Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Impactor velocity measurement system for dynamic hardness testers and

calibration machines on Leeb scales
K. Gogolinskii a, V. Syasko a, A. Umanskii a, *, T. Kazieva b, K. Gubskiy b, A. Kuznetsov b,
R. Gluhov b
a
Saint Petersburg Mining University, 2, 21st Line, St Petersburg 199106, Russia
b
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Engineering Physics Institute), Kashirskoe shosse, 31, Moscow 115409, Russia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The article aims to solve the problem of measuring the impactor velocity for dynamic hardness testers according
Hardness to the Leeb, as one of the key parameters to ensure the accuracy and reliability of hardness measurements by this
Dynamic hardness method. The gravitational method of impactor acceleration, used in calibration machines, and spring acceler­
Leeb scales
ation, typical for hardness testers, have been studied. Various technical solutions for velocity calibration are
Hardness calibration machine
analyzed. Accurate, easy to implement, compact and inexpensive device based on fiber optic and allows
Laser interferometer
monitoring the dynamics of the object without the use of additional reflective elements is developed. This system
suitable for calibration or verification of dynamic hardness testers and calibration machines. The system is based
on a laser interferometer in which the direct optical heterodyning of Doppler signals (Photonic Doppler Veloc­
imetry) is applied. The maximum permissible error of the system is determined by the requirements for the
metrological characteristics of the Leeb hardness calibration machine and is 0.0025 m/s at a speed of ~2 m/s.
The possibility to measure the impact body velocity with an error of 0.2⋅10− 3 m/s is confirmed.

1. Introduction falling impact body as proposed by Leeb [7,8] are very widespread in­
struments now. Dynamic Leeb hardness testers are autonomous portable
Hardness measurement is one of the most common ways to control devices that allow carrying out measurements outside laboratories, on
the mechanical properties of materials. Since the end of the 19th cen­ surfaces of complicated specimen and in hard-to-reach places [9,10].
tury, methods of static hardness (Brinell, Rockwell and Vickers) have The Leeb hardness testing method has found the widest application in
become most widespread [1,2]. The hardness values measured by static mechanical engineering and the oil and gas industry and is used to
methods are functionally related to the value of the average contact control the hardness of rolled iron, springs, gears, flanges, and other
pressure under the indenter pd , which, in turn, determined by the ratio massive products. It is worth to mention that the method is often used to
pd = сσ y, where – σy is the yield strength, c– constraint factor [3]. At the control the hardness of products that are in operation, for which stop­
same time, dynamic hardness methods were developed [4,5], in ping and cutting control samples is not permissible. The spread of dy­
particular, methods of impact hardness (Shore and Leeb) [2]. Unlike namic hardness testers has led to the necessity of comparing dynamic
static, the values of dynamic hardness depend not only on the plastic and static hardness scales and, as a consequence, the standardization of
material properties (yield strength), but also on elastic (Young’s new scales and instruments to ensure the accuracy and reliability of
modulus and Poisson’s ratio) [4]. The advantage of impact hardness measurements [11]. In last decade the number of international stan­
testers is that they are portable devices and, therefore, they differ dards for Leeb hardness [12–14] and national primary calibration ma­
significantly from the usual quite bulky laboratory static hardness chines [15–17] are introduced. Despite this, due to the expansion of
testing instruments, and can be used for non-destructive operational dynamic hardness testers applications and the number of instruments
testing of products and structures [6]. used, there is a need to create effective measurement systems to assess
Dynamic hardness testers based on the method of measuring the the metrological parameters of Leeb hardness testers and calibration
ratio of the impact velocity and the elastic rebound velocity of a free- machines.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Umanskii).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108632
Received 17 September 2019; Received in revised form 28 September 2020; Accepted 16 October 2020
Available online 22 October 2020
0263-2241/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Gogolinskii et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

2. Basic principles, tools and influencing parameters for the average contact pressure for metals: pd ≈ 3.0σ d (σ d - dynamic yield
hardness measurement on Leeb scales stress), then:
( )− 1/8
The essence of the Leeb method is to measure the ratio of velocity of e ≈ 3.8(σ d /E* )1/2
1 2
m ν / σ d R3 .
the falling impact body before and after the impact of the test sample 2 A
surface. The Leeb hardness HL is calculated according to the formula: It follows from this equation that, in general, the restitution coeffi­
HL = (νR /νA )*1000, cient, and, consequently, measured Leeb hardness value, depend on the
ratio of the yield strength σd and the elastic modulus of tested material
where vR – rebound velocity of the impact body; vA – impact velocity. Em , μm , as well as on the parameters of measuring probe of hardness
Hardware implementation of the Leeb method (Fig. 1a) is based on testers (so-called “impact device”): impact body weight m, impact ve­
the measurement of the electromotive force (EMF) generated by a locity ν, indenter ball radius R, and its elastic modulus Eb , μb .
magnet inside the impact body when passing through the inductor To solve different measuring tasks, different impact devices are used,
mounted on the guide tube of the device. The induced EMF is propor­ corresponding to different Leeb hardness scales which standardized in
tional to the magnet velocity. The induced EMF signal (Fig. 1b) is [12]. To ensure the uniformity and the required accuracy of measure­
recorded, and the peak EMF values are used to calculate the values of ments on Leeb scales, the standards limit maximum permissible devia­
Leeb hardness according to the formula: tion of the impact devices parameters from the nominal values. For
further analysis, we will consider the requirements for hardness testers
HL = (UR /UA )*1000, [13] and hardness calibration machines [14] of the most common scale
D (Table 1).
where UR and UA – is the EMF amplitude proportional to, respectively,
The required error of the impact body mass and the indenter ball
νR and νA .
radius is secured with modern manufacturing technologies and further
In the literature, the value of the ratio of the rebound velocity of the
control with standard measuring instruments. One of the key parameters
impact body νR to the falling velocity νA is referred to as restitution co­
of impact device is the velocity of the impact body.
efficient e. The influences of the impact ball parameters (Young’s
Usually, in hardness testers the impact body accelerates by means of
modulus, density and hardness), and test piece parameters (yield stress,
energy of the pre-compressed spring (Fig. 2a). The velocity is controlled
work hardening index, Young’s modulus and thickness) on the restitu­
by the compression ratio of the spring when the impact device is “being
tion coefficient were investigated by computer simulation in [18]. The
armed”. This acceleration scheme allows to minimize the dimensions of
theoretical analysis of the restitution coefficient dependence on the
the impact device, and also to measure at an angle to the direction of
material properties and the impact body parameters is based on the
gravity (with corresponding correction). The properties of the spring, as
quasi-static approach of finding contact stresses in case of inelastic
well as the design features of the compression and start mechanisms do
impact, as described in [19]:
not allow to ensure the impact body velocity error as required in cali­
⎛ ⎞− 1/4 bration machines. That’s why, for calibration machines, as a rule,
2 ν2 3π5/4 43/4 ( pd )⎜12 mν2A ⎟
e ≡ R2 = ⎝ ⎠ ,
νA 10 E* p d R3
Table 1
Requirements for main parameters of Leeb D calibration reference machines and
where m is impact body weight, R is indenter ball radius, pd - average hardness testers.
contact pressure under the indenter, E* - the reduced plane strain Parameter Unit Value Permissible deviation
modulus calculated from the ratio: Hardness Calibration reference
2 2
testers machines
1 (1 − μ m) (1 − μ
b)
= + , Impact body speed m/s 2.05
E* Em Eb ±0.10 ±0.0025
vA
Mass of impact g 5.45
where Em , μm and Eb , μb are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of ±0.50 ±0.03
body m
tested material and the indenter ball, respectively. If we take the
Radius R mm 1.500 ±0.005 ±0.003
empirical relation between the yield strength of the tested material and

Fig. 1. a – Leeb hardness test principle: 1 – impact body, 2 – inductive coil, 3 – magnet (N, S-the poles), 4 – guide tube; 5 – indenter ball; 6 - specimen; б – diagram of
EMF u(t), induced in the coil during test procedure.

2
K. Gogolinskii et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

Fig. 2. Schematic image of Type D impact device with (a) mechanical start mechanism and spring acceleration and (b) piezoelectric start mechanism an gravitational
acceleration: 1 – release button; 2 – collet; 3 – piezoelectric holder; 4 – arming tube; 5 – impact body; 6 – arming spring; 7 – indenter ball; 8 – acceleration spring; 9 –
connector cable; 10 – guide tube; 11 – inductive coil housing; 12 – inductive coil; 13 – support ring; 14 – air gap; 15 – specimen.

gravitational acceleration of the impact body is used [15–17,20]. Free- induction coils was developed for adjusting the spring compression
fall conditions provide a high degree of repeatability for velocity. The mechanism of impact devices. However, it has a significant systematic
velocity is defined by the impact body dropping height. Based on the error due to the deviation of the actual distance between the coils cen­
ratio mgh = mv2 /2, the error in height Δh at a given velocity error Δv is ters from the intended one and has required independent calibration.
determined as follows: Solutions for direct measurement of impactor device velocity, based
on use of a laser interferometer are well-known [16,20,21]. In all the
Δh = ν/g*Δν.
cases described, systems based on stationary optical elements (mirrors
Thus, the error required for the reference ±0.0025 m/s at a velocity and prisms) were used, which require high alignment accuracy and vi­
of 2.05 m/s is provided by setting the dropping height with an error of bration protection. In addition, the listed solutions require either the use
±0.5 mm. At the same time, some influencing parameters does not allow of non-standard impactor devices [16,20], or sticking reflective ele­
setting the absolute value of the impact body velocity on the basis of the ments on the impactor device [21], which changes the properties of the
above energy ratio only. Such parameters include, in particular: varia­ impactor device and makes it difficult to calibrate hardness testers and
tions of the earth’s gravitational field, air resistance, friction on the calibration machines. The system that is free of these shortcomings is
guide tube, eddy currents induced in the guide tube by a moving mag­ proposed.
net, etc. It is not possible to leave out completely the influence of these
and other factors through various design solutions, or to take them into 3. Description of the measurement facility
account by calculation.
Based on the above, to adjust the impact devices of hardness testers A laser interferometer based on the direct optical heterodyning of
and calibration machines, it is necessary to measure the impact body Doppler signals - PDV (Photonic Doppler Velocimetry) was used to
velocity with high accuracy. The design of impact device with gravita­ measure the velocity of the impact body [22]. This method is accurate,
tional acceleration of the impact body in which measurement of velocity easy to implement and allows monitoring the dynamics of the object
of the impact body is carried out by means of two induction coils has without the use of additional reflective elements, such as triple prisms.
proposed (Fig. 2b). This solution provides the velocity random deviation The use of fiber optic and widespread telecommunication elements in
that meets the requirements to hardness calibration machines. However, this system makes it possible to create a compact and inexpensive device
it was found that to measure the velocity absolute value with the suitable for calibration or verification of dynamic hardness testers and
required error, it is necessary to determine mutual distance between calibration machines.
centers of the induction coils with precision of better than 3 µm, which is The PDV-based system works as follows (Fig. 3). Radiation of a
problematic. A similar device for measuring the velocity with two single-frequency continuous laser 1 at a wavelength of 1550 nm is

3
K. Gogolinskii et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

uncertainty.

4. The experiment and obtained results

To study the parameters of the impact device, a system was designed

to combine a fiber-optic interferometer with a hardness tester. The
gradient-index lens in this system is fixed from below, so that the laser
radiation is directed to the indenter ball, and the reflected radiation is
collected by the lens along the entire path of the impact body (Fig. 3).
To test the developed system, a series of experiments with spring and
gravitational acceleration scheme was carried out, during which the
velocity of the falling indenter was measured. The radiation source was a
semiconductor single-frequency laser with a wavelength of 1550 nm and
Fig. 3. Fiber-optic interferometer for speed measurement: 1-laser source, 2- a power of up to 200 mW. Registration was carried out by HFBR-2316
splitter, 3-fiber mixer, 4-detector, 5-circulator, 6-lens retainer, 7- gradient- photoelectric receiver with a registration band of 100 MHz. The sig­
index lens, 8-impact body. nals received by the photoelectric receiver were sent to the Tektronix
MDO3012 oscilloscope (2.5 GHz transmission band). When measuring
supplied by a fiber optic cable through a splitter 2 and a circulator 5 to the velocity, the sampling frequency of the signal was 100 MHz.
the object under study. At the end of the cable, gradient-index lens 7 is As described in previous section, for each time interval (window) of
attached. The laser radiation is collimated and directed to the moving source signal (Fig. 4(a)) the spectrum is calculated. A time diagram
object 8. The radiation scattered by the object, having experienced a consistsing of separate spectrums for each window shown in Fig. 4(b).
Doppler frequency shift, is partially collected by the same lens and The resulting spectrum is converted to velocity diagram (Fig. 4(c)).
supplied through the fiber to the detector 4. A portion of the laser ra­ Impact velocity was measured at the initial point of contact between the
diation is sent to the detector 4 directly through the fiber mixer 3. As a impact body and support ring, placed in lense retainer (the point of
result, when two signals with different frequencies are combined, beats maximum at velocity diagram).
are formed on the photoelectric receiver, which are recorded by the The velocity curve of the impact body of the impact device D with
oscilloscope. spring is given in Fig. 5(a). The initial section (from 0 ms to 10 ms)
The velocity of the object is proportional to the frequency of the corresponds to acceleration by means of a spring, then (from 10 ms to
Doppler signal and is described by the formula: 17 ms) there is a free fall. The velocity value is recorded in the plane
corresponding to the position of the object under study when measuring
V(t) =
2cf b (t)
, its hardness. The measured velocity is 2.0538 ± 0.0022 m/s at a time
f0 resolution of 0.19 ms.
Fig. 5(b) shows the velocity curve of the impact body for the hard­
where f0 is the laser frequency,fb is frequency of the recorded beats and
ness calibration machine with gravity accelleration. The straight line
cis speed of light.
section corresponds to the free fall of the impact body. The measured
To restore the dynamics of changes in the frequency of the detected
velocity is 2.0433 ± 0.0022 m/s at a time resolution of 0.19 ms.
signal, short time Fourier transform is applied. In digital data processing,
the recorded continuous signal is divided into parts with a characteristic
5. Results and discussion
step (the window length). From the set of frequencies obtained after
Fourier transform in each window, the method of approximation by the
The developed system for measuring the velocity of impact bodies in
Gaussian function is used to determine the maximum value, which is
dynamic hardness testers and calibration machines based on a laser
applied to calculate the velocity of the object at a given time.
interferometer with a direct optical heterodyning of Doppler signals has
Uncertainties of time and frequency associated with the Fourier
provided a measurement error as required for calibration machines of
transform are characterized by the equation [23]:
Leeb hardness scales. Its efficiency for solving problems of adjustment of
Δf Δt ≥ 1/4π impact devices in dynamic hardness testers, as well as their calibration
(verification) was demonstrated. The achieved measurement uncer­
where Δt is the time uncertainty, Δf is the signal frequency uncertainty. tainty was about 0.2⋅10− 3 m/s at time resolution of 190 µs and a velocity
Since the uncertainty of the velocity measurement must be the value of of the impact body of 2.05 m/s that meets the requirements of inter­
0.0025 m/s, the signal frequency measurement uncertainty is 3.23 kHz, national standards [12–14]. The proposed system differs from the
which limits the time uncertainty with a value of Δt = 25 µs. When the existing ones [16,20,21]. The developed system allows to determine the
signal is cut into windows, reducing the length of the window will lead speed of the falling impactor body and can be widely used for the pro­
to an increase in the error in the frequency measurement, while its duction and calibration of Leeb hardness testers.
expansion will lead to a decrease in the time resolution.
Based on the methodology requirements, the parameters of the 6. Conclusion
registration system can be calculated. The laser has a wavelength of
1550 nm, which corresponds to the frequency f0 = 1.936⋅105 GHz, at a The obtained result allows us to develop an inexpensive measuring
velocity of 3 m/s, the frequency of the recorded beats is fb = 3.87 MHz. complex that is capable to evaluate the velocity of the impactor body in
Therefore, the use of the HFBR-2316 photoelectric receiver with a calibration reference machines and Leeb hardness testers. Such solution
transmission band of 100 MHz does not limit the recorded velocity. The will allow manufacturers of Leeb hardness testers to calibrate and verify
minimum sampling frequency is determined according to the sampling measuring devices during the production process, as well as expand the
theorem by doubling the maximum carrier frequency of the beats, in this list of metrology laboratories that carry out verification and calibration
case it is the value of ~10 MHz. Using the value of the required signal of hardness measuring instruments on the Leeb scale.
uncertainty and taking into account the type of the selected window, it is
possible to calculate the value of the time window, it should be 85 µs. CRediT authorship contribution statement
The velocity of the object due to gravity over this time will change by
0.00083 m/s, which is several times less than the measurement K. Gogolinskii: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision. V.

4
K. Gogolinskii et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

Fig. 4. Measuring data for gravitational acceleration scheme: a) source signal, b) spectrum and c) velocity diagram.

Fig. 5. Impact device speed with different acceleration scheme: a) spring; b) gravitational.

Syasko: Conceptualization, Methodology. A. Umanskii: Investigation, limitations, Prospects, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1384 (2019) 012012, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1742-6596/1384/1/012012.
Validation. T. Kazieva: Resources, Data curation, Investigation. K.
[7] D. Leeb, Dynamic hardness testing of metallic materials, NDT Int. (1979), https://
Gubskiy: Resources, Data curation, Software. A. Kuznetsov: Resources, doi.org/10.1016/0308-9126(79)90087-7.
Data curation, Software. R. Gluhov: Resources, Data curation, Software. [8] M. Kompatscher, Equotip - Rebound hardness testing after D, LEEB. IMEKO TC5
Conf. Hardness Meas. Theory Appl. Lab. Ind. HARDMEKO 2004, 2004, pp. 66–72,
https://www.imeko.org/publications/tc5-2004/IMEKO-TC5-2004-014.pdf.
[9] A. Formisano, G. Chiumiento, G. Di Lorenzo, Leeb hardness experimental tests on
Declaration of Competing Interest carpentry steels: Surface treatment effect and empirical correlation with strength,
AIP Conf. Proc. 1978 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5044058.
[10] D. Liu, X. Liu, F. Fu, W. Wang, Nondestructive post-fire damage assessment of
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
structural steel members using Leeb Harness method, Fire Technol. 56 (2020)
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 1777–1799, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-020-00954-6.
the work reported in this paper. [11] A. Vaško, J. Sovík, M. Krynke, Determination of accuracy and reliability of portable
hardness testers, Qual. Prod. Improv. - QPI 1 (2019) 289–295, https://doi.org/
10.2478/cqpi-2019-0039.
References [12] ISO 16859-1:2015(E) “Metallic materials - Leeb hardness test - Part 1: Test
method“.
[1] D. Tabor, The Hardness of Metals, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Oxford University [13] ISO 16859-2:2015(E) “Metallic materials - Leeb hardness test - Part 2: Verification
Press, New York, 2000. and calibration of the testing devices“.
[2] Hardness Testing: Principles and Applications. Edited by Konrad Herrmann, ASM [14] ISO 16859-3:2015(E) “Metallic materials - Leeb hardness test - Part 3: Calibration
International, 2011, p. 255. of reference test blocks.
[3] A.C. Fischer-Cripps, Introduction to Contact Mechanics, 2nd ed., Springer, US, [15] K. Herrmann, Reference measuring instrument for calibration of Leeb-hardness //
2007, pp. 226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68188-7. Physikalisch-TechnischeBundesanstalt. Scientific news from division 5, review of
[4] D. Tabor, A simple theory of static and dynamic hardness, Proc. R. Soc. London. the Annual Report, 2007. http://www.ptb.de/en/org/5/nachrichten5/arch
Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. (1948), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.0008. iv/2007/nachrichten5_2007.htm.
[5] B.J. Koeppel, G. Subhash, An experimental technique to investigate the dynamic [16] W. Shi, W. Zeng, Q. Li, Leeb hardness standard with laser measuring, in: 20th
indentation hardness of materials, Exp Tech 21 (2008) 16–18, https://doi.org/ IMEKO World Congr. 2012, vol. 1, 2012, pp. 509–512, https://www.imeko.org/
10.1111/j.1747-1567.1997.tb00517.x. publications/wc-2012/IMEKO-WC-2012-TC5-O8.pdf.
[6] K.V. Gogolinskii, V.A. Syasko, A.S. Umanskii, A.A. Nikazov, T.I. Bobkova, [17] A.E. Aslanyan, E.G. Aslanyan, S.M. Gavrilkin, A.S. Doynikov, A.N. Shchipunov, Get
Mechanical properties measurements with portable hardness testers: Advantages, 161–2019: state primary standard of the hardness of metals based on the shore D

5
K. Gogolinskii et al. Measurement 173 (2021) 108632

scale and the Leeb scales, Meas. Tech. 63 (2020) 81–86, https://doi.org/10.1007/ [21] D. Schwenk, M. Bandel, Calibration of the impact velocity at portable hardness
s11018-020-01754-8. testing devices in accordance with Leeb, in: 12th IMEKO TC5 Conference on the
[18] S. Maki, T. Yamamoto, Computer simulation of micro rebound hardness test, Measurement of Hardness 2014, Held Together with TC3 and TC22 12–15 (IMEKO-
Procedia Eng. 81 (2014) 1396–1401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. International Measurement Federation Secretariat, 2014). https://www.imeko.
proeng.2014.10.163. org/publications/tc5-2014/IMEKO-TC5-2014-003.pdf.
[19] K.L. Johnson, Dynamic effects and impact, Contact Mechanics (2013), https://doi. [22] M. Gorbashova, et al., Application of direct optical heterodyning methods for
org/10.1017/cbo9781139171731.012. studying the processes of chondrite targets destruction by laser radiation, J. Phys.:
[20] D. Schwenk, Leeb hardness-calibration-machine, IMEKO 2010 TC3, TC5 and TC22 Conf. Ser. 941 (2017) 012002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/941/1/
Conferences «Metrology in Modern Context». November 22− 25, 2010, Pattaya, 012002.
Chonburi, Thailand. https://www.imeko.org/publications/tc5-2010/IME [23] L. Cohen, Time-Frequency Analysis, Prentice Hall PTR, 1995, p. 300.
KO-TC5-2010-024.pdf.