Readings may not be comparable when testing curved or irregularly shaped test specimens. It is easy to find on the web. However, relaxation is not the only factors at d D Type M micro-hardness testing Thank you stancom for the suggestion!
|Published (Last):||17 January 2009|
|PDF File Size:||17.37 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.85 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Thanks Tom for the insight! In my experience, admittedly with the normal test, the difference ought not to exceed 5 units or so even when we recognise the underlying difference in durometer and International Rubber Hardness tests. Do not regsrd both as durometer. My understanding is that the difference can be larger for a lossy rubber such as NBR than for a more resilient rubber such as NR, but again not as high as reported here.
Morgans University of Greenwich. Lackovic and P. Cobbold Both H W Wallace. It is easy to find on the web. Secondly, Since method D shows both samples to be 70 durometer could the varying results using method D be caused by a difference in compression set, since the method is dependent on time? Note: Material 1 and Material 2 should be the same. Obviously an extreme case will be the rapid fall when unvulcanised rubber is tested.
However, relaxation is not the only factors at play. The tip of the indentor takes some time to settle into the depression it makes, eg overcoming drag forces - which one reason for the application of a solid lubricant, usually talc. D Type M micro-hardness testing.
Tinyu PDF Me