Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2021
  • Online publication date: May 2021

7 - Hardness Testing


Hardness test procedures of various types have been in use for many decades. They are usually quick and easy to carry out, the equipment required is relatively simple and cheap, and there are portable machines that allow in situ measurements to be made on components in service. The volume being tested is relatively small, so it’s possible to map the hardness number across surfaces, exploring local variations, and to obtain values from thin surface layers and coatings. The main problem with hardness is that it’s not a well-defined property. The value obtained during testing of a given sample is different for different types of test, and also for the same test with different conditions. Identical hardness numbers can be obtained from materials exhibiting a wide range of yielding and work hardening characteristics. The reasons for this are well established. There have been many attempts to extract meaningful plasticity parameters, particularly the yield stress, from hardness numbers, but these are mostly based on neglect of work hardening. In practice, materials that exhibit no work hardening at all are rare and indeed quantification of the work hardening behavior of a metal is a central objective of plasticity testing. The status of hardness testing is thus one of being a technique that is convenient and widely used, but the results obtained from it should be regarded as no better than semi-quantitative. There are procedures and protocols in which they are accorded a higher significance than this, but this is an unsound approach.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
1.Walley, SM, Historical origins of indentation hardness testing. Materials Science and Technology, 2012. 28(9–10): 10281044.
2.Broitman, E, Indentation hardness measurements at macro-, micro-, and nanoscale: a critical overview. Tribology Letters, 2017. 65(1).
3.Bishop, RF and Mott, NF, The theory of indentation and hardness tests. Proceedings of the Physical Society of London, 1945. 57(321): 147159.
4.Tabor, D, Hardness of Metals. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.
5.Mott, BW, Microindentation Hardness Testing. London: Butterworths, 1956.
6.Tabor, D, Indentation hardness: fifty years on – a personal view. Philosophical Magazine A: Physics of Condensed Matter, Structure, Defects and Mechanical Properties, 1996. 74(5): 12071212.
7.Hutchings, IM, The contributions of David Tabor to the science of indentation hardness. Journal of Materials Research, 2009. 24(3): 581589.
8.Herrmann, K, Hardness Testing: Principles and Applications. Materials Park, OH: ASM International, 2011.
9.Herrmann, K, Jennett, NM, Wegener, W, Meneve, J, Hasche, K and Seemann, R, Progress in determination of the area function of indenters used for nanoindentation. Thin Solid Films, 2000. 377: 394400.
10.Richmond, O, Morrison, HL and Devenpeck, ML, Sphere indentation with application to Brinell hardness test. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 1974. 16(1): 7582.
11.Hill, R, Storakers, B and Zdunek, AB, A theoretical study of the Brinell hardness test. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 1989. 423(1865): 301330.
12.Biwa, S and Storakers, B, An analysis of fully plastic Brinell indentation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1995. 43(8): 13031333.
13.Campbell, JE, Thompson, RP, Dean, J and Clyne, TW, Experimental and computational issues for automated extraction of plasticity parameters from spherical indentation. Mechanics of Materials, 2018. 124: 118131.
14.Kang, SK, Kim, JY, Park, CP, Kim, HU and Kwon, D, Conventional Vickers and true instrumented indentation hardness determined by instrumented indentation tests. Journal of Materials Research, 2010. 25(2): 337343.
15.Hernot, X, Moussa, C and Bartier, O, Study of the concept of representative strain and constraint factor introduced by Vickers indentation. Mechanics of Materials, 2014. 68: 114.
16.Tiryakioglu, M and Robinson, JS, On the representative strain in Vickers hardness testing of 7010 aluminum alloy. Materials Science and Engineering: A Structural Materials: Properties, Microstructure and Processing, 2015. 641: 231236.
17.Giannakopoulos, AE, Larsson, PL and Vestergaard, R, Analysis of Vickers indentation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1994. 31(19): 26792708.
18.Alcala, J, Barone, AC and Anglada, M, The influence of plastic hardening on surface deformation modes around Vickers and spherical indents. Acta Materialia, 2000. 48(13): 34513464.
19.Antunes, JM, Menezes, LF and Fernandes, JV, Three-dimensional numerical simulation of Vickers indentation tests. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2006. 43(3–4): 784806.
20.Sakharova, NA, Fernandes, J, Antunes, JM and Oliveira, MC, Comparison between Berkovich, Vickers and conical indentation tests: a three-dimensional numerical simulation study. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2009. 46(5): 10951104.
21.Weiss, HJ, On deriving Vickers hardness from penetration depth. Physica Status Solidi A: Applied Research, 1987. 99(2): 491501.
22.Atkinson, M, Further analysis of the size effect in indentation hardness tests of some metals. Journal of Materials Research, 1995. 10(11): 29082915.
23.Wheeler, JM, Oliver, RA and Clyne, TW, AFM observation of diamond indenters after oxidation at elevated temperatures. Diamond & Related Materials, 2010. 19: 13481353.
24.Haddow, JB, A study of Knoop hardness test. Journal of Basic Engineering, 1966. 88(3): 682–&.
25.Giannakopoulos, AE and Zisis, T, Analysis of Knoop indentation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 2011. 48(1): 175190.
26.Tsui, TY, Oliver, WC and Pharr, GM, Influences of stress on the measured mechanical properties using nanoindentation: part I. Experimental studies in an aluminium alloy. Journal of Materials Research, 1996. 11(5): 752759.
27.Suresh, S and Giannakopoulos, AE, A new method for estimating residual stresses by instrumented sharp indentation. Acta Materialia, 1998. 46(16): 57555767.
28.Huber, N and Heerens, J, On the effect of a general residual stress state on indentation and hardness testing. Acta Materialia, 2008. 56(20): 62056213.
29.Rickhey, F, Lee, JH and Lee, H, A contact size-independent approach to the estimation of biaxial residual stresses by Knoop indentation. Materials & Design, 2015. 84: 300312.
30.Kim, YC, Ahn, HJ, Kwon, D and Kim, JY, Modeling and experimental verification for non-equibiaxial residual stress evaluated by Knoop indentations. Metals and Materials International, 2016. 22(1): 1219.
31.Hosseinzadeh, AR and Mahmoudi, AH, An approach for Knoop and Vickers indentations to measure equi-biaxial residual stresses and material properties: a comprehensive comparison. Mechanics of Materials, 2019. 134: 153164.
32.Aydin, A and Basu, A, The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Engineering Geology, 2005. 81(1): 114.
33.Altindag, R and Guney, A, ISRM suggested method for determining the Shore hardness value for rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2006. 43(1): 1922.
34.Kovler, K, Wang, FZ and Muravin, B, Testing of concrete by rebound method: Leeb versus Schmidt hammers. Materials and Structures, 2018. 51(5).
35.Brencich, A and Campeggio, F, Leeb hardness for yielding stress assessment of steel bars in existing reinforced structures. Construction and Building Materials, 2019. 227.
36.Tabor, D, Mohs hardness scale – a physical interpretation. Proceedings of the Physical Society of London Section B, 1954. 67(411): 249257.
37.Gerberich, WW, Ballarini, R, Hintsala, ED, Mishra, M, Molinari, JF and Szlufarska, I, Toward demystifying the Mohs hardness scale. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2015. 98(9): 26812688.
38.Williams, JA, Analytical models of scratch hardness. Tribology International, 1996. 29(8): 675694.
39.Useinov, AS and Useinov, SS, Scratch hardness evaluation with in-situ pile-up effect estimation. Philosophical Magazine, 2012. 92(25–27): 31883198.
40.Kareer, A, Hou, XD, Jennett, NM and Hainsworth, SV, The existence of a lateral size effect and the relationship between indentation and scratch hardness in copper. Philosophical Magazine, 2016. 96(32–34): 33963413.
41.Narayanaswamy, B, Ghaderi, A, Hodgson, P, Cizek, P, Chao, Q, Saf, M and Beladi, H, Abrasive wear resistance of ferrous microstructures with similar bulk hardness levels evaluated by a scratch-tester method. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A: Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science, 2019. 50A(10): 48394850.