› Hardness Conversion Simulator Back
Materials Testing Simulator

Hardness Conversion Simulator — HB ↔ HRC ↔ HV ↔ HK ↔ HS

Map Brinell HB to Vickers HV, Rockwell HRC, Knoop HK, Shore HS and tensile strength sigma_B in real time using ASTM E140 / JIS Z 2244 correlations, with material-class corrections for steel, stainless, aluminium and copper alloys.

Parameters
Brinell hardness HB
HB
Material mode
—
Test load gauge
—
Standard
—

Material: 0 = steel (baseline), 1 = stainless, 2 = aluminium alloy, 3 = copper alloy. Gauge: 0 = standard, 1 = low load (micro-hardness). Standard: 0 = ASTM E140, 1 = JIS Z 2244. HRC reads '—' for HB ≤ 250.

Results
—
Vickers HV
—
Rockwell C HRC
—
Tensile strength σ_B (est.)
—
Knoop HK
Conversion curves vs HB

X = HB (100–600), Y = each scale. Red = HV, blue = HRC, green = HK, purple = σ_B/10 [MPa]. Yellow line = current HB, dots = intersections.

Theory & Key Formulas

Hardness-scale conversions are not first-principles physics but empirical regressions based on ASTM E140 and JIS tables. The simplified steel-baseline relations are:

Brinell HB → Vickers HV (linear approximation):

$$\mathrm{HV} \approx 1.05\,\mathrm{HB} + 5$$

HV → Rockwell HRC (ASTM E140 fit, valid for HV ≥ 240):

$$\mathrm{HRC} \approx -29.8 + 0.108\,\mathrm{HV} - 4.83\times10^{-5}\,\mathrm{HV}^2$$

HV → Knoop HK, HV → Shore HS, HB → tensile strength σ_B:

$$\mathrm{HK} \approx 0.985\,\mathrm{HV},\qquad \mathrm{HS} \approx 0.05\,\mathrm{HV} + 8,\qquad \sigma_B\,[\mathrm{MPa}] \approx 3.5\,\mathrm{HB}$$

For HB from indent diameter see brinell-hardness.html. Related simulators: belt-friction.html, pelton-turbine.html, boids-flocking.html.

What is the hardness conversion simulator?

🙋
The drawing says "200 HB minimum" but the only hardness tester on the shop floor is a Rockwell. Can I just convert?
🎓
You can, ASTM E140 and the JIS tables give you the correlation. Set HB = 200 here and you'll see HV ≈ 215 and sigma_B ≈ 700 MPa pop out. But HRC shows '—'. That's not a bug — HB 200 is below the meaningful Rockwell C range, so the reading would be unreliable.
🙋
Why is HRC unreliable there? It's still a hardness number.
🎓
Rockwell C uses a 150 kgf major load on a diamond cone, designed for hardened steel. Below about HRC 20 (HB 235, HV 240) the indenter sits near the bottom of the dial and the reading scatters. So softer materials are measured on HRB (steel ball + 100 kgf) instead. Push HB to 400 in the tool: HRC ≈ 43 — that's quenched and tempered S45C territory.
🙋
Cool — when I move the slider the curves move too. Red HV, blue HRC×10, green HK, purple sigma_B/10 all on the same chart.
🎓
Right, that chart visualises the inter-scale relations at a glance. HV grows roughly linearly with HB (slope 1.05), HK overlays HV but slightly lower (HK ≈ 0.985·HV), HRC is non-linear and only takes off above HV 240, and sigma_B is about 3.5·HB — "200 HB → 700 MPa" is the rule of thumb you can use to estimate tensile strength non-destructively for steel.
🙋
When I switch the material to aluminium the sigma_B drops. Is that conversion really correct?
🎓
The sigma_B/HB coefficient depends on the material class. Steel ≈ 3.5, aluminium alloys ≈ 3.4, austenitic stainless ≈ 3.7 (strong strain hardening), copper alloys ≈ 4.0. These are empirical corrections, not material constants — so the tool values are first-order estimates with about ±10% scatter. Always run a primary test before any acceptance decision.

FAQ

Both measure something close to the mean contact pressure per unit projected area. Brinell divides load by the spherical cap area and Vickers divides by the lateral pyramid area, but Tabor's relation p_m ≈ 3·σ_y holds for both. The near-linear approximation HV ≈ 1.05·HB + 5 follows. At high hardness (HB above 500) HV reads higher, drifting toward HV ≈ 1.1·HB.
Strictly only for steel (carbon and low-alloy). ASTM E140 dedicates its primary table to steel; non-ferrous metals (nickel, copper, aluminium alloys) use auxiliary tables B–H with narrower validity ranges. The tool applies a simple material-class correction, but you should treat non-ferrous conversions as order-of-magnitude estimates and run the material-specific direct test before accepting parts.
Shore (scleroscope) is a dynamic rebound test: a diamond-tipped hammer (Shore C) or steel ball (Shore D) is dropped onto the specimen and the rebound height is the hardness. Rebound depends on elastic recovery, while HB/HV/HRC measure plastic indentation. The empirical HS ≈ 0.05·HV + 8 holds with about ±15% scatter, so it is only useful where that tolerance is acceptable, such as field checks on large rolls.
ASTM E140 "Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals" is sold via the ASTM International website. Table 1 (steel) is the most widely referenced and links Brinell HB (10 mm ball, 3000 kgf), Vickers HV, Rockwell HRC/HRB/HRA, HR15N and several superficial scales in a single row. In Japan the equivalent tables appear in JIS B 7724 (Vickers verification) and JIS G 0202 (steel terminology), and accredited test laboratories quote values per these standards.

Real-world applications

Bridging material specifications and shop-floor measurements: Material standards usually state HBW, while most field instruments read HRC, HRB or portable HV. Knowing that "S45C Q&T HBW 217–277" corresponds to HRC 22–29 lets the inspector accept or reject a part on the spot without waiting for a re-test.

Non-destructive tensile strength estimation: When a tensile test is impractical (machined parts, castings, weld zones) the sigma_B ≈ 3.5·HB [MPa] rule gives a fast estimate. HB 200 ⇒ ~700 MPa, HB 300 ⇒ ~1050 MPa. It is widely used in first-pass strength sizing and to characterise the heat-affected zone (HAZ) of welds.

Quality traceability across process steps: A part can be tested on different scales at different production stages — HB before heat treatment, HRC after. Converting everything to a common HB-equivalent makes the lifetime hardness history coherent and easier to audit.

Reconciling imported material certificates: US mills typically report HRC/HRB, EU mills HV, JP mills HB/HV, CN mills HB/HRC. ASTM E140 and JIS Z 2244 are the common language that lets you map a certificate value into the in-house reference scale.

Common misconceptions and pitfalls

The single biggest mistake is to treat a converted value as a measured value. An HRC computed from an HB reading is not the HRC you would obtain by direct Rockwell measurement; the difference is typically ±2 units. For acceptance testing under any standard you must run the specified test directly. "Converted HRC 25, therefore accept" will not survive an audit.

The second pitfall is using the conversion outside its validity range. HRC needs HV ≥ 240 (HB ≥ 235); below that, use HRB. This tool prints '—' for HRC when HB ≤ 250 to prevent that misuse. At the high end, HRC tops out at about 68 (HV 940); harder materials should be reported in HV or HRA (120 kgf diamond cone).

The third pitfall is applying sigma_B ≈ 3.5·HB to non-ferrous metals. Aluminium alloys land near 3.4, pure cold-worked aluminium can drop to 2.8, copper alloys climb to 4.0. Austenitic stainless steels strain-harden strongly so a high surface hardness does not always correspond to a high tensile strength, and the coefficient scatters between 3.6 and 3.8. Always pick the correct material class or measure sigma_B directly. See brinell-hardness.html for the HB calculation from indent diameter, and pelton-turbine.html, boids-flocking.html, belt-friction.html for other interactive engineering tools.

Related Tools

Stress Strain Visualize and compare stress-strain curves for steel, aluminum, titanium & CFRP. Analyze Yo... Stress Strain Curve Interactive tool to generate and compare stress-strain curves for metals, rubber, and concr... Plasticity Stress Strain Compare bilinear, Ramberg-Osgood, and power hardening models. Visualize elastic unloading a... Plasticity Curve Generate stress-strain curves for metals with our free online calculator. Visualize elastic... Yield Criteria Visualize and compare von Mises, Tresca, and Drucker-Prager yield criteria in real-time. Ca... Tresca vs Mises Yield Criteria Simulator — Principal Stress Space Comparison Compare the Tresca and von Mises yield criteria in principal stress space. Tune sigma1, sig...