used as a proxy for material properties.
However, there are some limitations to this statement.
Some of the limitations identified during these studies are:
• There is no universal equation that can relate
mechanical properties to hardness for every material.

Page 9 of 10
 2020 AFS Proceedings of the 124th Metalcasting Congress
Paper 2020-012 (10 pages)

• Converting between scales within a hardness test
method or between hardness test methods should be
avoided.
This study identified some specific recommendations:
• For automotive cast aluminum alloys Brinell
hardness should be read using a force-diameter ratio
that is equal to 10. This enables measurements that
are valid per ASTM E10 and ISO 6506 to be made
over a greater range of hardness values.
• If the hardness test method specified cannot be
performed due to sample dimensions, then an
alternative hardness test method should be agreed
upon for use. Conversion between hardness test
methods or scales should be avoided.
• If an alternative test method is going to be used for
process control, then a correlation study between the
specified hardness Product And the alternative
method should be performed to establish the
appropriate process control ranges.
• Hardness can be used as a proxy to estimate the
temperature exposure in aluminum however the
estimates must be experimentally established.
8. ASTM International, “Standard Test Method for
Microindentation Hardness of Materials,” ASTM
E384, (01 June 2017).
9. Askeland, Donald R., The Science and Engineering
of Materials, Third Edition, p 210–211 (1993).
10. Basaj, L. J., Dorn, T. A., Headington, F. C.,
Rothwell, M. D., Johnson, B. D., Heine, R. W.,
“Tensile Properties Continuum with Brinell Hardness
of As–Cast Ductile Iron,” AFS Transactions, p 671–
677, paper 99-123, (1999).
11. Tash, M., Samuel, F. H., Mucciardi, F., Doty, H. W.,
Valtierra, S., “Experimental Correlation between
Metallurgical Parameters and Hardness in Heat–
Treated 319 Alloys: A Quantitative Study Using
Factorial Analysis,” AFS Transactions, (2006).
12. Cáceres, C. H., “Hardness and Yield Strength in Cast
Mg–Al Alloys,” AFS Transactions, paper 02–001,
(2002).

ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the GM Pontiac

Materials Lab for their support in sample preparation and
evaluation.

REFERENCES

1. Chandler, H., “Hardness Testing Second Edition,”

ASM International, Materials Park, OH (2004)
2. Wahlberg, A., “On Brinell’s method of determining
hardness and other properties of iron and steel,” The
Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, vol. 59, issue
1, pp. 243–298 (1901).
3. Smith, R. L., Sandland, G. E., “An Accurate Method
of Determining the Hardness of Metals, with
Particular Reference to Those of a High Degree of
Hardness,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, vol. 102, issue 1, pp. 623–641
(June 1, 1922).
4. https://www.leebhardnesstesters.com/portable_hardn
ess_testers/leeb_hardness_testers (17 July 2019)
5. ASTM International, “Standard Test Method for
Brinell Hardness of Metallic Materials,” ASTM E10,
(01 July 2018).
6. ISO, “Metallic materials–Brinell hardness test–Part
1: Test method,” ISO 6506-1, Third edition, (2014–
10–01).
7. ASM International, “Hardness Testing,” ASM
Handbook Volume 8: Mechanical Testing and
Evaluation, (2000).

Page 10 of 10