How is hardness determined?
1710040#3
Hardness measurements quantify the resistance of a material to plastic deformation. Indentation hardness tests compose the majority of processes used to determine material hardness, and can be divided into two classes: "microindentation" and "macroindentation" tests. Microindentation tests typically have forces less than . Hardness, however, cannot be considered to be a fundamental material property. Classical hardness testing usually creates a number which can be used to provide a relative idea of material properties. As such, hardness can only offer a comparative idea of the material's resistance to plastic deformation since different hardness techniques have different scales.
Indentation hardness
19883#5
"Hardness" is determined by comparison with other minerals. In the Mohs scale, a standard set of minerals are numbered in order of increasing hardness from 1 (talc) to 10 (diamond). A harder mineral will scratch a softer, so an unknown mineral can be placed in this scale by which minerals it scratches and which scratch it. A few minerals such as calcite and kyanite have a hardness that depends significantly on direction. Hardness can also be measured on an absolute scale using a sclerometer; compared to the absolute scale, the Mohs scale is nonlinear.
Mineralogy
407299#2
Water's hardness is determined by the concentration of multivalent cations in the water. Multivalent cations are positively charged metal complexes with a charge greater than 1+. Usually, the cations have the charge of 2+. Common cations found in hard water include Ca and Mg. These ions enter a water supply by leaching from minerals within an aquifer. Common calcium-containing minerals are calcite and gypsum. A common magnesium mineral is dolomite (which also contains calcium). Rainwater and distilled water are soft, because they contain few ions.
Hard water
52774663#3
Typically cupules were created by direct percussion, i.e. using hand-held hammer-stones. Replication studies have shown that the time required for their production varies greatly, depending on the rock type. It can take one minute to create a 12 mm deep cupule on weathered sandstone, but 45,000 and 60,000 hammer-stone strokes on unweathered quartzite. The resistance of a rock to kinetic impact is determined by its hardness, toughness and strength. Hardness, in this context, is a complex articulation of several factors, essentially a measure of how resistant rock is to various kinds of permanent shape change when a compressive force is applied to it. These factors include scratch or abrasion resistance (Rosiwal scale), toughness, strength, ductility, indentation hardness (measured by the Brinell scale and expressed in BHN, or measured by the Vickers test and expressed in kg/mm²) and brittleness factor. Abrasion hardness, indentation hardness and brittleness factor (ratio of the uniaxial compressive strength and the uniaxial tensile strength) combine to determine the “composite hardness index” "θ", which governs the production coefficient "ρ":
Cupules
47843705#2
This approach has undergone numerous modifications since its inception. Most recently, Jha et al. found that the Korsunsky work-of-indentation approach measures the nominal hardness of a material which is defined as the maximum load divided by the area of maximum contact. The nominal hardness of a material is fundamentally different than its true hardness (determined by the Oliver-Pharr method), but the two concepts are interrelated. Jha et al. derived an expression that determines the true hardness of a material from its nominal counterpart. In doing so, they employed a dimensionless energy-based parameter that relates the contact depth to the maximum depth of penetration. For a soft material, the difference between the contact depth and the maximum depth of penetration is small, and hence its nominal and true hardness values are practically the same. For a harder material these two types of hardness are remarkably different as the difference between them is relatively large. The model proposed by Jha et al. in its current form is applicable when the indenter is ideally sharp or when the maximum depth of penetration is sufficiently large in comparison to the indenter tip radius. The advantage of the modified work-of-indentation is that it does not require the computation of contact area, which is the main limitation of the conventional Oliver-Pharr method. The approach requires further modification in order to incorporate effect of bluntness at the tip of an indenter on the measured hardness of a material.
The Korsunsky Work-of-Indentation Approach
47843705#1
The original application of the approach was to the problem of finding the composite hardness of a coated system. The composite hardness is known to vary depending on the applied load and/or indentation depth. In the Korsunsky work-of-indentation approach, the composite hardness is given by a simple expression (the “knee function”) of the relative indentation depth (the indentation depth normalized with respect to the coating thickness), and the substrate and coating hardness. The function contains a single fitting parameter, which describes a wide range of composite and indenter properties such as coating brittleness, interfacial strength, indenter geometry, etc. This model of hardness determination has been successfully verified by numerous researchers investigating different coated systems.
The Korsunsky Work-of-Indentation Approach
15618045#0
The Barcol hardness test characterizes the indentation hardness of materials through the depth of penetration of an indentor, loaded on a material sample and compared to the penetration in a reference material. The method is most often used for composite materials such as reinforced thermosetting resins or to determine how much a resin or plastic has cured. The test complements the measurement of glass transition temperature, as an indirect measure of the degree of cure of a composite. It is inexpensive and quick, and provides information on the cure throughout a part.
Barcol hardness test
634216#26
While identifying the “neural correlates of consciousness” is undoubtedly important, it is hard to see how it could ever lead to a satisfactory explanation of what consciousness is and how it comes about. As will be illustrated below, IIT offers a way to analyze systems of mechanisms to determine if they are properly structured to give rise to consciousness, how much of it, and of which kind.
Hard problem of consciousness
2109782#11
In the Feasibility stage, costs of the requirements are determined. For user requirements, the current cost of work is compared to the future projected costs once the new system is in place. Questions such as these are asked: “What are data entry errors costing us now?” Or “What is the cost of scrap due to operator error with the current interface?” Actually, the need for the new tool is often recognized as these questions come to the attention of financial people in the organization.
Requirements management
14046416#2
This enzyme belongs to the family of oxidoreductases, specifically those acting on paired donors, with O2 as oxidant and incorporation or reduction of oxygen. The oxygen incorporated need not be derived from O2 with 2-oxoglutarate as one donor, and incorporation of one atom o oxygen into each donor. The systematic name of this enzyme class is N6,N6,N6-trimethyl-L-lysine,2-oxoglutarate:oxygen oxidoreductase (3-hydroxylating). Other names in common use include trimethyllysine alpha-ketoglutarate dioxygenase, TML-alpha-ketoglutarate dioxygenase, TML hydroxylase, 6-N,6-N,6-N-trimethyl-L-lysine,2-oxoglutarate:oxygen oxidoreductase, and (3-hydroxylating). This enzyme participates in lysine degradation and L-carnitine biosynthesis and requires the presence of iron and ascorbate.
Trimethyllysine dioxygenase