Manufacturing and Automation

Materials Technology Laboratory

Lab 2: Hardness Test

Put your name and partner name

Maximum 2 students (your choice) per lab report

Prepared By

Mal Farrokhzad
Instructor

EMTL 250BB

Course and Group

January 24, 2024 Feb 7, 2024

Experiment Date Due Date
Objectives
1. Evaluate how hardness and abrasion resistance is affected by the
a. carbon content in steel
b. cooling rate on steel (quench vs. anneal)
c. space lattice (FCC vs. BCC with both in the hardened condition)
2. Compare the actual UTS from the tensile test to the estimated UTS from the hardness
test (Brinell, Rockwell and File methods) for ductile and for brittle materials.
3. Identify the best material for withstanding compressive loading and abrasion.

Equipment and Materials

 Samples from tensile lab.
 Steel Samples (Typically 1020 or 1018 soft annealed, 1040 soft annealed, 1040 Quench
hardened). The surface hardness may be lower since carbon may be burned from the steel
surface during annealing at high temperatures in air.
 Aluminium Alloy (6061 or 7075) in fully hard / precipitation hardened condition (T6)
 Rockwell Hardness tester (HRC & HRB scales)
 Brinell hardness tester (tungsten Carbide ball).
 File

Procedure (read module 4 (Part. 3) Hardness Test

Ensure samples are flat and free of burrs, dirt, or scale which may crush during testing (giving
low readings) or may damage the indenter. Select a suitable load and indenter for each tester.
The centre of all test locations must be at least 2 1/2 diameters from the edge of the specimen
or the edge of other test locations.

Brinell Hardness Tester

 Turn hand wheel until sample touches the 10 mm WC ball indenter.
 Close the hydraulic valve and pump the handle until weights rise 1 cm.
 Apply full load for 10 to 15 seconds.
 Open the hydraulic valve and remove the sample.
 Using the hand microscope, measure the indentation diameter twice, each at 90 degrees to
each other (0.05 mm accuracy).
 Average the results and convert to a Brinell hardness number (HB) using the chart or by
calculation.

Rockwell Hardness Tester

 Select the proper anvil
 Select the proper scale (See chart on tester for Load, Indenter, and dial figures; for example
the HRB uses 1/16” WC ball with 100 kg load and reads the Black numbers)
 Turn the hand wheel until the large hand rotates 3 times. The large hand will be vertical (+/-
30o) and the small needle will be at its mark (10 kg minor load is applied). (NOTE: If too
much load is applied the select another location on the sample)
 Rotate the dial so that the large hand is at the ‘SET’ mark. (NOTE: The B scale uses the
‘SET’, not zero)
 Trip the lever clockwise gently and wait until the major load was applied for 5 to 8 seconds,
immediately turn the lever counter clockwise to original position (minor load is still applied,
however the sample is now deformed).
 Read hardness number from proper scale (Black or Red).
 Add correction factor for round samples

File Test
 Stroke each sample with a 3 corner file and compare the resulting marks.
 Hardness Results (Table 1) (20 Mark)
AISI1020A AISI1040A AISI1040Q Al6061-T6
Alloy
Annealed Annealed Quenched Artificially
Condition (heat treatment) Aged

Brinell
Diameter of Ball 10 mm 10 mm 10 mm 10 mm

Load Applied 1500 kgf 1500 kgf 3000 kgf 1500 kgf

Time Under Load 12 seconds 12 seconds 12 seconds 12 seconds

Diameter of Impression (1) 3.5mm 3.0 mm 2.9 mm 4.0 mm

[mm] (2) 3.6mm 3.2 mm 2.6 mm 4.0 mm

(3) 3.5 mm 2.9 mm 2.8 mm 4.1 mm

Average ??? mm ???mm ??? mm ???mm

Brinell Hardness Number

Estimated UTS
[MPa]

Rockwell
Indenter Type 1/16” Ball (HRB) 1/16” Ball (HRB) Cone (HRC) 1/16” Ball (HRB)

Load Applied 100 kgf 100 kgf 150 kgf 100 kgf

Hardness (1) 52.5 HRB 84.5 HRB 58.0 HRC 53 HRB

(2) 54.5 HRB 84.0 HRB 60.5HRC 53 HRB

(3) 54.5 HRB 80.0 HRB 55.0 HRC 48 HRB

Average 53.8 HRB 82.8 HRB 57.8 HRC 51.3 HRB

Estimated UTS [MPa]

4 6 10 1
File Test (10-hard 1-soft)

From Lab 1 From Lab 1 From Lab 1 From Lab 1

Actual UTS (Tensile Lab) [Convert to MPa] [Convert to MPa] [Convert to MPa] [Convert to MPa]

Remarks: Include the proper units throughout this report

Discussion of Results (50 marks)
Analyze the results, come to conclusions based on the results, and use theory to explain why
When comparing results, indicate if the properties are close (i.e. +/- 10%). If they are not close, then roughly
quantify how far apart the results are ( “approximately three times higher”, “25% more”, “half as much”, etc.).
1. Compare the hardness readings (or estimated UTS if the hardness cannot be compared
directly) for each of the following pairs. Explain what has occurred in each metal to give
different readings.

- 2 annealed samples. What effect does Carbon have?

A) Results:
AISI1020A AISI1040A

Brinell (HB) HB HB
UTS MPa MPa
B) Observation:

By increasing the carbon % from 0.2% (AISI1020A) to 0.4% (AISI1040A), the Brinell Hardness
(HB) has increased (decreased) by xxxxxx amount. (from xxxxx HB to xxxxxx HB).

By increasing the carbon % from 0.2% (AISI1020A) to 0.4% (AISI1040A), the UTS has increased
(decreased) by x amount % (from xxxxx MPa to xxxxxx MPa).

C) Explanation

Read module 4 (part 3) and explain why the change in carbon has affected the above values.
 - 2 steels that are the same alloy but different conditions. What is the effect of a rapid
Quench vs. slow cool (anneal)?

A) Results:
AISI1040A AISI1040Q
Slow Cooling Fast Cooling

Brinell Hardness HB HB
UTS MPa MPa

B) Observation:
Comparing Slow Cooling (AISI1040A) to Fast Cooling (AISI1040Q), the Brinell Hardnes (HB) has
increased (or decreased) by xxxxxx amount (from xxxxx HB to xxxxxx HB).

Comparing Slow Cooling (AISI1040A) to Fast Cooling (AISI1040Q), the UTS has increased (or
decreased) by xxxxx amount % (from xxxxx MPa to xxxxxx MPa).

C) Explanation

Read module 4 (part 3) and explain why the change in cooling rate has affected the above
values.
 2. For each sample, compare the UTS as approximated from this laboratory to the actual
UTS obtained in the Tensile Testing Laboratory. Why is the estimated UTS from the
hardness data much higher than the actual UTS for the brittle quench hardened sample?
How did the ductile materials react to the two different testing methods?

A) Comparison
Estimated UTS Measured UTS
(From Lab 2 Table above) (From Lab 1 Results)
AISI1020A …………..MPa …………..MPa
AISI1040A …………..MPa …………..MPa
AISI1040Q …………..MPa …………..MPa
Al6061-T6 …………..MPa …………..MPa

B) Explanation

3. Different hardness scales are selected for the soft steel and hard steel. Why would the
hardness reading be high if an excessively large load were used on a soft material (e.g.
annealed 1018)? Why would the reading not be accurate if the quenched steel was tested
on the HRB scale?
4. Rockwell & Brinell give different depth of penetration.

o Explain why the Rockwell usually gives a lower estimated UTS on the annealed steels
compared to the Brinell (hint: look up “decarburization”). What does this say about the
surface hardness? Give example(s) from your data.

o Explain why the Rockwell usually gives a higher estimated UTS on the quenched steel
compared to the Brinell (hint: think about cooling rates). What does this say about the
surface hardness? Give example(s) from your data.
5. Find a reference (www.matweb.com or another of your choice) which gives a Rockwell
and Brinell hardness for the annealed and T6 metals. Show the reference data in a table
and compare these to your values. How reliable is your reference? How would you
recommend using matweb (or similar references)?
o Note: There is no specification for as-quench hardened steel since it is too brittle. As-
quenched steels must always be tempered before use. We did not temper the steel.

Our Yield Matweb Our UTS Matweb UTS

Hardness (HB) Hardness (HB) (psi) (psi)
AISI1020A From lab 1 From lab 1
AISI1040A From lab 1 From lab 1
AISI1040Q From lab 1 From lab 1
Al6061-T6 From lab 1 From lab 1

a) Make a table and compare our hardness and UTS of your materials with Matweb.
b) Explain How our lab measurement maybe similar or different from Matweb values
c) Explain the sources of errors.
Conclusion (30 marks)
Answer all objectives completely and concisely. Use your lab data to prove and quantify each
conclusion you make and give a brief explanation based on theory.

1. Evaluate how hardness and abrasion resistance is affected by the

a. carbon content in steel
b. cooling rate on steel (quench vs. anneal)

2. Compare the actual UTS from the tensile test to the estimated UTS from the hardness
test (Brinell, Rockwell and File methods) for ductile and for brittle materials.

3. Identify the best material for withstanding compressive loading and abrasion.

Try to be specific on your answers in conclusions.

Make quality statements (short, accurate, informative
and executive) and do not repeat the theory.
Conclusion should not be longer than 1 page.

Due date: 11:59 PM Feb. 7, 2024

Every 24 hours delay: 30% reduction

Submit your report to D2L (BrightSpace):

Under Assignment then Lab 2 Submission
Folder