Reporting of ASTM E18 Hardness Results

[mrfailure]

I have a 2 part question where I am interested in how people report Rockwell hardness results for testing performed under ASTM E18:

1. When you use a modern digital tester that records hardness to 0.1 point precision, to what degree of precision do you report your results (i.e. 0.1 point or whole number)?

2. In taking bulk hardness using multiple readings, do you report individual values or the average?

 

[swall]

What I do is to round the readings to the closest 0.5 Rockwell number when I report them. If I have multiple readings reported in 0.1 increments, I average those, then round to the nearest 0.5 Rockwell. This is my own procedure; it does not conform to any standard that I am aware of.

 

[jwhit]

I agree with swall, reporting to the tenth implies a degree of accuracy that may not exist. A note such as "average of 5 readings" should be adequate for reporting in most situations. You should have the raw data to back that average value up.

 

[EdStainless]

I only report whole numbers.
If I have done 6 tests I'll report the avg, and they in (...) I'll give either the lowest or highest, depending on which would be the worst case for the situation.

One other thing is that I always report the actual test reading, and then in (...) a conversion.
Such as RC on a thin part, you would actually need to do a R30N even though the spec is in RC.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[dbooker630]

I agree with swall and jwhit, I report to the nearest 0.5 on HRC and whole number on HR15N. The HRC test blocks I use are +/- 1.0 below 60 HRC and +/- 0.5 for 60 and above.

 

[arunmrao]

I report whole numbers (HRC), it is quite adequate in the casting industry, where we have large tolerances.

I'm just one step away from being rich, all I need now is money.
( read somewhere on the internet)