Untitled

FINAL REPORT FORMAT
Paper : HVS A4
Margin (T, L, R, B) : 5, 2, 2, 3
Font : Times New Roman size 12
Spacing : 1,5
FINAL REPORT SUBMISSION
Submission Deadline : 8AM On the Same Day as Practicum

Schedule
Collection Poin (link) : https://bit.ly/LaporanAkhirDT2022
File Name : XXX Testing_Name_Group X
FINAL REPORT
MATERIAL TESTING
CHAPTER I
HARDNESS TESTING
MUHAMMAD EMIR RAFIANSYAH AKBAR
2006489193
GROUP 3
PHYSICAL METALLURGY LABORATORY
METALLURGY AND MATERIALS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
2022
LABORATORIUM METALURGI FISIK
DEPARTEMEN TEKNIK METALURGI DAN MATERIAL
FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
KAMPUS BARU UI DEPOK 16424
Kepala Laboratorium : Dr. Ir. Sotya Astutiningsih, M.Eng.
Kontak Asisten Lab. : +62-878-7748-9206 (Dhafa), +62-812-8524-5818 (Afwan)
Email : aslabdt2022@gmail.com
Notes:
1. The final report is compiled in one pdf file with the additional assignments given in the preliminary
test.
2. The final report is typewritten, while the additional assignments are handwritten and then scanned.
3. The format for the final report is attached below.
4. Every graph and picture required must be inserted in the analysis (aren’t made manually but using
chart feature on Microsoft Word or Excel).
5. The final report is submitted individually through link: https://bit.ly/LaporanAkhirDT2022 before
8AM on the same day as practicum schedule.
6. Late submission: -10 point/10 minutes.
Hardness Testing Guide:
1. Must convert all practicum data to HV from HRE and HRC (based on ASTM E140)
2. HRC to HV conversion (1.5, 10, dan 30-kgf forces)
1
=6,24553 x 10−3−1,08014 x 10−4 ( HRC )+ 4,32021 x 10−7 (HRC )2
HV
3. HRE to HV conversion (1.5, 10, dan 30-kgf forces)
1
=2,72286 x 10−2−2,01993 x 10−4 ( HRE )
HV
Hardness Testing Final Report Format
CHAPTER I: HARDNESS TESTING
2.1 Analysis and Data processing

2.1.1 Observation Data
Table 1. The results of the rockwell hardness experimental sample that have been converted to HV
Sample Unit Indentation

Average
(HV) indentation
1 2 3
Cu Base HV
85.65 90.34 84.91 86.97
Al Base Hv
47.92 48.63 48.15 48.23
Fe Base HV
220.65 232 218.84 223.83
Fe 1020 HV
200.77 169.98 188.06 186.27
Fe 1020 Quench HV
233.98 228.12 252.49 238.20
Water
Fe 1020 Quench HV
226.69 226.21 225.27 226.06
Oil
AISI 4140 HV
257.62 255.9 265.33 259.62
AI 6XXX HV
51.66 52.22 60.52 54.80
AI 1XXX HV
44.28 42.75 45.08 44.04
Cu – Zn x HV
92.02 99.41 95.57 95.67
2.1.2 Basic Principle Analysis

If we compare between the basic principle and the procedure, in the procedure it just says we
must choose the suitable indenter. Because in the procedure rockwell test we use is scale E, so
we must see suitable indenter and load from rockwell scale E. In the basic principle, the
indenter and load from rockwell scale E is ball 1/16 inch (1.588 mm with load we use is 100 N.
In the procedure, the inner scale that we use is black for rockwell scale E. But in the principle
do not explain why we use inner scale (black) for rockwell scale E. Also, according to Raheem
[1] for rockwell scale E we use inner scale red not black. Last, between procedure and the basic
principle, in the basic principle for rockwell test just explain only theory not how to do
hardness test using rockwell. If in the basic principle explain how to do hardness test using
rockwell, at least when in the procedure we have the imaging how to do hardness test using
rockwell.
2.1.3 Base Metal Comparison Analysis (Fe, Al, Cu Base)
Figure 1. Graph Indenter with different base (Cu, Al, and Fe)
Indenter vs Base
250
200
150 Indentation 1
Indenter
Indentation 2
100 Indentation 3
50
0
Cu Base Al Base Fe Base
Base
As we see in figure 1 comparison in indentation value in Hardness Vickers value

between Cu base, Al base, and Fe base. We found that Fe base had biggest indentation
in indentation 1,2 and 3 than Cu Base and Al base. Also, the lowest indentation in Al
base. This value same pole with Hardness Rockwell. Its means that Fe base had biggest
hardness, second was Cu base and the lowest hardness was Al base. The iron had
biggest hardness because first it’s carbon content on Fe Base. Carbon content on Fe
base increase the hardness and endurance of Fe base [2][3]. Effect carbon content on
iron to increase hardness by distorting it crystal lattice [4]. Also, in general mechanical
properties for hardness between Fe, Cu, and Al the biggest hardness is Fe (Iron) with
the lowest hardness are Al (Aluminum).
2.1.4 Analysis of Fe Sample

a. Hardness Graph on Fe Samples
Figure 2. Graph Indentation vs Fe sample base
Indentation vs Base
300
250
200
Indentation
Indentation 1
150
Indentation 2
100 Indentation 3
50
0
Fe 1020 Fe 1020 Fe 1020 AISI 4140
Quench Water Quench Oil
Base
b. Hardness Graph Analysis

If we compare hardness from 4 Fe sample on figure 2 we conclude from indentation
that AISI 4140 had the biggest hardness than other 3 Fe sample. The lowest hardness
on Fe 1020/AISI 1020 sample. In general, hardness AISI 4140 is biggest than sample
Fe 1020 [5][6]. That make AISI 4140 more hardness than Fe 1020 is carbon content
on AISI 4140 [7]. Like previous analysis, addition carbon content on iron Fe make
iron more hardness [2][3]. But this carbon addition must be careful if carbon slump
on iron surface it can decrease the hardness because deposition rate on iron is too big
[6]. To add more hardness on Fe 1020 it can by tempered, water and oil quenched [8]
[9].
c. Chemical Composition Analysis
Table 2. Chemical composition for Fe, Fe 1020, and AISI 4140
Sample Composition
Fe Iron – 56 (91.66 wt%), iron – 54 (5.82 wt%), iron – 57

(2.19 wt%), and iron – 58 (0.33 wt%)
Fe 1020/AISI 1020 Carbon (0.17 - 0.230 wt%), iron (99.08 - 99.53 wt%),
Manganese (0.30 - 0.60 wt%), and phosphorous (≤
0.040 wt%)
AISI 4140 Carbon (0.380 - 0.43 wt%), iron (96.785 - 97.77 wt%),
Manganese (0.75 - 1.0 wt%), and chromium (0.8 –
1.10 wt%)
From the table 1 it can be concluded that AISI 4140 more hardness thank Fe
1020/AISI 1020 and Fe base because have more carbon content. More carbon
content make sample more hardness [2][3]. Also, AISI 4140 have chromium
content whereas chromium is hard too behind carbon. Because chromium addition
improves the carbide morphology and increase the carbide microhardness same as
carbon but different value on hardness result [3][10]. In Fe 1020/AISI 1020 have
carbon content too, but too small and phosphorous content on AISI 1020 that can
be effect on increasement on hardness is too small [11].
d. Treatment Analysis
Between treatment on Fe the best quenched treatment to increase the hardness from
iron was quench water. Quench oil on iron increase the hardness too. But they have
different like quench water faster on extract heat than quench oil. Because low
temperature on water than oil, make faster on extract heat and add more hardness
than quench oil [12][13]. For quench temper or it mean that tempering after
quenching, its heat treatment purpose to decrease the brittleness by reduce some on
hardness and increase ductility [14]. It concludes that Fe with quench water is better
to add hardness, but it increases the brittleness too, it can be reduced by tempering
but it will reduce the hardness.
2.1.5 Analysis of Al Sample

a. Hardness Graph on Al Cluster
Figure 3. Graph between Indentation result and Al sample base
Indentation vs Al base sample

105
100
95
Indentation
90
85
80
75
Cu Cu - Zn
Al base sample
Indentation 1 Indentation 2 Indentation 3


From figure 3 it can be concluded that Al 6XXX had more hardness than Al base and
Al 1XXX. The lowest hardness in on sample Al 1XXX. Lowest hardness on Al
1XXX or it can be said as Al 1000 series because almost 99 wt% is aluminum purity
with the rest is silicon (SI), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), magnesium
(Mg), and vanadium (V)[15]. In general, it knows that aluminum has lowest hardness
than iron and copper. Meanwhile Al 6XXX or Al 6000 series have biggest hardness
in Al base sample because on Al 6000 series have boron and chromium whereas that
element is hard too behind carbon, even the addition boron and chromium is very
small on Al 6000 series, but they effect on Al 6000 series hardness [16]. Also, heat
treatment on Al 6000 series had effect too in the hardness [17]. Meanwhile the
comparison between Al base and Al 1000 series was Al had more iron content than
Al 1000 series, that make Al more hardness than Al 1000 series or because Al and Al
1000 series almost same there possible error experiment on more hardness Al than Al
1000 series [18].
Table 3. Chemical composition from Al base sample
Sample Composition
Al Aluminum (99.5 wt%), Arsenic (0.0005 wt%), lead

(0.03 wt%), and iron (0.5 wt%)
Al 1XXX/Al 1000 Aluminum (99.7 wt%), copper (0.01 wt%), silicon

series (0.15 wt%), zinc (0.04 wt%), titanium (0.01 wt%) and
iron (0.2 wt%)
Al 6XXX/Al 6000 Aluminum (90.5 wt%), magnesium (1.5 wt%), copper

series (2 wt%), manganese (1.5 wt%), boron (0.3 wt%),
silicon (0.2 wt%), chromium (0.5 wt%), zinc (2.5 wt
%), and lead (1 wt%)
On table 2 comparison on chemical composition between Al, Al 1XXX, and Al

6XXX was on Al 6XXX more chemical composition than Al 1XXX and Al.
Especially chemical composition on Al 6XXX that make it more hardness. Elements
like chromium and boron can add more hardness on Al 6XXX [16]. Also, more
hardness on Al than Al 1000 series because on Al have more iron content that make
Al more hardness than Al 1000 series.
2.1.6 Analysis of Cu Sample

Sample: Cu Base, Cu-Zn
a. Hardness Graph on Cu Cluster
Figure 4. Graph between indentation and Cu base sample
Indentation vs Cu base sample

105
100
95
Indentation
90
85
80
75
Cu Cu - Zn
Cu base sample
Indentation 1 Indentation 2 Indentation 3


Seen from figure 4 it can be concluded that Cu – Zn more hardness than Cu. Because
addition zinc on copper can add hardness on copper by percentage Zn which
dissolves on phase α and form phase β. Matrix in phase β contain high hardness [19].
Also, more addition zinc on copper, more hardness because severe plastic flow has
been concentrated in the localized region directly below the indentation, outside of
which the material still behaves elastically since plastic deformation in crystals is
caused by the motion of dislocations any obstacle to dislocation motion will hinder
deformation [20].
Table 4. Chemical composition Cu base sample
Sample Composition
Cu Copper (99.5 wt%), iron (0.02 wt%), nickel (0.02 wt

%), cobalt (0.03 wt%), aluminum (0.002 wt%), zinc
(0.01 wt%), lead (0.02 wt%), phosphorous (<0.003 wt
%), and Tin (<0.01 wt%).
Cu - Zn Copper (56.565 wt%), and zinc (43.435 wt%)

From table 4 it can be concluded that more hardness on Cu – Zn than Cu because it

had more content zinc on Cu – Zn. Even on Cu have iron, but only little effect on
hardness because iron content on Cu just 0.02 wt% [21][22]. Just like previous
analysis that more zinc content on copper can add more hardness because percentage
Zn which dissolves on phase α and form phase β contain high hardness [19]. Also,
severe plastic flow has been concentrated in the localized region directly below the
indentation make Cu – Zn more hardness [20].
2.2 Conclusion
2.3 Additional Assignments
2.4 References
 [1] Raheem Z. Designation: E18 − 15 Standard Test Methods for Rockwell Hardness of
Metallic Materials. 2019.
 [2] Bucur F, Socalici A, Josan A, Putan V. Research regarding the hardness of cast iron. J
Phys Conf Ser. 2020 Jan 1;1426:12049.
 [3] Zhao Y, Chen D, Li D, Peng J, Yan B. Effect of Carbon Content on the Properties of
Iron-Based Powder Metallurgical Parts Produced by the Surface Rolling Process. 2018;
 [4] Zhao YY, Nieh TG. Correlation between lattice distortion and friction stress in Ni-based
equiatomic alloys. :1–17.
 [5] Marulanda D, Wongsa-Ngam J, Jimenez H, Langdon T. Effects on hardness and
microstructure of AISI 1020 low-carbon steel processed by high-pressure torsion. J Mater
Res Technol. 2017 Jun 1;6.
 [6] Yulianto S. ANALISIS SIFAT KEKERASAN DAN STRUKTUR MIKRO BAJA AISI
4140 HASIL KARBURASI PLASMA. 2018;
 [7] Sharma S, Kini V. Effect of heat treatment and mechanical characterization of aisi 4140
steel. 2018;8(6):603–10.
 [8] Mudashiru LO, Olafimihanand EO, Adetola SO. Effect of Quenching and Heating
Temperature on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of AISI 1020.
2018;9(7):1477–80.
 [9] Nasution M, Nasution RH. TERHADAP PERLAKUAN CARBURIZING DENGAN
ARANG BATOK KELAPA. 2020;15(2).
 [10] Liu Z, Chen X, Li Y, Hu K. Effect of Chromium on Microstructure and Properties of
High Boron White Cast Iron. Metall Mater Trans A Phys Metall Mater Sci. 2008 Mar
1;39:636–41.
 [11] Sambas A, Ananto G, Gunara S. Analyze the effect of phosphorus on the mechanical
properties and microstructure on cast iron. MATEC Web Conf. 2018 Jan 1;204:5008.
 [12] Zeyad Kadhim AD. Effect of Quenching Media on Mechanical Properties for Medium
Carbon Steel. J Eng Res Appl www.ijera.com ISSN. 2016;6(85):2248–962226.
 [13] Joshy S. Effect Of Quenching Medium On Hardness Of D3 Tool Steel. 2021 Mar 20;
 [14] Yurianto Y, Pratikto P, Soenoko R, Suprapto W. Effect of quench and temper on
hardness and wear of HRP steel (armor steel candidate). Eastern-European J Enterp
Technol. 2019 May 24;3:55–61.
 [15] ASM Handbook Committee. Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-
Purpose Materials: Properties of Wrought Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys. ASM Handb
[Internet]. 1990;Volume 2:62–122. Available from: www.asminternational.org
 [16] Algahtani A, Neville A, Shrestha S, Liskiewicz T. Erosion Resistance of Surface
Engineered 6000 Series Aluminium Alloy. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J J Eng Tribol. 2013
May 13;227:1204–14.
 [17] Tempelman E, Shercliff H, van Eyben BN. Chapter 5 - Extrusion of Metals. In:
Tempelman E, Shercliff H, van Eyben BNBT-M and D, editors. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2014. p. 69–83. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080999227000056
 [18] Tempelman E, Shercliff H, van Eyben BN. Chapter 5 - Extrusion of Metals. In:
Tempelman E, Shercliff H, van Eyben BNBT-M and D, editors. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2014. p. 69–83. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080999227000056
 [19] Baihaqi M. PENGARUH PENAMBAHAN UNSUR SENG (Zn) TERHADAP SIFAT
KEKERASAN PADUAN Cu-Zn UNTUK APLIKASI ELEKTRODA LAS.
2017;110265:110493.
 [20] Igelegbai E, Alo O, Adeodu A, Daniyan I. Evaluation of Mechanical and
Microstructural Properties of α-Brass Alloy Produced from Scrap Copper and Zinc Metal
through Sand Casting Process. J Miner Mater Charact Eng. 2016 Dec 20;5:18–28.
 [21] Nemati J, Majzoobi G, Sulaiman S, Baharudin BT. Improvements in the microstructure
and fatigue behavior of pure copper using equal channel angular extrusion. Int J Miner
Metall Mater. 2014 Jun 1;21:569–76.
 [22] Darmawan A, Febriantoko B, Anggono AD, Riyadi T, Hamid A. Effect of Thickness
Reduction on Cold Rolling Process to Microstructure and Brass Hardness. MATEC Web
Conf. 2018 Jan 1;248:1001.

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT FORMAT

FINAL REPORT SUBMISSION

Submission Deadline : 8AM On the Same Day as Practicum

MUHAMMAD EMIR RAFIANSYAH AKBAR

PHYSICAL METALLURGY LABORATORY

METALLURGY AND MATERIALS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

Hardness Testing Guide:

Hardness Testing Final Report Format

CHAPTER I: HARDNESS TESTING

2.1 Analysis and Data processing

Sample Unit Indentation

2.1.2 Basic Principle Analysis

2.1.3 Base Metal Comparison Analysis (Fe, Al, Cu Base)

As we see in figure 1 comparison in indentation value in Hardness Vickers value

2.1.4 Analysis of Fe Sample

Figure 2. Graph Indentation vs Fe sample base

b. Hardness Graph Analysis

c. Chemical Composition Analysis

Table 2. Chemical composition for Fe, Fe 1020, and AISI 4140

Fe Iron – 56 (91.66 wt%), iron – 54 (5.82 wt%), iron – 57

2.1.5 Analysis of Al Sample

Figure 3. Graph between Indentation result and Al sample base

Indentation vs Al base sample

Indentation 1 Indentation 2 Indentation 3

b. Hardness Graph Analysis

c. Chemical Composition Analysis

Table 3. Chemical composition from Al base sample

Al Aluminum (99.5 wt%), Arsenic (0.0005 wt%), lead

Al 1XXX/Al 1000 Aluminum (99.7 wt%), copper (0.01 wt%), silicon

Al 6XXX/Al 6000 Aluminum (90.5 wt%), magnesium (1.5 wt%), copper

On table 2 comparison on chemical composition between Al, Al 1XXX, and Al

2.1.6 Analysis of Cu Sample

Figure 4. Graph between indentation and Cu base sample

Indentation vs Cu base sample

Indentation 1 Indentation 2 Indentation 3

b. Hardness Graph Analysis

c. Chemical Composition Analysis

Table 4. Chemical composition Cu base sample

Cu Copper (99.5 wt%), iron (0.02 wt%), nickel (0.02 wt

Cu - Zn Copper (56.565 wt%), and zinc (43.435 wt%)

From table 4 it can be concluded that more hardness on Cu – Zn than Cu because it

You might also like