Application Case



Test Report
You are here:Home > Application Case > Test Report >
Aluminum Specimen hardness test report
1. Specimens:
There are three aluminum specimens provided by customers, respectively labeled W14,W38,T11; as shown in the following illustrations. The testing position is the black words marked surface area. The thickness of the three specimens (W14, W38, T11): 11.84mm, 14.6mm, 13.54mm; and the weight: 37g, 34g, 44g.

2.Testing instruments and environment:
Sinowon hardness testers: Micro Vickers hardness tester MHV-1000Z and Ultrasonic hardness tester SU-100 (5kgf probe). The MHV-1000Z tests the three samples via HV scale, set the dwell time 10s. Before the test, it has been calibrated by 456 HV0.2 hardness block, measuring 5 times, and the average value is 460 HV0.2 which indicates that MHV-1000Z accuracy meets the ISO standard.
Testing Lab: DongGuan Sinowon instrument TianAn laboratory; Testing environment: 22℃, humidity 70%.

Micro Vickers hardness tester
MHV-1000Z (#823-113)
Ultrasonic hardness tester
3.Testing data:
1)Apply MHV-1000Z 200gf test force and SU-100’s 5kgf test force to test the W14, W38 and T11 samples’ labeled surface area; the testing data is been shown in the following table.
Instrument Sample Test force Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average value Deviation
MHV-1000Z W14 200gf 86.1HV 83.7HV 81.2HV 83.6HV 4.9HV
W38 85.0HV 81.2HV 85.7HV 84.0HV 4.5HV
T11 80.2HV 82.8HV 86.5HV 83.2HV 6.3HV
SU-100 W14
82HV 83HV 87HV 84HV 5HV
W38 86HV 80HV 86HV 84HV 6HV
T11 82HV 85HV 80HV

2)The three specimen testing indentation screen shots from MHV-1000Z are shown below:
W14’s testing indentation  W38’s testing indentation T11’s testing indentation
3)The three specimen testing results from SU-100 are shown below:
W14’s testing result W38’s testing result T11’s testing result

4.Data analysis:
From the above test results we can get:
1) Two instruments’ testing average value contrast as below:
MHV-1000Z and SU-100 of sample W14 test average values were: (83.6HV; 84HV (UCI))
MHV-1000Z and SU-100 of sample W38 test average values were: (84.0HV; 84HV (UCI))
MHV-1000Z and SU-100 of sample T11 test average values were: (83.2HV; 82HV (UCI))

2) Two instruments’ testing deviation contrast as below:
The deviation of MHV-1000Z and SU-100 on the test sample W14 values were: (4.9HV; 5HV (UCI))
The deviation of MHV-1000Z and SU-100 on the test sample W38 values were: (4.5HV; 6HV (UCI))
The deviation of MHV-1000Z and SU-100 on the test sample T11 values were: (6.3HV; 5HV (UCI))

5.Testing conclusion:
1) The two groups of testing data comparison:
By the analysis of the above data, the ultrasonic hardness tester SU-100’s average value is almost the same with micro hardness MHV-1000Z’s; and the deviations from the two instruments are close, both deviations value are very small and stable. In summary, the SU-100 testing precision, and testing data stability is equal to the MHV-1000Z when testing on customer’s specimens, both are perfect.

2) Testing range comparison of the two instruments:
When the specimens are in the condition of without processing, Micro hardness tester MHV-1000Z can’t test them until the sample’s lower surface is parallel to the upper surface. For some irregular objects, MHV-1000Z test is more troublesome, the object will be required to have some metallographic processing (cutting, polishing or embedding) ; but the ultrasonic hardness teter SU-100 can avoid this trouble, for example ,it can directly test the side surfaces of your company’s specimens.
In a word, both of the two instruments can test your samples, except for the above comparisons, the SU-100 is more cost-effective; we advise customer to consider ultrasonic hardness tester SU-100 (5kgf probe) based on following reasons: it won’t damage your specimen , be able to test more other parts of the specimen, improve the testing efficient (the SU-100’s testing time is only 2S every time, but other desktop hardness testers will be at least 50S) and so on.