Hydrogen has gone from an unknown chemical feedstock business to a political, economic, and even diplomatic hot potato. With new hydrogen-producing and hydrogen-using technologies being developed and commercialized at an increasing rate, the eventual outcome might be a hydrogen business 1000x bigger than it is today. This Webinar will explore this future.
This webinar is for you if you are asking yourself: What the future hydrogen economy has to offer to thermal processing companies? Are major hydrogen supply/demand disruptions expected in the future? And, perhaps most importantly, How should your company prepare?
About the Speaker:
Dave Wolff has over 40 years of project engineering, industrial gas generation and application engineering, marketing, and sales experience. He has been a Sales and Marketing leader for hydrogen generation technologies since 1999. Dave holds a degree in Engineering Science from Dartmouth College. He has an extensive background in hydrogen generation at large and small scale, hydrogen distribution, storage, and industrial utilization, as well as application knowledge across a diverse range of industries.
A special release, a reflection of the unknown, will hydrogen combustion fuel the future of heat treat? Hear how the market has changed, the options you have to implement (or not) at your site, and when you can expect these technologies to have permeated the North American heat treat industry.
Driving the podcast conversation today are the following experts: Mark Hannum, manager of Innovation and Combustion Laboratory at Fives North American Combustion, Inc.; Brian Kelly, applications engineering manager at Honeywell Smart Energy and Thermal Solutions (SETS); Bob Sanderson, director of Business Development at Rockford Combustion; and Joe Wuenning, president/owner/CEO at WS Warmeprozesstechnik GmbH.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Meet the Experts (02:15)
Mark Hannum Fives North American Combustion
Contact us with your Reader Feedback!
Doug Glenn: First, let me do some introductions. I’d like to start with Mark Hannum, the manager of Innovation and Combustion Laboratory for Fives North American Combustion. He is a combustion engineer with a broad range of application experience with ultralow emission technologies; his largest focus has been on lean premix/lean premix with fuel staging. Flameless combustion is also an area of interest for him. His work has covered everything from lab research and prototypes to first field installations of new technology.
This is your first time with us, Mark. Thank you very much for being here, we really appreciate it.
Mark Hannum: Thanks for the great introduction.
Doug Glenn: Next up is Brian Kelly, coming to us from the balmy Houston area. Brian is the manager of Applications Engineering for Honeywell Smart Energy and Thermal Solutions (SETS) and the current president of the Industrial Heating Equipment Association (IHEA). He has almost 30 years of experience in the field of combustion with a focus on combustion system design across a variety of high and low temperature applications. Welcome to you.
Brian Kelly: Good to be here.
Brian Kelly Honeywell
Doug Glenn: Then, Bob Sanderson is our next guest. Bob, this is your first time with us. Bob is the director of Business Development for Rockford Combustion. Throughout Bob’s 32 years of experience in the combustion field, he has worked in automotive, abatement oxidation, aerospace, agriculture, food and beverage, HVAC, heat treating, power generation, and more. Bob brings system integrations and the application experience of how systems interact in various environments to his current role at Rockford Combustion. Bob is a member of the NFPA-86 technical committee. We’re glad to have you here, Bob.
Bob Sanderson: Thank you.
Doug Glenn: Finally, our standing person, who’s been here for all three: Joe (Joachim) Wuenning from WS Thermprocess Technic GmbH [aka, WS Wärmeprozesstechnik GmbH] in Germany and also WS Thermal Process Technology, Inc., in the United States. Joe’s company has been on the cutting edge when it comes to hydrogen combustion. In fact, I think the last time Joe and I spoke was just a couple of months ago at THERMPROCESS where, once again, you were giving updates on hydrogen combustion and things of that sort. WS Thermprocess has truly been a leader in the hydrogen combustion area. And Joe is an IHEA member, as well.
A Year in Review: Updates on Hydrogen in the Industry (03:54)
Robert Sanderson Rockford Combustion
Joe, we will start with you: In the last 12 months, what has happened that has advanced the hydrogen combustion “cause,” if you will?Joe Wuenning: What we have seen in Europe now is that several steel companies are getting large funds to really go in on the hydrogen road make green steel. And, of course, if you have the green steel, you will also convert the downstream processes. So, we really see it coming now that they are getting the right amount of hydrogen into places. These places are large locations where the steel plants are running.
Hydrogen needs to be transported by pipeline; you cannot transport it in a truck or something else. But I think the use of hydrogen is rolling and going.
Automotive companies will ask for green steel. How long it will take until the real heat treat shop will get to the point of using hydrogen for combustion is uncertain, but I’m sure it will be, in the end, coming also there.
Doug Glenn: Okay. So, it’s definitely growing and you’re seeing it in Europe.
Joe Wuenning: Absolutely. Like I said, at the moment, we are still at the trial phase, because hydrogen is not largely available at the moment, but large projects have started so it will be in a couple of years.
Doug Glenn: I might mention, Joe is our lone international representative, in one sense; it’s great to have that perspective. In fact, with these technology things, sometimes Europe is a bit ahead of the U.S.
Brian, let’s jump over to you. What have you seen changed in the last 12 months or so?
Dr.-Ing. Joachim G. Wünning WS Thermprocess Technic GmbH
Brian Kelly: To your point, certainly we are a global company and we’ve seen projects secured that have come to fruition which are firing on hydrogen. They’ve fired on hydrogen to prove it works and then moved back to natural gas since the H2 supply is not readily available.
What we’ve seen in the U.S. is a slowdown in some of the inquiries and questions about hydrogen. For about eighteen months, we were hot and heavy. We were weekly talking to our customers about what they have to do to get ready. Often, we offer the basics of hydrogen, here is what you can do in the future, let’s talk, if you need to.
What I’ve seen are some larger corporations doing prototype projects and vetting out, and saying things like, “Hey, if I need to take X number of furnaces to hydrogen, where do I start? How does it affect my product?” We’ve been doing some testing with customers on some hydrogen firing to really vet out their material and things of that nature. This is happening in pockets; for example, at one site by a certain date, we’re going to be the first green site for a company, and though it’s years from now, we need to plan on being able to fire 100% hydrogen or 100% natural gas.
Before, it was sometimes more talk of blending and things of that nature. Now, I’ve seen more of a trend to say — if we’ve got it, we’re going to burn it; if not, we’re going back to what we’re used to. Some things like that.
There may be a slowdown in the fervor of the talk about hydrogen, but it is certainly in the background and maybe a little bit more towards how do we be more green until hydrogen gets here?
Joe Wuenning: Maybe the slowdown, I would say, is not a loss of interest, it’s more that the people understand hydrogen is not so complicated. It’s a good fuel, you can burn it. Before, many people had no idea whether they could use it or not. Now, our people in the lab think it’s easier to burn hydrogen than natural gas.
Brian Kelly: That is a good point.
Doug Glenn: Brian, a follow-up question to you: Are you seeing what you described domestically in North America or also internationally? I know Honeywell is obviously everywhere.
Brian Kelly: Yes. And it’s been more domestically, at this point, because of the questions of supply. People aren’t as afraid of it after we talk to them about it, as Joe just said. “This is not something that we haven’t been burning for a hundred years. It’s just a matter of planning. In the future, I want my system to be ready for it, and I want to be able to operate on what I’ve got available before that.”
Doug Glenn: Bob, how about you? What has changed in the last 12 months or so?
"If we’ve got it [hydogen] we’re going to burn it; if not, we’re going back to what we’re used to." Photo Credit: Nel HydrogenBob Sanderson: We’ve seen more inquiries, specifically from a lot of laboratory users who are trying to develop new engines, processes, and combustion products, and looking for all the support and the technology to safely handle transport and bring that hydrogen into the lab under various test conditions. A few users, too, want to understand: If they make the change to hydrogen, what’s going to happen with the rest of their systems? How will it affect the processes? What happens to the humidity of the outside and what happens to other materials that are in the plant? How do they safely manage the materials within their buildings and detect leaks and different items along those lines? There are quite a bit of inquiries going hand in hand with the systems.
We have seen some early hydrogen requests going on which have tapered off a bit. I think it goes hand in hand with users becoming more familiar with the systems and having more of their questions answered. But I think some of it also depends a bit on the market pressures and the demands. The cost of natural gas has gone down dramatically. It’s going down faster than the cost of hydrogen is coming down, right now, but hydrogen is going to keep coming down and keep becoming more and more affordable. Then it will reenter into the marketplace.
Doug Glenn: You bring up a good point which maybe we’ll hit on later: hydrogen supply.
Mark, let’s jump over to you, though. In the last 12 months, what are you seeing?
"We’ve seen more inquiries, specifically from a lot of laboratory users who are trying to develop new engines, processes, and combustion products."
Mark Hannum: I would say that, for me, probably the biggest thing is some of the regulatory and law changes that have happened. The Inflation Reduction Act certainly puts in place a lot of the supports for hydrogen production and hydrogen-based systems for decarbonization. I think the EU also has some regulatory and law changes and additional support between the government and private sector to try to make some of these really huge investments that need to occur to try to bring hydrogen supply online.
I think those are really the biggest things. And I totally agree with the other panelists; I think awareness, focus, and knowledge have all increased a lot about what hydrogen is, what it takes to burn it, and what those systems look like.
New Users of Hydrogen (10:26)
Doug Glenn: Brian, let’s start with you on this next question, and that is: Are you seeing any new applications or industries that seem to be adopting hydrogen? I know we mentioned steel, and I think Bob has mentioned some labs and things of that sort, but are we seeing anything new, as far as the breadth of where hydrogen is going?
Brian Kelly: It’s come from a lot of different places for us. We’ve had food and beverage, some heat treating, and plastics. It has come from a lot of different directions. Some of the inquiries of a few of the projects that we’ve worked on have been waste to energy, sequestering CO2, and capturing the hydrogen. That’s how we’re going to produce it. So, looking at some different industries that may be popping up, a lot of them are doing prototyping and pilot-type things. So, there is a lot of variety.
I can’t say that I’ve run into any new applications, per se, because we deal with a lot of different ones. But certainly, some of the industries do seem to be adopting hydrogen, anywhere from air gas to oxygen and reusing the hydrogen for fuel to further the process. So, it’s been a variety.
"We have seen some early hydrogen requests going on which have tapered off a bit."
Doug Glenn: Joe, how about you? Are you seeing any new applications or any new industries?
Joe Wuenning: Yes, of course. For example, Dunnes gave away coffee beans roasted on hydrogen, so I think if you have high margins, you can apply these things everywhere, where you want to get rid of the fossil fuels.
Of course, our business is in the steel and heat treating industry. I’m not so much in touch with the other industries, but I think it would come from everywhere — everywhere the people are willing to pay for it. Of course, we have never beat natural gas on price, so far. Hydrogen is never going to come free out of the ground. But we all know the reasons why we want to get rid of the fossils.
Doug Glenn: I know the steel industry has been an early adopter, at least some of the steel industry. Are you seeing more applications in heat treat?
Joe Wuenning: In heat treat, we see another tendency and that is the use of ammonia. We try to check out whether we can use ammonia because, like I said before, with hydrogen you need pipeline connections, and it will take quite some time until the pipelines will carry hydrogen to the last little heat treater somewhere in the countryside.
But ammonia is another storage form comparable to propane or butane where you can easily transport the stored hydrogen. However, ammonia is quite a bit more difficult to burn because it involves NOx formations. It’s not so easily flammable; you have to crack it first, there are steps to take. We introduced it into our lab to check if we can use ammonia directly for these more remote sites.
Doug Glenn: Mark, how about you? Any new applications or industries that you’ve been noticing?
Mark Hannnum: Yes. First off, I want to respond a little bit to Joe and the concern about pipelining hydrogen and all that. I totally agree that it’s a big concern, but one of the nice things about hydrogen is if you have a clean source of water and electricity, you might be able to make hydrogen in a remote location. You might not need to pipeline it; you could make the gas on-site and use it on site.
"For example, Dunnes gave away coffee beans roasted on hydrogen..."
So, that’s something that’s really not possible with probably any other fuel that, historically, we’ve had in use. You know, we’ve always had to bring a fuel to a manufacturing facility but now we can bring water and electricity and potentially have a gaseous fuel that we can use.
So, adopt hydrogen? I mean, not really. You know, all the investments are being put in place, like Joe said earlier. In the steel industry in Europe, these major investments are being played out and committed to but we’re years away from being adopted, like for use day in and day out.
Right now, there are a lot of segments that are performing really meaningful tests at industrial scale, because they’re all trying to de-risk the switch from natural gas to hydrogen. Are there any process-side impacts that they need to understand that would impact product quality or product suitability or any of those things? All that stuff is going on now and I think it’s going to take a couple of years for everyone to sort of work through and have a good understanding of whether there’s anything they need to be worried about beyond just the fuel switch itself, if there’s any process.
Doug Glenn: Right. Yes, your point about having water and electricity is a good one but, I guess, the question has to be: Is it economical? I mean, this is the issue of creating on-site hydrogen — it’s the cost. The economic system always comes into play here.
Bob, how about you on the applications and industries?
Bob Sanderson: A lot of the push I’ve seen has come out of the aerospace and the automotive industries, not so much on the products that they make but more on the manufacturing side of it. What they can do to adapt their processes and put things in and understand how that impacts them. They’ve got a tremendously large investment to make lean manufacturing and they need to make sure it is spot-on. There has been a lot of discussion on that and trying to work things into those facilities.
Advancements in Hydrogen (16:20)
"It will take quite some time until the pipelines will carry hydrogen to the last little heat treater somewhere in the countryside."
Doug Glenn: Bob, I wanted to turn around and start with you on this next question and that is: Not industrywide, like we’ve been discussing, but what has your company specifically been doing over the last 12 months that maybe you hadn’t been doing before, if anything?
Bob Sanderson: We’re doing a lot more work now with stainless materials. There is quite a bit of involvement using stainless and other materials that have higher nickel contents and other materials to help work into the grain boundaries.
Working with hydrogen has some unique challenges compared to other fuels. It’s the smallest atomic molecule out there and it just wants to permeate into everything. With a lot of the higher, high-end pressures, there is a lot of chance of steel embrittlement, but if you can get away from those higher ends and try and get down to more usable, friendly working pressures, you don’t stand as much risk on the hydrogen embrittlement and dealing with leaks and permeability. So, just helping people understand that those are some of the changes that need to come into play for a safe, long-term solution in their applications.
Doug Glenn: Mark, how about Fives? What’s been the activity over the last 12 months, specifically at your company?
Mark Hannum: It’s been a super busy time for hydrogen, for us. We have installed some hydrogen firing capability in our lab; it was about a $400,000 investment. So, at this point, we can fire a substantial amount of input for longer durations than we could before. So, that’s really helpful when we’re looking at what the impacts are across our entire burner product range, when we look at a conversion from natural gas to hydrogen.
It also lets us perform some process-based studies where we can really simulate industrial processes and have a longer duration hydrogen firing. So, we’ve been able to support some customers by simulating some of their processes here and actually firing the materials that they would normally fire at their plant to look at hydrogen impact on those materials.
We’ve also gone to a couple of our customer sites and participated in studies with them. One of those earlier this year, right after THERMPROCESS was Hydro Aluminum in Spain; we melted aluminum with hydrogen without any natural gas. That was, I think, the first industrial scale melting of aluminum with hydrogen.
"Working with hydrogen has some unique challenges compared to other fuels. It’s the smallest atomic molecule out there and it just wants to permeate into everything."
Doug Glenn: Interesting. Joe, how about WS? What have you guys been up to the last 12 months?
Joe Wuenning: We have now put into place an electrolyzer for making our own hydrogen, so going that route, and not relying on the bottles coming in or on ammonia supply. We installed a big ammonia tank so that we can run the ammonia tests on site, develop the crackers and account for them. And, of course, we are involved in several research projects together with universities and some sites who do all these things and to try it out.
Doug Glenn: Brian, how about Honeywell? What’s been the latest?
Brian Kelly: The latest this year is an investment for our factory in Lata to have that electrolyzer-type system, so a full-blown, cradle-to-grave type of system to be able to produce the hydrogen. Muncie is investing in that whole substructure with the capability of increasing to tube tankers before the electrolyzer comes so there is significant investment on that end. And from the product end, we’ve just kept testing and looking at the whole product line, not just burners, but all the controls and things to be associated with hydrogen firing.
In addition to the controls behind the system, we must also think about the development of simpler and/or more complicated systems. These updated systems are necessary because of changes in air/fuel rations, and all the concerns that pop up when using different fuels. These systems need to take into account what the process is requiring, namely holding tighter air/fuel ratios and also be less dependent on low temperature air-heating applications, but also be able to use higher temperatures and higher oxygen rates with some excess air. We’ve been working on those types of systems, and looking at that when the customers are in a situation where they can fire on either fuel. How critical it is to hold capacity and air/fuel ratio and things of that nature, and how can we make that as easy as possible for the customer? We want our customers to say, “Hey, we’ve got to have Honeywell because these guys know what they’re doing.”
But, yes, a lot of activity on that basis. And even in product development looking at the future — lower NOx and lower emissions burners that go in conjunction with hydrogen. In the lower and high temperature range, we’ve got to look at a burner that can fire via flex-fuel type burner. Maybe not just hydrogen and natural gas, but something in biofuels or renewable-type fuels.
Doug Glenn: There is a common thread that a couple of you talked about in getting electrolyzers and hydrogen supply and things of that sort, which is a critical issue, right? Realistically, for industrial applications, does anybody care to speculate on how many years it’s going to be until even some of the more major metropolitan areas have reliable hydrogen supply, or is it all going to be on-site generated?
"For industrial applications, does anybody care to speculate on how many years it’s going to be until even some of the more major metropolitan areas have reliable hydrogen supply?"
Mark Hannum: I’ll start if you want. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) certainly encourages hydrogen hubs where you’d have a localized geographic area that has a centralized hydrogen production facility and then local pipelining to the industrial users. I think some of those similar ideas are in Europe as far as having a concentrated production facility and then having a local network. So, you locate your production facility in an industrial cluster where you have short pipeline links to feed those.
As Joe mentioned earlier, it’s really challenging when you have a more remote industrial point that now needs a long pipeline run. It's a lot of money to make that pipeline. Certainly, my experience in the U.S. would say figuring out a legal route to run that pipeline is probably going to be a huge challenge. It’s going to cross multiple property boundaries.
That, for me, is the challenge. But I think, certainly the government is putting in money in the U.S. and in Europe to try to facilitate these hubs being formed and have industrial users online. Maybe it’s going to be five years at least for that to be the case.
Brian Kelly: On Mark’s point, certainly some of the activity we’ve seen is around some of those possible hub sites. Some of the sites we’ve seen that are firing significant amounts of hydrogen, or have that capability, may be near a hydroelectric plant or a nuclear plant, and some of those hubs are going to be strategically placed so they can produce. I’d say it will be between 5 to 10 years. And I think it’s going to be regional because of these hubs and because of the companies.
Honeywell is saying we’re going to be carbon neutral by 2035. Some of these larger companies will say they are offering green products, they are going green, and it’s just not going to be in the thermal process area. We would like to think it’s in the thermal processes area. When we start talking about their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions, some of their Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions are a much larger percentage of their carbon footprint than what their thermal processes are.
Carbon neutrality goals apply to big steel, and bigger industries in general. Some of these really high users with higher thermal loads (like cement) are going to be the industries that are looking to switch over first to some kind of carbon neutrality or something to reduce that carbon output. They’re going to be some of the main focuses, not “Bob and Tim’s Heat Treat” in Skokie, IL, and things of that nature.
Those are some of the things we’ll see, but, in the meantime, this isn’t going away. In my almost 30 years, we’ve heard all kinds of stuff — methanol, ethanol, which is sometime going to come back into the fold because of being a renewable-type energy source. This was hot and heavy in discussions, but it was always in the background. The more we continue to legislate and see other things happen around the world, the more we approach that being carbon neutral. [blocktext align="left"]Carbon neutral doesn’t mean you’re producing zero CO2, but you’re offsetting it somehow and seeking to benefit the planet in how you proceed with your business.[/blocktext]
Doug Glenn: Right. Bob or Joe, any speculation on reliable hydrogen supply, even to regional areas?
Bob Sanderson: I think for both, necessities are going to drive a lot of this investment happening. Currently, the major manufacturing of hydrogen is along the Gulf Coast and up through the upper Midwest where there is a bunch of oil industry and steel industry, and hydrogen is highly used in those areas. Because it’s readily available, I think that the large users will be through those vicinities first.
But to get out to the outer coasts to service Los Angeles and the East Coast areas, they need more out there available. They will have to develop newer technologies, and it’s going to come. There are a variety of people working on it. The first need isn’t necessarily going to be for the large users, but it’s going to be to supply the utilities because they’re going to have to find a way to blend hydrogen into the fuel lines right now and help bring those down. They’ve got to get a reliable source on that.
I know that there are people working on fusion technology right now, where they’re able to take a variety of materials, put it in, and break it down to more of the atomic levels. It’s not just hydrogen they’re getting out; it’s the whole range of all of the gases and the materials that come out. So, they’ve got a lot of reactors that are working with that. It just needs scaling and time to rev that up but it’s going to come.
"If you look back to when the auto motor first came around, gasoline was big in use for those vehicles because it was a byproduct of manufacturing kerosene."
It’s not exactly the same, but if you look back to when the auto motor first came around, gasoline was big in use for those vehicles because it was a byproduct of manufacturing kerosene; so, it was cheap, it was affordable, but gas stations weren’t around and the pipelines weren’t around to transport it. That didn’t hinder the automotive industry from coming around, and it will be the same way with this industry. It’s going to come, but it’s probably going to come in a way that we haven’t envisioned here or are talking about, just yet.
Joe Wuenning: I think with the technology there, we can have it. It’s a question of, are we willing to spend the money and accept the changes and whatever to do it. Many people think it’s the right thing, other people think it’s a waste of money. We will have to see how it comes about. Five to ten years might be a realistic horizon for me. I think in Europe, they’re starting in former northern Germany, Rotterdam, so, they will have their first access. How fast this will happen, we will see.
Doug Glenn: I appreciate that. It’s an interesting perspective. I think the supply issue is probably one of the biggest obstacles that we have for adoption, right?
Obstacles to Adoption: Supply, Price, People, and More (29:40)
Let me ask you this: Besides supply, what do you see as the biggest obstacle for companies adopting hydrogen?
Mark Hannum: There are only two real challenges, I think, and that’s supply and price. So, if you’re going to take supply off the table, then price will be the other one. I think that’s been a theme running along here.
One thing I will say about something Bob mentioned in the last question is that yes, there is lots of hydrogen production in the Gulf Coast and up through the central to Midwest, but it’s all SMR (steam methane reforming)-based. For us to really put a dent in CO2, you’ve either got to sequester all the CO2 off those steam methane reformers or you’ve got to move to electrolysis or something. You’ve got to come up with a green process which is established, and just scaling up is the real key, to get to, sort of, this gigawatt scale to where people are trying to get to.
I think I saw a slide a few months ago that the biggest electrolysis plant is only 100 kilowatts or 200 kilowatts or something like that (maybe it’s a megawatt). It’s nothing compared to what the industry needs. So, scale-up is the big challenge: How do you get to gigawatt scale?
Doug Glenn: Bob, how about you? Biggest obstacle besides supply, and maybe I ought to throw price in there?
Bob Sanderson: Yes, you took the easy two off the table.
Doug Glenn: Well, nobody said this was going to be easy, you know.
Bob Sanderson: It’s going to be a little bit of a learning curve on the logistics of the handling, the safety, and the management of it. It’s just a little bit of a new technology that people have to get familiar with in order to understand how to bring things in and manage it.
Just in terms of running the utilities through the building: If you have a little bit of a leak, people are used to looking for that sulfur odor right now — that’s not going to be quite the same. If it’s a leak, the leak is going to be up in the trusses and gone. If there is an odorizer added, it’s not going to be where the gas is.
So, there’s just a little bit of a learning or knowledge to get through there, and a lot of the code committees are working hard on this. As it becomes increasingly predominant, they’ll have to stay ahead of the safety issues. It’s a common phrase that, “Codes are written in blood.” I don’t want to have codes that take that kind of a learning experience with hydrogen; we want to stay ahead of it.
[blocktext align="left"]It’s a common phrase that, “Codes are written in blood.” I don’t want to have codes that take that kind of a learning experience with hydrogen; we want to stay ahead of it.[/blocktext]
Brian Kelly: Besides price and supply, that’s certainly one of the major points because that goes to bottom dollar, the cost of my unit. I agree with what everybody else has said.
A lot of these systems that are in place now in heat treat shops have premix systems, right? Premix and hydrogen don’t play well together because of the flame sweep. This issue is also true with older equipment — some of this stuff isn’t up to date.
What every burner manufacturer has been working on is: What can I do? Does my product work on gas and hydrogen now? What do I need to modify to work on one or the other? What we work towards is — hey, can it operate on both? Sometimes that’s not possible. So, there’s going to be some capital investment on this, too, to upgrade furnaces, to upgrade thermal processes, or whatever it is. This being Heat Treat Today (with an audience of in-house heat treaters), we’re talking higher temperature, but the same goes for any thermal process.
Some of these technologies and a lot of the lower temperature-type methods we use to reduce NOx emissions don’t really work with hydrogen. So, how do we figure out, on the lower end of it, that almost every process — even in a heat treat shop, where some people have solution tanks and make up their heaters or whatever it may be — some of it is going to be planning for that capital investment.
They’re going to have some time until they get that price and the supply. So, it’s like — hey, start planning new systems when you have to upgrade something, let’s plan on this to be viable for hydrogen or something in the future.
It’s hard enough to get some of these shops to keep spare ignitors on the shelf, let alone start talking about the burner upgrade in the next ten years.
Doug Glenn: Right, right, exactly. Joe, how about you? What do you see as a major obstacle?
Joe Wuenning: The major obstacle is that people are unwilling to change, I think. They have done something for the last 50 years. People have a hard time quitting smoking, even if they see that it’s not good for them. So, they’re going to keep running fossil fuels even if they understand or accept that it’s not good for them. I think that will be the hardest thing to change is people’s minds if they have to do something.
Doug Glenn: Good point. A good selection of answers, there, that’s great.
Contributions and Detractions from Geopolitical Pressures (34:50)
"[People] have done something for the last 50 years. People have a hard time quitting smoking, even if they see that it’s not good for them."All right, the next question has to do with geopolitical situations around the world: Is it helping us or hurting us? Is there anything specific you guys can comment on there?Brian Kelly: I think, certainly, the whole sustainability/decarbonization has helped. We’ve seen emissions levels — which were requested to be guaranteed out of our equipment and our systems — have certainly come down. And that’s worldwide, where for certain countries, you kind of got the feeling that they don’t really care. Now, with this advent of being greener and reducing CO2 and even NOx, we’ve certainly seen the NOx levels or the emissions levels requested out of our equipment have come down worldwide in the last three or four years. To me, that’s a good thing. It’s good for business, but it’s also good for the environment.When we start talking CO2, the CO2 we produce here doesn’t just stay in North America, it travels all over the world. If one country is doing all they can to reduce it and the five others aren’t, as a dreamer, it would be nice to have that worldwide coalition to say, “Here’s what we have to do as a planet to accomplish this in the next 50 years.” It’s not going to happen in five. But I think it’s been a positive thing.Doug Glenn: Bob, how about you? Any geopolitical situations around the world that have helped us or hurt us, here?
Bob Sanderson: Coincidental with this, and Joe may have more input on this, there was a change in the fuel market throughout Europe with pipelines changing and fuel embargos. There has been a huge sea change in the demands for alternate fuels to Europe so it’s a lot of shipping from this end to get things over there for alternate fuels as well as how to process those fuels. There’s been quite a bit of work, not necessarily in hydrogen, but in a lot of alternate fuels for vaporizers and different processes to deal with CNG, LNG, and different fuels to make up for shortages. I think that has helped keep people’s minds thinking about different fuels, different sources of energy, and trying to drive efficiency factors.
With that, I would kindly push that over to Joe; he’s probably seen that more firsthand from his side of the ocean.
Joe Wuenning: Yes, I see that also. Besides the environmental issues, of course, the supply situation is different in Europe than here (the U.S.). I think, energy wise, the U.S. is pretty much independent. Of course, with electronic parts or whatever, you have the same situation — you want to become more independent. For you, it’s mainly all industrial products; for us, energy is a vital thing. We also have the picture in front of the Nord Stream 2 explosion. That was the end of a major energy supply to Germany and Europe, and now we can bring it in with ships, but it will be an issue for the future. It will not only be the environmental things, but it will also be pressure where we may be dependent on other people.
Like I said, it’s chips; Intel makes a big factory here, but it’s energy and all kinds of things.
"We can bring [hydrogen] in with ships, but it will be an issue for the future."Doug Glenn: Mark, how about you? Are you seeing anything geopolitically?
Mark Hannum: Yes, for sure. What’s been mentioned already and what I mentioned earlier was that there is a lot of government support that I think has really come in geopolitically and not just in the EU and in the United States, but I know that China is really having a large deployment of green electric production which could eventually lead to green hydrogen production. I know India is really working on some planning and work for what their green and hydrogen strategy is, and Australia; all of these places are really heading, in a really aggressive way, I think, towards trying to find ways that they can all participate in whatever marketplace there’s going to be for hydrogen or other green fuels in the future.
Reasons for the Push: Is It CO2 or Something Else? (39:23)
Doug Glenn: Okay, guys, I want to ask you a question, here, a little bit off the path, basically going back to the very fundamental reason why we’re doing this, and it’s been mentioned multiple times. This question probably won’t be a surprise to you. Whether or not you want to answer it is completely up to you, and that is the assumption that CO2 is a bad thing, and it will be harmful to the world. I think that’s basically why a lot of the moves to alternate fuels and things of that sort.
So, I’m reading the paper Sunday morning, and I get this article that says, “Princeton MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a Hoax.” The article is basically about two professors — William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT. I just want to read one little part of this and get your comments, if you’re willing.
The guys say that the assumption about CO2 maybe isn’t as dire. In fact, they are saying it is not dire, at all: “Current concentrations of CO2 are around 400 parts per million. . . . But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you’d decrease radiation to space is only 1%. Very few people realize how hard it is for the addition of carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called the saturation, and it’s been well known for centuries.”
It's just one example. Joe, you’ve mentioned it before, that there are some people who believe it’s an issue and there are some people who don’t. Any comments about whether we see people moving in one direction or another? I mean, I feel like I am hearing more people drawing a big question mark about whether CO2 is really bad or not.
Joe Wuenning: Let me give an example: 45 years ago, I was skiing down a glacier in the Alps, right down to the bus stop. I did that ten years ago. I had to walk for four or five miles because the glacier was no longer there. People think global warming, and whether it’s related to weather extremes or storms (you can argue whether that has something to do with global warming) . . . . But if a real big, big ice block melts, I think that’s a long-term indication that our world is getting warmer and warmer, and I think there’s no doubt about it. If you look at the ice in Antarctica or Greenland, I think that you will see that we have a problem.
I believe it and I think I understand the physics behind it — why the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere makes it gets warmer — and I think it’s severe. I really think all the changes we have to make now are much less than the changes which would be forced onto us by nature.
Are changes directly made from climate, or also from wars or conflicts or from whatever?
We adopted to changes during the corona virus, and with that we had no change. And it was not so difficult. Now, if we have to choose to do this or that, it might be more difficult. I absolutely think we have to do it.
"45 years ago, I was skiing down a glacier in the Alps, right down to the bus stop. I did that ten years ago. I had to walk for four or five miles because the glacier was no longer there."
Doug Glenn: Yes. Anybody else care to comment on CO2?
Mark Hannum: I’m game. What I would say is — whenever you talk about reducing CO2, you’re also inherently, in a lot of ways, looking at thermal efficiency. Switching fuels is fine, but if you can work on an energy saving project before you switch fuel, then you’ll fire less fuel. And with conservation, there is never a time when you’re like, I’d like to be more wasteful with the things that I do.
Every conservation project will pay off. A switch to hydrogen won’t necessarily pay off economically, but if you do some energy saving projects before you switch to hydrogen, all those projects will have a positive payback. If that’s the least that we get out of it, that’s great.
Doug Glenn: Yes, that’s a plus!
Mark Hannum: If you make a full-sale switch to other fuels that are non-CO2 generating, at some point there won’t be fossil fuel left on the earth anymore. I think we’re a long way away from that, but at some point, you have to make a change, so let’s start now; let’s get going, let’s figure it out, and try to make sensible choices.
Doug Glenn: Fair enough.
Brian Kelly: All I know is, since moving down to Houston, it’s freaking hot down here! I think it’s not going to hit 100 today, which we were on our 25th straight day of over 100, and it’s usually hot and humid. There is no doubt in my mind (and I’m 56 years old), it’s hotter than it used to be, all over the world. Something is causing that. It’s certainly not just CO2; it’s other greenhouse gases that are causing some of this — your hydrofluorocarbons and things of that nature, and even NOx. CO2 just happens to be the biggest volumetric.
Doug Glenn: Fair. Water vapor is a big contributor too. I think, significantly more contributing that CO2.
Brian Kelly: To me, like what Mark said, it can’t hurt the earth or any of us to look at alternate sources that are more friendly to the environment.
Doug Glenn: Agree. Bob, do you care to chime in?
Bob Sanderson: I was going to say that there is certainly more than just CO2 that comes out of the processes when we’re burning any of the fossil fuels. Although we’re constantly making improvements in emissions, those other emissions will continue to climb into the atmosphere. Say you do want to double the CO2 levels from 400 to 800, there may be a minor change in radiation, but what are the other impacts that are not being reviewed in that, such as acid rain and other problems and offsets like the acidic gases that you can have with them? There is a whole host of other sources.
With any conversation, there are always a couple sides open for the debate. I don’t want to drive into that too much but there are certainly a lot of opinions on the sources of global warming.
Doug Glenn: Which I appreciate — the fact that you’re willing to give opinions on that; I think that it’s important for everyone to listen to each side and draw some conclusions. Obviously, you guys are well informed on these things, so it’s good to get your opinions on those.
Effect on Heat Treaters (47:15)
Okay, last thing: Is there any question that you would like me to ask that I have not yet asked? Something very basic that you think in-house heat treaters — manufacturers with in-house heat treat — would want to know about hydrogen, or did we cover everything?
Brian Kelly: I think, to them, it’s going to come down to, how does this affect me and how does it affect my business? Right now, it’s not going to.
I’ve had several conversations at MTI, and I’m like, “What are you guys hearing about hydrogen?” Some people are like, “What? Not a thing.” Some of them, in different areas of the U.S., are heating things with electricity because it’s more financially viable (and in greater supply) for them versus natural gas, and vice versa, all over the place. I think, as we go on, it’s not going to be just hydrogen, it’s going to be all these technologies that can reduce your carbon footprint.
"It can’t hurt the earth or any of us to look at alternate sources that are more friendly to the environment."
We’ve all got them in our product lines: there are firing techniques and different fuels — do they look at the electrification? Because sometimes you hear, I’m just the plug, I’m zero carbon, and I’m like — at that power plant, you might be higher carbon, dude.[blocktext align="left"]Really, our message to a lot of the people we talk to is: Just be informed so when you hear about it, you don’t panic.[/blocktext]
It’s all those conversations to get in line. As we keep progressing down the sustainability road, all those things are going to grow and you’re going to have resources for them. Really, our message to a lot of the people we talk to is: Just be informed so when you hear about it, you don’t panic.
Doug Glenn: Yes, exactly.
All right, gentlemen. Joe, thank you. Mark, thank you. Bob, thanks. Brian, thanks. I appreciate you guys being with us. It’s been very informative.
About the experts:
Mark Hannum, manager of Innovation and Combustion Laboratory at Fives North American Combustion, Inc., is a combustion engineer with a broad range of application experience, particularly with ultra low emissions technologies. His largest focus has been on lean premix and lean premix with fuel staging. Flameless combustion is also an area of interest. He has a lot of experiencing achieving ultra-low emissions targets while providing improved thermal efficiency and system performance.
Brian Kelly is the manager of Applications Engineering for Honeywell Smart Energy and Thermal Solutions (SETS) and current president of the Industrial Heating Equipment Association (IHEA). He has almost 30 years of experience in the field of combustion with a focus on combustion system design across a variety of high and low temperature applications. This is his second time speaking on the future of hydrogen combustion.
Robert (Bob) Sanderson is the director of Business Development at Rockford Combustion. Throughout Bob’s 32+ experience in the combustion field, he has worked in automotive, abatement-oxidation, aerospace, agriculture, food and beverage, HVAC, heat treating, power generation, and more. Bob brings systems integration and the application experience of how systems interact in various environments to his current role at Rockford Combustion. Bob is a member of the NFPA-86 technical committee.
Joachim (Joe) Wuenning is the president, owner, and CEO of WS Warmeprozesstechnik GmbH in Germany and also WS Thermal Process Technology Inc. in the Elyria, OH. Joe’s company has been on the cutting edge when it comes to hydrogen combustion. Joe spoke at THERMPROCESS in Dusseldorf, Germany, givng the keynote address regarding the advent and development of hydrogen combustion. Joe is a member of IHEA.
Contact Joe at j.g.wuenning@flox.com and flox.com/en
In a special Heat Treat Radio episode, three managing directors based in SECO/WARWICK Group’s North American companies speak with Doug Glenn, host of this podcast and Heat TreatToday founder and publisher, about the working synergy amongst heat treat and metallurgical market efforts. Watch, listen, and learn about how Earl Good, managing director at Retech; Marcus Lord, managing director at SECO/WARWICK; and Peter Zawistowski, managing director at SECO/VACUUM, lead the North American market with their heat treat solutions.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Meet the Managing Directors (01:20)
I want to start with Peter Zawistowski, managing director at SECO/VACUUM Technologies, one of the newer companies of the SECO/WARWICK GROUP. Then, we have Marcus Lord, managing director at SECO/WARWICK Corporation. Both of those companies are currently located in Meadville, western Pennsylvania. We also have Earl Good, managing director at Retech Systems, LLC, located in the Buffalo, NY, area.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback!
Earl Good Managing Director at Retech Systems, LLC Source: Retech
Earl Good: I’ve been with Retech 6 years in April. Time has flown by fast. There have been, certainly, some interesting developments with Retech over the years. We relocated the business from Ukiah, California to Buffalo, New York. We originally had an office on Main Street in Williamsville in 2018. We found a new facility here that allows us to do manufacturing and assembly as well as have office space. We have about 40,000 feet for manufacturing and assembly, 10,000 square feet of office space. We are actually looking for additional space because of the growth and development we’ve experienced over the last few years.
When I came into Retech, there were some issues and some challenges that the company was facing. We’ve overcome those, and we’ve certainly moved in a good direction.
Prior to Retech, I was with Metso Minerals. I worked with Metso Minerals for about 13 years. I was moved through various positions there. My last position, for the last 7 years, was the vice president of ETO (“engineer to order” group). I was responsible for four different divisions on a global basis and increased that business from about 150 million euros to about 250 million euros a year. It became the second most profitable division within Metso.
This opportunity came along, and it was a different challenge. That’s what piqued my interest here.
Marcus Lord Managing Director at SECO/WARWICK Corporation Source: SECO/WARWICK
Marcus Lord: I’ve been with SECO for 9 months now. I came on board at the end of June (2022), basically looking at reestablishing the SECO/WARWICK manufacturing footprint in Meadville. That’s a “work in process” right now, rebuilding the team. We have a considerable amount of folks that are looking at retirement and trying to pass on some of that legacy knowledge to new people to spur additional business growth.
Prior to SECO, I worked for Carpenter Technology Corporation for 3 years, metal manufacturing for specialty alloys. Prior to that, I did two greenfields, one for Oerlikon Metco and one for Wyman-Gordon PCC. Both of those were powder atomization materials, so a lot of “end use” more so than manufacturing of the equipment, which gives me a good understanding of what people want from equipment.
Peter Zawistowski Managing Director at SECO/VACUUM Technologies Source: SECO/VACUUM
Peter Zawistowski: I’m in Meadville, PA. It’s hard to say how long I have been with SECO/WARWICK. I’ve been there 20 years, officially, but to be honest, it’s been since as long as I can remember that I’ve been around vacuum furnaces. I was basically born inside a SECO/VACUUM furnace, so that’s how long I’ve been with the company.
I’ve gone through several different positions: service engineer, engineering, sales, and currently, managing SECO/VACUUM here in the U.S. We are responsible for our vacuum furnaces for North America.
Doug Glenn: For those who don’t know: the global headquarters for the SECO Group is in Poland. Peter actually comes from there. You agreed to relocate your family, and you’ve been in the States now for how long?
Peter Zawistowski: For quite some time; I think it’s 10 ½ years or 11.
Doug Glenn: Peter is the link back to Poland which we will talk briefly about.
Markets and Products (07:00)
Can you give a snapshot of the markets you serve and the products you supply?
Peter Zawistowski: 50% of our products are single chamber furnaces, standard from toolbar up to 25 bars of gas quench furnaces multigraphite.
The next would be vacuum oil quench furnaces in which we’ve developed a new design, I believe, 15 or 20 years ago. This is where, I think, we are leading the market. I believe the competition is 5 to 10 years behind us in this product.
We have a lot of new developments or new products like pit LPC, like 4D Quench, which is like a single piece quench. We are always looking for some custom projects. We like those; we are not afraid of those and we can do them.
Doug Glenn: In a nutshell, SECO/VACUUM Technologies is dealing primarily with vacuum heat treat furnaces and all things around that including any type of specials, customs, etc. That’s where your strengths are. Marcus, how about SECO/WARWICK Corp.?
Marcus Lord: SECO/WARWICK Corporation has a pretty big portfolio of equipment. Right now, I know a major view is on CAB lines. We’re seeing a lot of inquiries on the continuous or controlled aluminum brazing process as well as aluminum processing equipment for annealing large coils of aluminum or sheet and foil-type aluminum. Then, back to some of the roots as atmospheric-type furnaces, so roller hearths, mesh belt and things of those sort. Those are, basically, customized to the customer’s preference, so we have a huge catalog. Lately, we’ve sold some actual aluminum melting-type furnaces, so large tilt melting furnaces.
Doug Glenn: Earl, let’s go to you.
Earl Good: We supply vacuum melting equipment — melting of metals and alloys that have a high melting temperature. Our typical industry markets are aerospace, medical, defense, and energy storage. Our primary furnace types are the electron beam furnace, a PAM (plasma arc melting) furnace, and a VIM (vacuum induction melting in a bar). We also have powder atomization technology and our melt spinner technology.
R&D in melting is growing for us, because we have a couple different furnaces we can operate. We have a lot of customers who don’t have the need for an excessive amount of material. They don’t want to purchase a furnace, so they come to us asking us to melt a certain amount over the course of a month or a year.
We have a broad base of technologies that we can offer the market, which is good, because some of the aerospace work can be cyclical in nature; but the other furnaces and other options that we have make up for that.
We work with mostly titanium, nickel, and various alloys associated with aluminum and nickel.
Technological Niches (11:25)
Doug Glenn: Is there a specific technology that you feel is really your company’s strong suit? Something you really feel comfortable doing?
Earl Good: I’m going to highlight two different technologies: I think our PAM technology, or plasma melting technology, is the best on the market. We have more installations than anybody out there. All of our furnaces have, basically, satisfied their performance requirements.
PAM Furnace Source: Retech Systems, LLC
Another area I’d like to highlight is our powder technology. We’ve been a little bit behind some of our competitors in the market, but we’ve really developed some good things that are going to provide opportunities for us in the market. We have a number of customers coming to us to look at those opportunities now. I think those are probably the two most unique and best that we have to offer.
Peter Zawistowski: Our single chamber vacuum furnaces are one of the best in the world, currently. We also have some new products. We are trying to get to the market our 4D Quench furnace. It is a special system to vacuum carburize and then single piece quench. This is the unit we are implementing in the U.S. We are getting good references, and we are getting great results.
4D Quench Furnace Source: SECO/VACUUM
We are also focused on LPC, in general. All of our furnaces are equipped with LPC which, I think, the industry is moving to vacuum carburizing. That’s the big focus right now with SECO/VACUUM.
Doug Glenn: People are saying in many areas in heat treat, we ought to be focusing much more on quench than heating. Anybody can heat the thing up. The real key is, can you quench it? Especially when you’re talking about surface hardening and things of that sort.
Peter Zawistowski: Exactly. And in 4D Quench, this is where we can control the distortion to the level close to gas quenching; that’s the key to success.
Marcus Lord: I would say that our CAB (controlled atmosphere brazing) lines are probably the best in the world. We have a lot of competitors that we’re seeing pop up out of Asia, but I believe that we still hold the market share for that type of equipment. Like many of our other pieces of equipment, we are able to customize based upon what the customer really is needing to achieve.
I would say that with the big push to reduce carbon footprint of these manufacturers, SECO still has the technology for their bayonet electric heating processes. We’re not held up by somebody else supplying us with that type of product; we can build that in-house and supply a very efficient furnace when it comes to electric heating.
New Technologies (15:20)
Doug Glenn: Does SECO/WARWICK have anything to offer in the aluminum market?
Marcus Lord: In Poland, we are starting to offer the vortex 1 and 2.0, which is being developed. Those are options we are going to introduce along with predictive maintenance programs that have been developed out of Poland.
Doug Glenn: I want next ask about new technologies, things that either are currently commercialized, or soon to be, that you feel good about. Peter, why don’t we start with you? What do you think as far as vacuum technologies?
Peter Zawistowski: We have quite a few new technologies, but I think I will tell you more about LPC. As I said, all of our products are equipped with vacuum carburizing. I think that this is where the industry is going right now with the current trend of limiting the carbon footprint and sustainability. I know that in the U.S., it’s maybe not that common right now, but you are aware that most or all of the big European companies will have to report carbon footprint starting in 2024.
If any of the U.S. companies would like to do business with Europe, like with German automotive industrial airbuses of the world, you’ll have to do the same. To do that, you have to limit your carbon footprint.
"To do that [facilitate business in Europe], you have to limit your carbon footprint." Source: Unsplash.com/Matthias HeydeIn carburizing, you must switch technology. Right now, the most common carburizing technology or equipment is Integral Quench (IQ) furnaces, and you must do something with it. There is a need. It will happen that there will be a switch to low pressure carburizing; this is where we can help.Earl Good: A lot of our furnaces are customized. Through the R&D trials and toll melting we do, we are able to develop new technologies. There are two areas that I want to highlight.We put some time and effort into developing a small-scale atomizer that is more like a lab-type atomizer. Ours is a little bit more robust than our competitors’ units, and it has more capabilities. For example, you can melt different materials on it. We’re very eager to get that out into the market and make our first sale.
The second is our plasma gas atomizer. We do receive a lot of interest in this product right now. It’s different from what’s out there. Much of the market today, as far as powder and atomization, is batch process; the yields are not great. We believe that the plasma gas atomizer will increase yields. It allows ongoing melting which is going to provide a lot of options to customers who have the need for a more robust process, as far as their powder production.
We’re really excited about both of those and getting those out.
Doug Glenn: Is development of those products driven by the AM market 3D printing?
Earl Good: Yes, but you have universities and others who want to do things on a smaller scale, on the trial basis so as to not invest a significant amount of money. They want to see that the technology is going to work or see the products they’re developing. There is a real need for that, and I think there’s a need for something more robust than what’s on the market.
Marcus Lord: We have new technologies on aluminum processing.
The Vortex 2.0 is a new technology. I believe three Vortex 2.0 systems have been sold and are not yet fully commissioned. This will give us an upper hand on how we go about heating our materials on an efficiency standpoint, especially when we’re looking at the carbon footprint and how we are going about processing our materials.
Other than that, we have some technologies based on a customer preference, technologies that may not be a staple or standard on all our equipment.
Collaboration (22:53)
"Is it helpful that you’ve got the three separate companies working together?" Source: Unsplash.com/krakenimages
Doug Glenn: There are very few thermal processing technology companies that have the breadth of capabilities from everything from atomizing, arc melting, heat treating, vacuum heat treating, and air atmosphere heat treating. How do you cooperate to synergize these technologies? Do you find it beneficial, and/or is it helpful that you’ve got the three separate companies working together?
Earl Good: In my opinion, we haven’t worked great during my previous years here. We do get along. I think we have the opportunity to work together much more as we move forward. We started to do that in some different areas. We’re looking for a facility, right now, to spread our U.S. footprint for manufacturing and assembly. I think it will be a shared work facility.
Each of us brings a different set of skills and talents to the industry. We have the opportunity to leverage some of those to the benefit of the whole. Products are in demand that are made in the U.S., and I think we’re going to be in a good position to service that market. I think all of us are in positions where we’ve seen our businesses start to grow and improve, so I think it gives us a great opportunity to work together.
Marcus Lord: I think it is beneficial to have collaboration amongst all three of us and our different businesses. We’re able to support one another, especially from a technology aspect. If there are questions, you have an outreach program, and we are open to work with each other. Like Earl said, we’re all looking to expand. SECO Corp is looking at making an expansion and still retain the offices in Meadville, but we’re also looking for another location to be able to give us a little bit more bandwidth.
For my group, we’re looking at a lot of operations happening in Mexico. That’s something that we really need to look at from a support aspect. Being three businesses relatively close to one another, it is overall beneficial for all of us.
Peter Zawistowski: It’s not only beneficial for us, but I it is beneficial for our customers. For example: Earl is offering a furnace, and my equipment is like auxiliary equipment to his, so we can offer a full package to the customer. We have expertise across the three companies that we can support and provide all that is needed to customers. I think that is a big benefit.
Manufacturing in the United States: Present and Future (26:50)
Doug Glenn: How has manufacturing in the U.S. been in the past and what are the future plans?
Earl Good: I can throw a couple comments out. Our past manufacturing in the U.S. was done out in Ukiah, for Retech specifically. Ukiah is a great place for wineries and vineyards, but maybe not an industrial furnace manufacturer!
Originally, there was a desire for us to leave all manufacturing and assembly in the United States, by the past CEO, and then we found this facility here in Buffalo. The new CEO, Sławomir Woźniak, said, “Hey, could you guys do some manufacturing and assembly here?”
I said, “Yes!” I think my chin hit the floor, and I was drooling because I thought it was exactly what we needed.
We have the 40,000 square foot facility here that we’ve already filled. We have a customer base that wants more manufacturing and assembly. Having additional manufacturing and assembly, with what we have within Retech — in Poland, in some of the areas, China, and India — gives us a way to support all of our customers’ needs. Some customers are looking for low price options, some want things built here in the U.S. As we become maybe less globalized and more centralized as far as focus, I think we’re going to be able to support all of those different needs for our customers and do it well.
Peter Zawistowski: We are looking to start manufacturing and assembling vacuum furnaces here in the U.S. As Earl said, we had our facility in Ukiah; we had our facility in Meadville. We had two or three companies in the U.S., and we were doing it in different places. Now, we would like to consolidate and leverage the fact that we have three companies here in the U.S.
"It’s not only about manufacturing. We are also thinking about bringing some R&D activities here to the U.S." Source: Unsplash.com/Getty Image
It’s not only about manufacturing. We are also thinking about bringing some R&D activities here to the U.S. Currently, I think that more often we sell technology, not furnaces. We would like to be able to provide that service to our customers, as well, here in the U.S.
Marcus Lord: Manufacturing was part of the deal of me coming on to SECO. It was really to reestablish what was being done.
Whether or not it makes sense to do full-blown manufacturing (because that’s a huge capital expense upfront) is one thing, and then, of course, training people to be able to do the processes. It makes more sense for us to actually do subassemblies or manufacturing of maybe a smaller part of what we’re looking at, as far as the equipment, and being very specialized on what we do manufacture. That will leave the larger projects either internally or external. As you said, we can’t be really good at everything we do, so we’ll pick and choose what we’re really good at and just exploit it from that point and then grow.
Doug Glenn: There have been major supply chain disruptions over the last couple of years. Can you address supply chain issues for each of your businesses? Are you seeing any difficulties? How much is re-shoring driven by supply chain issues?
Marcus Lord: Part of the directive is to try to be able to control our supply chain and also have better control of when we’re able to deliver equipment — that’s key for most of the customers. They want lead time even more than price. Where we’re seeing the impact for our pieces of equipment is definitively PLC systems. Outside of that, we don’t see much of a disruption. Maybe with some high nickel product that we use in our bayonet heaters; outside of that, it’s restricted to those two items.
Peter Zawistowski: I think we can see the supply chain getting better. But it’s not only the supply chain, it’s also transport cost and time. Right now, we would like to ship the equipment from overseas; but it’s twice as much money and twice as much time. That’s another problem we would like to address.
Earl Good: I think the supply chain varies. What’s kind of unusual in the market right now is you have a project where part of the supply chain works well and the other part not so well. Then, with the next project, it’s the exact opposite. The feedback I get from a lot of suppliers and even some of our customers is that they still have a difficult time finding people, and when you don’t have the people it’s hard to deliver.
Generally, things are improving and hopefully they continue to go in that direction. In the electronic PLC control-type technology, that’s where we see the biggest delays, as Marcus has indicated. That’s an area that is not showing signs of getting better right now. I think, as some of these chip manufacturing facilities come online, you’ll see a big improvement there.
Doug Glenn: How would you categorize upper management in Poland and their vision and their support of what’s going on in North America?
Peter Zawistowski: Expansion in North America is one of the primary goals on the group level right now. All of us are getting a lot of support from the group management. [blocktext align="left"]Expansion in North America is one of the primary goals on the group level right now.[/blocktext]This is the philosophy of the company. We have companies in India; we have companies in China and in the U.S. That’s why we have companies in the local market because they understand the market the best. Our company, in my opinion, is very important.
Doug Glenn: Do you characterize the presence in Europe as being supporting but not micromanaging? They’re giving you freedom and giving some goals to hit and saying, “Go at it, team.”
Peter Zawistowski: There is a direction we all follow but, yes, we have a lot of freedom, ultimately, in the U.S.
Earl Good: I think the support has been great. I think we are given a lot of flexibility as far as how we go about our business and operating it. I think there is definitely a desire to see us grow in the U.S., and I think they’ll give us the tools, the technology, and the ability to do so.
Doug Glenn: Some people, in North America, will say that it’s going to be very difficult for SECO/WARWICK (any one of these three companies, not just SECO/WARWICK Corporation, but SECO/VACUUM or Retech), to survive in the North American market because they have a global headquarters in Europe. What do you say to people that would say that?
Marcus Lord: I would definitely tell them that’s untrue. This is actually the second company I’ve worked for that has most of their operations in Europe. Both of the companies have been very, very successful at going out and putting their footprint on the industry and the marketplace and actually providing equipment, depending on the technologies, that is far superior than what our competitors have.
As far as being able to go into North America: There are directives, there are things you have to follow, but that’s with all corporations. At that point, they might want others to believe we won’t be successful because we’re European-driven, but that’s very untrue.
As Peter has said, we have a lot of autonomy to run the business, we have objectives, we have KPIs that we have to hit. The major idealism is to be profitable and have quality product. With those, it’s easy to drive a business to be successful; it doesn’t matter where it’s managed from.
Peter Zawistowski: My competitor in vacuum heat treating has headquarters in Germany, and nobody seems to care. I think it’s normal. We have a big presence here in the U.S., and that’s all the better.
Earl Good: I think I would add that our competitors try to push that our headquarters are in Poland and maybe our products aren’t as good. I’m a firm believer that if you deliver a good product on time, if the product starts up well, and if you take care of your customer, it doesn’t matter where your headquarters are. Customers are going to find you. They’re going to enjoy the experience and come back to you. We’re seeing a lot of our customers come back to us for additional equipment. I think that our competitors can push that all they want. The reality of it is, if you deliver on your customer’s needs, you’re going to have success.
The Future of SECO/WARWICK in North America (37:53)
Doug Glenn: What are you optimistic about regarding the future of your specific company?
Earl Good: That’s a broad-based question, but we had a very good year in 2022. I think we’re headed to a very good year in 2023, and our focus is on continuing to grow, continuing to develop products that the market needs and wants. I think we have some good things that we’re working on in R&D, so I’m very optimistic about our future and about our direction. We’re on the right path and doing a lot of the right things.
Heat Treat Radio Source: Heat Treat Today
Marcus Lord: With SECO/WARWICK Corp., we closed the year out with a very large sale. That is continuing into 2023 where we have a growing backlog which is good. It shows we’re continuing to service the industry and also providing quality equipment. I don’t foresee that diminishing at all; I just see it growing. As we support one another, that’s the best way to continue our paths.
Peter Zawistowski: We will continue to grow. I see a big opportunity for us in the U.S. SECO/VACUUM is a fairly young company; it’s 5½ years old. I think we will get more market share by having satisfied customers.
Doug Glenn: What is most exciting about what you’re doing in the market right now?
Marcus Lord: I guess I’m a workaholic, so that really helps. I’m actually on vacation right now and here I am working. I’ve been doing emails and that’s just part of the business, right? For me, it’s putting the bridges back in place that should have always been there, that deteriorated just through the history of SECO Corp. along with SWSA, and really growing the label. All I’ve heard is negativity and what that negativity does to me is it actually drives me to make the business better. It’s more personal than it is a corporate thing because I like proving people wrong. That’s what drives me.
Earl Good: I think the energy comes from the fact that we’ve made tremendous progress over the last 5+ years. We’ve seen Retech change our image in the market; there were definitely issues and problems. The fact that we see customers coming back to us with repeat orders indicates that we are delivering to our customers, meeting their needs, and satisfying them.
I always say if you go above and beyond the customer’s expectations, everything else takes care of itself. That’s where I’d like to leave it. I think we’ve made great progress and I see good things in our future.
Peter Zawistowski: Personally, I like the fact that every day is different and every customer is different. One day I will talk to a heat treater because he needs a furnace to heat treat nuts and bolts. The next day we have to develop a new power train for a helicopter, or we have to set up a reactor for new fusion energy. I don’t think there is any other industry or anything else than heat treating that you can actually touch a number of different industries. That’s what I personally like and what drives me every day.
About the experts:
Earl Good, president and managing director at Retech Systems: He graduated from Penn State University, where obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering. Eight years later, he received a Master of Business Administration Degree from Lebanon Valley College. Earl has spent a majority of his working career with three different companies, General Electric Environmental Services, Marsulex Environmental Technologies, and Metso Minerals. He has held roles of increasing responsibility throughout his career, including various management positions. Earl Good was appointed to the position of Member of the Management Board of SECO/WARWICK S.A. starting on January 2, 2019. Currently Vice President, Business Segment Vacuum Melting & Managing Director at Retech Systems LLC.
Marcus G. Lord, president and managing director at SECO/WARWICK USA: He earned his Business Administration BBA Executive Management degree at Cleary University. He has worldwide executive leadership experience in innovative manufacturing processes, operational excellence, sustainability initiatives in the supply chain, and operations management. Marcus has served in a multitude of roles, including Manager of new tooling and dies repair( at National Set Screw (PCC)), Director of operations( at Wyman-Gordon and Oerlikon – Metco), Executive Manager BMO (at Carpenter Technologies), General Manager – Manufacturing (at Carpenter Technologies). Currently President and Managing Director at SECO/WARWICK Corp.
Peter Zawistowski, Managing Director a SECO/VACUUM, USA: He graduated from Technical University of Czestochowa where he earned a Master’s Degree in Material Engineering. He also graduated from Executive Program in General Management (EPGM) from the Sloan School of Management at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) completing extensive training in a variety of business management courses. His work experience at SECO/WARWICK began in 2005 as melt team service manager. In 2009, he assumed director duties of the vacuum carburizing furnace group. In 2013, became Global Product Manager of the vacuum carburizing and vacuum oil quenching group and in 2014 ascended to the General Manager position for product management and sales at SECO/WARWICK Corp. in Meadville, Pennsylvania. Currently, he is Managing Director of SECO/VACUUM, North America’s newest vacuum furnace company.
To determine what safety standards are relevant in your heat treat operations and be prepared for the future, tune into this special Heat Treat Radio episode. We’ll walk through the OSHA.gov website with our guest and expert safety consultant, Rick Kaletsky. Rick will help you understand how to use the website and find relevant standards, definitions, explanations, and more to make sure your heat treat operations are in compliance. He will also bring these navigation skills together at the end with two case studies.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback
Rick Kaletsky with his book on prepping for and responding to OSHA inspections Source: Rick Kaletsky
Bethany Leone: Welcome everyone to another episode of Heat Treat Radio. We are sitting down with Rick Kaletsky. He has a lot of experience, as a consultant, with occupational safety. Rick, can you tell our listeners and viewers a little bit more about yourself, your background, and anything else you want?
Rick Kaletsky: Thank you. I’ve been in occupational safety for 50 years. I live in Connecticut, always have. The main parts of my career were 20 years with U.S. Department of Labor (OSHA) in Connecticut. As a compliance officer, I conducted hundreds of inspections. As assistant area director, I assigned and reviewed thousands, and held informal conferences. On many days, I acted as area director for the whole state, but still through the federal office.
Rick is an expert on Muhammad Ali. Source: Rick Kaletsky
I’ve been on my own as a self-employed safety consultant for 30 years. Although I’ve done a wealth of inspections in that situation, I’ve pretty much gotten into now, in almost all cases, working for attorneys. These very serious occupational injuries, and occasionally nonoccupational, like trips and falls in a mall, etc. I testified either by deposition or in court more than 60 times, and I’ll provide information about a book I wrote (see end of transcript, or purchase book here). Sidenote, the book I wrote about Muhammad Ali is even better than the OSHA book!
Bethany Leone: We’re here with Rick to specifically navigate osha.gov.
Rick Kaletsky: It is osha.gov. It’s important for everyone to know, please do not use .com, .net, or .edu. You’ll get something else.
United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration Source: OSHA
I have the screen in front of me now. This is United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration. You all should see a red banner across the top. It’s quite user friendly. You can use it for many, many purposes. It’s free — why not use it? You can use it to find OSHA standards. You can use it to find directives and interpretations which give you an idea of what are some special things about standards that do not appear in them:
For instance, an interpretation is generally when Johnny Smith from the ABC company in Nebraska writes to OSHA and wants to know, “Regarding this standard, am I in violation if . . . Or what are alternative means, etc.?” OSHA will answer. But those answers are not in the standard, so there are some special things there.
A directive is a similar thing that the national office of OSHA communicates to its people in the field, mainly for compliance officers who do inspections, on how to view certain situations, how to look at what might be a violation or what is not a violation.
You can also use this site for tutorials, for finding publications, downloading them, printing them, and certainly to find the records of companies. You will find, not their injury and illness record, but rather, when they were they cited by OSHA for allegations, and which particular standards.
In roughly half the states, the federal government enforces the standards. Now, there is a Nuclear Regulatory Commission; there is a railroad administration — there are a few things that aren’t covered and few people working absolutely alone.
Just figure: If you have an employer-employee relationship, barring some unusual exceptions, they’re covered by OSHA. If you figure we have a small family heat treating business of 6 people, yes, you’re in.
In about half the states, the federal government does the enforcing. In the other half, the state does the enforcing. A few states have even addressed standards and come up with rules (laws) that federal OSHA doesn’t cover, like ergonomics.
If you’re in a federal state, you are dealing with 29 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, 1910 ). Some iterations of CFR 1910 refer to exits, some to powered industrial trucks or vehicles, some to lock out/tag out, some to personal protective equipment, some to ladders, etc.
Some of the states that do their own enforcing and use the exact same standards as OSHA. For the heat treating industry, it is going to be 1910 point. There are a few that begin with something like 1902 or 03, regulating injury/illness records and posters. Just about everything else is 1910. So, that tells you a lot about standards.
To find an OSHA office, click on “Find an OSHA office.” The offices are organized by state.
The offices are organized by state. Source: OSHA
In Maine, there’s a federal OSHA office in Augusta, Maine and in Bangor, Maine. You might have to figure out which one covers you if you have a question.
Now, every state has a consultation program. As a relatively small company, you can get the state to come in for free as long as you’re not in the middle of an enforcement inspection. You could say, “I don’t want to pay a private consultant.” The state comes in, and they tell you what they think is wrong. If you’re concerned that they’ll run back to federal OSHA — no, no; they know that that would freeze your interest.
They will tell you what needs to be done, where you may be breaking the law, and they give you a while to deal with it. There is no penalty. Will they run back to the enforcement people, whether it be the federal people or the state people? They will not . . . unless you steadfastly refuse to correct something even with extensions of time.
"Standards" and "Law and Regulations" Source: OSHA
We’re going over to “Standards," and you see the arrow that points down. When you hit that, you see “Law and Regulations." For now, let’s try that.
When we hit “Law and Regulations” on the left there should be a column where it says “General Industry." These are the federal numbers for standards, but they often apply to states anyway. Here we find specific standards. I’ll try to stop on a few.
On the left, you’ll see “Ladders” and that goes back into 1910 point 20. You’ve got to know whether you’re talking about a stepladder or an extension ladder or a fixed ladder.
“Walking/working surfaces” applies to anything to do with fall protection. In your industry, that could mean you may a mezzanine that doesn’t have perimeter protection or a tie-off to a person. And sometimes you have somebody working on top of a furnace, more than four feet high. If that person isn’t protected, there is a problem.
Where in these standards do I find heat treating? Source: OSHA
Where in these standards do I find heat treating?
Well, it’s possible those particular words are somewhere, but there is no particular section here just for heat treating. There are very, very few specific industries that have a section that is dedicated to them. But pretty much all of 1910 can apply whether you manufacture submarines or bowling balls, or you just have a store or a warehouse or an ice cream factory.
Let’s look at “133 Eye and Face Protection”. This is what I really wanted to show you. See it says “Standard Interpretations”?
"Here you're right in the standard." Source: OSHA
Now, there are other ways you could have done that by just the general OSHA search bar “Interpretations” or “Eye protection interpretations” perhaps. But here you’re right in the standard. So, when you hit “Standard interpretations”, we see “Request to provide” list of corrosive materials and concentrations requiring use of emergency eyewashes and showers. That actually applies to another standard also, it’s not just eye protection. It’s the fountains. Let’s hit “Request to provide”.
Here someone wrote to OSHA and said, “When do I need an eye fountain or eye protection or both?” And OSHA wrote back and said, “Well, there might be some twists, this isn’t all encompassing. This is where we try to answer your questions.”
Emergency eyewash station Source: Heat TreatToday
Many years ago, a heat treater comes to me and says their company got cited for a problem with dip tanks. Now, this standard has been changed since. Dip tanks are an example, when you read that standard, you should always see what the application and scope are.
Does this apply to me? But with dip tanks, it gets so specific that you’ve got to have this kind of substance, and this is only if dip tanks have so much volume or so much surface area, etc. Well, they got cited for a few things.
I said, “Let’s look at the standard. Not just the way it applied and is shown on the citation but the complete writeup of the standard.” Is your dip tank this size or bigger? Yes. Does it have this much stuff in it? Yes. Is it flammable? Yes. Well, they got you. You’re going to have to do what it says.
The heat treater said, “But, Rick, we’re not even concerned about this penalty, but to correct that is going to cost us well over $100,000 because of permits and outside location.” I said, “I don’t know what I can do for you.” They said, “Do something!”
So, I found an interpretation or directive which did not get added to the standard that indicated an alternative abatement to what I said. Not even all the compliance officers get to remember these things.
It said as long as you also have a written plan, and you have redundant extinguishing automatically, even though that, in itself, is not required by a standard. If you do these special things, don’t sweat the reservoir.
I went into the office with him, in Massachusetts, and even the assistant area director said, “What are you showing me? I’ll get back to you.” And he looked it up and said, “Well, the[blocktext align="left"]And according to this company, it saved them tens and tens and tens of thousands. So, you do need to know where that kind of thing is in the whole body of the standards.[/blocktext] citation stands, but abatement will be considered complied with if you just do this other thing which is a lot easier.”
And according to this company, it saved them tens and tens and tens of thousands. So, you do need to know where that kind of thing is in the whole body of the standards.
Now, before I go too much further on the standards, when I mentioned application and scope, don’t forget to look at definitions. Sometimes, very close to a particular standard, it will literally say definitions. Other times, at the beginning of a subpart, it has sets of standards, and this is not as complicated as you might think. You’ll see this when you go in. It might have the definitions up front. So, somebody might say, “Well, aren’t most things obvious?”
Just to give you an example: In the world of OSHA, “a hole” and “an opening” are not necessarily the same. So, sometimes whether you have to do something or whether you supposedly violated a standard, it has to do with the definitions.
Definitions help you follow the standards. Source: OSHA
You will also see exceptions sometimes. You’ve got to read carefully.
“Topics” is the next one. It has some, but not all, topics.
You can also use the “Search OSHA” option with key words. There is also an A-Z index.
“Help and Resources” and “News” are also available.
Under “News,” — on March 9, 2023 — we have an item about an auto parts seller. The point is, they got a bill for 1.2 million dollars. Are they going to argue that? Sure. I want you to know there are some serious penalties out there. The penalties went up again in January of 2022. That is the maximum allowable for OSHA to cite under different categories.
Now let’s look at the A-Z index.
A-Z Index Source: OSHA
There are publications under “P”. You don’t have to get them sent to you, and they print less. Now they want you to download them, or they’re in English or Spanish. They’re not all-encompassing. They might say that this is not a substitute for a standard. But there are other things under there.
There is something I really want to show everybody in the A-Z list. Look under says “Data and Statistics” and the “Establishment Search”. “Establishment Search” means a particular company and specifically where they are, where OSHA visited. It doesn’t matter if corporate was in another state.
Now look at “Search Inspections” by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System). It shows that near the bottom of this list. A SIC code is a standard industrial classification.
What does that mean?
Every company has given them a SIC number.
"What the federal government likes to use now is an NAICS number." Source: OSHA
What the federal government likes to use now is an NAICS number.
Metal treating is generally 332811. You can find that with key words on the left.
Now, everybody who makes pillows, let’s say, could be a 35062. Everybody who is primarily a septic tank service is a 17682, and every department store is a 48605.
When the government does that, it can start to get close to figuring out in what industries there are the most problems of certain sorts. And you can find here, where is says “Frequently Cited OSHA Standards”, what is most commonly found in your industry.
Here is a major caution in your particular business. There are certain kinds of factories that are all over the place, certain kinds of warehouses and stores. OSHA is shorthanded, and in the particular coding for metal treating and heat treating, the sampling for a year isn’t that large.
So, when you see these citations, they could be skewed. OSHA might have only gone into a few places, and they may find different things at your place.
Now, let’s go to “Establishment Search”. I went ahead on this so I could give you an example. See where it says “Establishment”? I’m not picking on anybody; as a matter of fact, I found a couple companies that don’t have a lot of stuff, and nobody should be embarrassed or anything like that.
Bethany Leone: We're typing the name of a company into the search engine and reviewing what other items one ought to refine when searching the company records.
Rick Kaletsky: You see where it says 2017–2022? I would not go back more than five years for this reason: This system has a problem with large bites.
So, for this example company, you’ll see the OSHA inspection started September 13th. It was a planned inspection. So, OSHA did not go in to just look at where something bad happened, or just look at a very particular area of concentration that OSHA was doing a priority on.
It gives that NAICS of 332811. It indicates three violations. It was mainly safety.
A safety person could find a little something with industrial hygiene or vice versa — that wasn’t their main reason why they were in. The safety person might have wondered about some hygiene stuff and did an intraoffice referral; a hygienist could come in later. There was a closing conference in October. The case closed in January of 2020.
Let’s look at the violation summary for this company. The only confusion here, is they group citations sometimes. You may wonder how can that say “3” or “1” but below it looks like you see more? I’ll explain how they group some items but overall make all that 1 item.
Originally, OSHA found what they allege to be 3 serious violations, but something happened where it was either contested or they made a deal with the OSHA office. They went in and said, “Look, we’ll be good. It’s a mistake. Here are the extra things that happened.” Or they said, “You’re wrong OSHA. Can we work it out that way? Can you fix this?” So, they had an informal settlement agreement. The initial penalty was $26,000, and it was cut to $7,000.
The way it stands now is this: OSHA doesn’t usually have that many “others”, it’s usually a lot of “serious”, but they made a deal with the company.
Violations chart Source: OSHA
The most important thing here is you don’t have “willful”, “failure to abate”, or “repeated”. Those have a stigma to them. And those dollar amounts could be things you don’t want to get involved in.
So, in the end, here’s what the IT people in DC should fix: Under standard — you see something that looks like, “What? What is that? Is that 19 million or 1 million 900 thousand?” No, no, no we should fix this. 1910.28(B)(3)(ii).
If a person doesn’t have experience with OSHA, they could say, “What is B03, etc.? What is 1 million 900?” It means 1910 point, not a dollar amount. It means the current penalty is nothing, even though the initial was more by informal settlement agreement, and it explains it.
They then group two things. Now what is the 28? We could look it up, but it has something to do with fall protection. 178? Two things to do with power industrial vehicles, probably meaning fork trucks or something similar. 219 has to do with power transmission equipment, belts, chains gears, etc.
That’s how this works. You can look up any company to see how your competitors are doing or to really find out what your history was with OSHA.
Bethany Leone: We are back to the “Establishment Search” and searching another company and scrolling through those results.
Rick Kaletsky: In this example, we’ve dates here. They had an initial penalty of $50,000 and a current penalty of $16,000 — that’s just on “Serious”. Then they had some other things change. The penalty went from $50,000 to $20,000.
I do not want to leave the impression that as you walk into an OSHA office in 2022 and you say, “We’re sorry, can you take $30,000 off?” Don’t bet on it.
You better have a darn good reason to say we really should have a break, you shouldn’t have cited us for it, or there were mitigating circumstances you didn’t know about, or we really would appreciate it if you didn’t call this a “repeat” but called this a “serious”. You’ve got to have something to say.
"OSHA completely took out that 132A." Source: OSHA
In one case here, you see “deleted” for number 2. So, OSHA completely took out that 132A that way. They left off this personal protection one. Now, sometimes they take one out, and they add one. So, this company was cited for 1910.28 and change, that is 28B1i, something to do with fall protection. 132A, that’s not there anymore though, personal protection 147 is lockout/tagout, 215 is abrasive wheel machinery (usually meaning a grinder), and 219 is power transmission equipment.
All this was dealt with by an informal settlement agreement. The company did not contest; it was done by a deal with the office.
CTRL+ F is a great tool for the OSHA website. You may not want to read 80 pages, and with this tip, you can get to these things in a hurry.
Bethany Leone: For heat treaters, this is really important. If you know you’re being cited for something, or if you’re interested to see what type of standards might be pertinent to you. For the heat treat industry, it’s not going to be that particular, but you might find that there are things that you do repeatedly that you need to know about. For example, working on top of a big furnace, this is how you navigate this site.
Rick Kaletsky: There are two things I want to say:
It’s one thing if you call me, we’re going to go on for an hour or so. Then, somewhere along the line I would tell you what I’m going to charge.
However, as kind of special to Heat Treat Today, if any of you want to call me and say, “Rick, this isn’t going to take too long, but I don’t know where find this, I don’t know where to navigate. What did you mean about this?” No charge! Just call me and ask me. If it’s not too long, done! We’ll take care of it right up front.
Bethany Leone: Nice. Thank you!
Is there an email address or a website that they could visit?
Rick Kaletsky: In the end, the most important thing is going to be the phone. There are times when I get an email, and they’ll say something like, “When’s a good time to talk next week?” If you call me now, I’d either say, “If you can’t talk now, let’s set it up right now.” I’m not going to send you an Excel sheet and tell you what blocks I have available. I can maybe give you the answer right now or if you want to do it tomorrow, we’ll have a conversation. To have a lot of back and forth and emails, no. If we’re on the phone, we take care of it. Efficiency.
Bethany Leone: If there’s anything I’ve learned about Rick in the past time that we’ve been able to talk is you like to get things done NOW. And you’re helpful. If anyone is listening -- please take advantage. This is really great of Rick to be offering this to us. Give him a call. He’s a great explainer and great teacher, but also has a wealth of knowledge.
Rick Kaletsky: I appreciate the opportunity to do this. I hope it’s helpful.
Get your own copy! Source: Rick Kaletsky
About the expert: Rick Kaletsky recently finished a book on how a company should prepare for an OSHA inspection and how to respond to the results of an OSHA inspection. This book addresses safety management for loss prevention and compliance. It also dives into practical and in-depth issues and examples that are geared towards maintaining a safer and more healthful work environment, and it delves into creative approaches on how to address occupational safety beyond the standard. If you found today’s episode helpful, go out and grab this third edition (published by the National Safety Council) for your heat treat operations so that you have an easy-to-access tool to mark up and bookmark. You can grab your edition here.
At the front of some major developments in heat treat technologies is Slawomir Wozniak, CEO of SECO/WARWICK. Join him and Heat TreatRadiohost and Heat Treat Today publisher, Doug Glenn, as he talks about the latest trends in heat treat, especially the new technologies his company is pursuing and the effect of the War in Ukraine. Read a recent press release with information about the group here.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn: The last time we spoke in an interview was in 2019. We were in Germany at Thermprocess, and you were just getting into the CEO position. We’re coming up on 4 years. How has it been? For you personally and for the company?
Sławomir Woźniak CEO SECO/WARWICK Source: secowarwick.com
Slawomir Wozniak: A good question. Yes, it was a very nice time.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback
I was not expecting so many challenges, especially since I took over in 2019, in June. We started to work on a new strategy for the company, for the group, and then Covid came. That changed everything. We had to implement a lot of changes to the company and cope with the challenges. It was a good time, absolutely. Many positive things happened to the company, and we grew up with the business.
We reorganized our companies successfully, especially in China and in the U.S. I have had a great, supportive team ever since I started with the company for more than twenty years. I know all the people very well, and they cooperate and support me every day. It was a very good time for me, and I’m looking forward to another couple of years running the business.
Doug Glenn: Compared to 2020, will this year be a normal year?
Slawomir Wozniak: It looks like it. We still feel, however, the impact of the war in Ukraine and the supply chain deterioration caused by both COVID and the war in Europe. We also reorganized the way we do things in the company.
But you’re right, the business is good today. Although we see some recession on the horizon, this year is extremely good. It’s extremely good in the U.S. but also in Asia and Europe. Pretty much all the markets are growing.
New products were implemented on the market in the last couple of years, so we see a good future.
Doug Glenn: Tell us a little about the 60th anniversary coming up.
Slawomir Wozniak: There is an anniversary coming for RETECH. The company was established in 1963, so next year (2023) we would like to celebrate the 60th anniversary in Buffalo, NY. This is something which energizes the U.S. market.
We would also like to highlight our footprint on the U.S. market because we have three companies. We have RETECH, SECO/VACUUM Technologies, and SECO/WARWICK Corporation. We like to see the companies working together, and we see a big interest from U.S. customers to get equipment made in America. RETECH produces vacuumatological equipment (vacuum melting equipment) in the United States. We would also like to build vacuum furnaces in the U.S. SECO/WARWICK Corporation has been in business for many years, and we would like to continue with production of atmospheric furnaces and aluminum process furnaces. We are also thinking about aluminum brazing equipment we build in U.S.
Doug Glenn: I want to talk about SECO/WARWICK group and strategies. I know you manufacture equipment, but the emphasis has always been on technology.
What can our readers be looking forward to in terms of technology?
Slawomir Wozniak: We are a typical technology, an engineering company which provides technological solutions for our customers. We not only provide equipment, but we provide complete solutions for our customers.
What we see on the market is a deep interest in what we call “green technologies.” These are all the technologies that are in line with reducing the carbon footprint. Our technologies can provide solutions for our customers, like low pressure carburizing (LPC), zero-flow nitriding, and all the other technologies which also reduce the time for the process and energy consumption. We see a big boom because the carbon footprint needs to be reported by our customers.
Interest in "Green Technologies" Source: Unsplash.com/ShubhamDhage
We have to provide a report of what the carbon footprint generated during production of our equipment was. We also must provide a report of what the equipment would produce during a process. We have some solutions which significantly reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. This is what our customers are looking for.
We see a big interest in conversion of heating systems from gas to electric. Customers can buy green electrical energy, but they cannot buy the “green gas” right?
Doug Glenn: Not unless you do hydrogen which isn’t quite ready yet.
Slawomir Wozniak: Right. All these technologies are very much in the interest of our customers. So, this is why we are forcing also, the new development of our solutions to replace all technologies like gas carburizing by low pressure carburizing. This is what we see on the horizon.
Car manufacturers are declaring that by 2035 they will not be producing any more combustion engines in cars. We have a great product for brazing of battery coolers for electrical vehicles, an aluminum brazing process. This equipment is produced in Europe and in China, and we provide the solutions for global OEMs. Also, we see booming technology. With the growth of immobility we also see a growth of our business.
Doug Glenn: Have you seen much of the growth in the green movement? Have you seen it as much in North America as you’re seeing in other regions of the world?
Slawomir Wozniak: We see some interest from the customers. It is not as big as it is in Europe. With the global supply chain, even our U.S. customers, when they produce certain components, they also need to be in line with the global strategy. The end-user is the user of the components which are heat treated in our equipment. The end-user will ask for the certification of the carbon footprint. This is why it is still not on the level as we see in Europe, but we see more and more customers/companies asking for green solutions because they need to also be in line with the trend.
Doug Glenn: It seems the North American market tends to be a little slow on the uptake on these green things.
What light can you shed on the plans for SECO group in North America over the next five/ten years?
Slawomir Wozniak: This is the right time because we are working on the strategy now for the entire group, particularly for the U.S. market. We have three companies in the U.S., and we would like to build more equipment. This is in line with the interest of our customers.
[blocktext align="left"]There is a trend of reshoring and moving business back to North America, particularly to the U.S., but also to Mexico, to better serve the market and provide quicker solutions. We would like to build more equipment in the U.S. A lot of businesses are moving their production from southeast Asia (particularly from China) back to the U.S.[/blocktext]
We can provide the solutions to help our customers to run the day-to-day productions in a cost-effective way with these green technologies, but also with technologies which can reduce the cost of the production, the cost of heat treatment processes, and metallurgical processes. This is why we would like to build more equipment here.
RETECH, our company which provides metallurgical vacuumatology solutions, is very busy with the new locations. We have a lot of projects which are fully made in the U.S. We are now analyzing how to cope with the challenge of the U.S. market to build vacuum furnaces in the U.S.
Today, we only import vacuum furnaces from Poland. In Europe, in general, the lead time of some components is growing. Energy and labor costs are also growing, so we’d like to build vacuum furnaces also in the U.S. to better serve our customers. This would be the main focus for the next few years — to reinforce our operation processes here in the U.S. and also to organize how to serve the U.S. market by local manufacturing.
Doug Glenn: I think it would be helpful to delineate the three companies that you’re talking about, the North American companies.
Slawomir Wozniak: RETECH. We moved from California to Buffalo, NY, roughly three years ago. We have a nice facility. We are quite busy there with production and assembly of vacuumatological equipment.
Doug Glenn: Which is, basically, vacuum melting equipment.
Slawomir Wozniak: Right. Things like plasma equipment, electron beam equipment. We would like to even look for more space because we have so many projects. We still have our office in California, because we still have some good employees who contribute to the performance of the company. We would like to maintain this office in California.
With SECO/VACUUM Technologies, LLC, we would like to start building equipment for the North American market. We have a new setup, a new office, and a new facility with some floorspace where we can assemble the furnaces. We would like to start from assembly and eventually, double up the processes and completely build the equipment here in the U.S.
SECO/WARWICK Corporation — we just hired a new managing director in June of this year, Marcus Lord. His main focus is to grow our business in the U.S. particularly for our aluminum process equipment and also for thermal equipment.
Our goal is to build equipment in the U.S., maybe not in-house fabrication, but use our subcontractors, and then to do the assembly in the facility. We are also looking forward to set up a facility in the U.S.
Doug Glenn: RETECH has moved manufacturing to Buffalo, NY. SECO/VACUUM Technologies is still located in Meadville, Pennsylvania, but not in the previous building. They do have some manufacturing capabilities, although there is not really any manufacturing going on there except for spare parts, I assume.
Slawomir Wozniak: Spare parts and retrofits.
Doug Glenn: The last company was SECO/WARWICK Corporation, which is big in aluminum and general line thermal equipment.
Slawomir Wozniak: We would like to continue with this business and build equipment in the U.S.
Sławomir Woźniak and Doug Glenn Source: Heat TreatToday
Doug Glenn: That gives us a sense of the direction over the next five years or so.
Poland (your headquarters’ location) has been in the news quite a bit because of the war between Russia and Ukraine. How has that impacted your company and maybe individuals in your company. Has it impacted your ability to manufacture in Poland?
Slawomir Wozniak: It was a big shock for everyone at the end of February of 2022 when the invasion of Russia happened to Ukraine. For our company, the main heat was linked with the supply chain of some materials, especially commodities like steel, which were supplied for many, many years from either Ukraine or Russia.
Then, the prices of energy, like gas and electricity, also increased significantly. We also had some businesses in Russia; we have a SECO/WARWICK company in Russia to provide services and sales, but we stopped, pretty much, all activities there. We have just completed all the contracts, and we are not promoting our equipment there. We are not providing any quotes to Russian customers; we stopped our activities there.
It was not a big impact on our business because the volume of the business in Russia was not so big.
However, since the war started, we have realized that a lot of customers linked Poland with Ukraine as a country which is very close and, anytime, can be in the conflict.
So, many customers were worried about the situation, and they started to ask us, “Is our project safe? Can you still deliver our project?” So, we had to guarantee and confirm, “Okay, everything is fine. We can run the projects.”
There was a time, especially in the second quarter, when the delivery time of some materials were extended because of the situation. It has improved, and today we do not see much impact on it. Obviously, from the job market perspective, it was also significant, in part, because many migrants moved from Ukraine to Poland.
Doug Glenn: I think Poland was the number one country to receive immigrants.
Slawomir Wozniak: Exactly. We organized a lot of support, as a company and as individuals, with private activity to support the Ukrainian immigrants.
From our side, we have seen some shock and some impact on our from the other side. A lot of companies also started to think differently. For them, it was the first shock three years ago that impacted the global supply chain — many, many materials and then goods. This war was a second wave of impact on the businesses. We see that some companies decided to move their businesses to change their supply chain and, I can say, we even benefited from that because we see some growing business because of the situation.
In the end, I would not say the war is a good thing, obviously, but it is also positive thing for businesses.
We also have some solutions for the defense industry. We see growing interest — not only in Europe, but globally — in investment in capital equipment for increasing the production of some defense equipment.
Doug Glenn: Over your first four years in office, as the CEO, you’ve had to deal with the pandemic and you’ve had the war breaking out. I know there are some other issues, such as labor shortages and supply chain issues.
What is keeping you up at night worrying? As you’re looking forward, what are the things you’re concerned about?
Slawomir Wozniak: One, you just mentioned, about the labor market. We know that the demographic factors are very, very bad for many, many countries, including China. Today, it’s okay, but if you look long-term, the demographic doesn’t look good. We are focusing, now, on how to replace the human factor by automation, how to simplify the processes, how to implement the solutions which don’t require a lot of labor. So, automation is one thing and simplification of some processes, standardization of some solutions. We’ve focused on vacuum equipment especially. How can we reduce the manpower required to build the furnaces?
The second area is definitely the geopolitical situation, especially the tensions on the line between the U.S. and China. We have a lot of businesses in China, today. We also export from China, and to other countries. This is something which we have to look very carefully at how to recoup and handle if there were escalation from sanctions or limitations on the business and possibly to export our equipment.
[blockquote author="" style="1"]This is why we would like to focus more, in coming years, on the Indian market. We would like to set up production capacity in India to produce more equipment. Then, particularly how we can serve the Indian market which is growing. We see a lot of potential in India, but also later to use our capacity there to export some equipment to serve other markets. This is our focus for the next few years.[/blockquote]
I think the geopolitical situation is the thing which is out of our control, for everybody. Even the job market, as I said, we can cope some. How? We can attract our employees, and we can attract potential employees to join our company. With the geopolitical situation, we can do nothing.
Doug Glenn: We’re at the mercy of the leaders, which is always a scary thing.
You’ve talked a lot about green technologies. Is it safe for us to say that SECO is still in the business of the more conventional gas-fired type equipment around the globe? Or are you moving away from that?
Slawomir Wozniak: We do less and less gas-fired equipment. Gas-fired equipment was, in general, an atmospheric type of equipment. We changed the strategy for this product line. We have just narrowed our portfolio to a few types of equipment only. For some solutions, obviously, we still offer gas-fired heating systems, but we see more and more interest in using electrical heating systems. There are some developmental projects to use the combination of hydrogen and natural gas. This is the direction which we see from supplies of heating systems partners, and our customers are looking to get solutions which we call “the green solutions.”
I would say that, in the long term, we will not provide combustion systems in the equipment, but, currently, we still have them in our portfolio. I don’t really see that this will maintain for a long time, especially, as I said, since we changed our strategy for general products and for thermal product line. We do not use many of the solutions for combustion processes.
Doug Glenn: Here in the U.S., you are going to transition many non-vacuum lines from gas to electric?
Slawomir Wozniak: Yes. But, for some solutions, you cannot. We must have combustion and we obviously offer melting equipment and also some processing products. But we are very flexible and we can offer various solutions for our customers. We always try to adjust our proposal to the customer specifications and customer expectations.
Doug Glenn: It is probably safe to say that, within the next 5–10 years, you’re still going to be doing some combustion-related stuff, especially in North America. It’s going to be demanded. As most of the rest of the world knows, we’ve got relatively cheap energy.
Slawomir Wozniak: Less definitely than Europe, especially with the current situation with the supply of natural gas.
Alan Gladish (r), Praxis Communications, Inc., and Katarzyna Sawka(c), Vice President Marketing at SECO/WARWICK, were present at the interview with Doug Glenn(l). Source: SECO/WARWICK
Doug Glenn: Alright, last question: You’re obviously enjoying your work. You enjoy your team. The company is doing well. What excites you, personally, about the next 2, 3, 4 years at SECO/WARWICK?
Slawomir Wozniak: As I said, I have a great team which supports me every day in all of the challenges that we are facing, like every company. I love my job. I’ve bonded with the company. I grew up with the company. I would like to see the company develop and grow with new technologies, with market requests and new solutions.
We have great R&D teams — one in U.S., one in Poland — and we work on new solutions. I see that we can change a lot of industries with our solutions. This keeps me really energized every day, to discuss new technologies, new solutions, and how we can impact the development of various industries like aerospace, the energy sector, and the automotive industry. I’m proud to see some cars with our components.
Doug Glenn: It keeps you energized!
It’s good to enjoy your work, and it’s good to have passion for the future. I think that trickles down to your organization; you certainly have.
About the expert: Slawomir Wozniak started his professional career at SECO/WARWICK in 1994 initially as a service engineer and then as a deputy manager of CAB. Later he was posted to SECO/WARWICK Retech in China before an appointment of managing director at SECO/WARWICK Allied in India and chief operating officer of SECO/WARWICK Group. Later he was appointed managing director (Asia) and member of the management board at SECO/WARWICK SA. In 2018 he became vice president of the SECO/WARWICK SA Management Board, chief operating officer of the SECO/WARWICK Group, and he is the current president of the SECO/WARWICK Group.
Get ready to watch, listen, and learn about the three most underrated heat treat processes in today’s episode. This conversation marks the continuation of Lunch & Learn, aHeat Treat Radio podcast series where an expert in the industry breaks down a heat treat fundamental with Doug Glenn, publisher of Heat Treat Today and host of the podcast, and the Heat Treat Today team.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn: There are some underdog heat treat processes out here. I’d like to get to three today. What do you think is number one?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Let’s start with stress relieving. All ferrous materials, all steels, during the course of manufacturing or processing, have some residual stress that is left in them. A common thought about stress relieving is you have a weldment, and you stress relieve it so that the weldment stays.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback!
There is a mechanical action in the material during any cold working operation (cold forging, stamping, fine planking, etc.) because it's done at ambient temperature. Those all impart stress on the part.
Machining, turning, grinding. . . all of those things impart stress into a part. How is that relieved? It can be done thermally, or it can also be done mechanically. Thermally is the most common of them.
What I would like to talk about is not so much stress relieving weldments, it is stress relieving manufactured components. If you’re going to have a comprehensive analysis of the heat treat operation that needs to be performed on a manufactured component, a gear, a shaft, something of that nature, they need to take into consideration what are the prior existing stresses in the part. Then what effect is that going to have on the part?
Many times during the course of my career, I’ve had a customer come to me and say, “The part I gave you was correct, and you’ve given it back to me and then fill-in-the-blank. It’s warped, it’s changed size, it’s shrunk, all of those things.” What have you done in your heat-treating process? You have to back up all the way to the beginning of how this part was manufactured and deal with all of those component steps in order to answer that question properly.
Stress relieving is one of the answers. It’s not the answer. It’s not the only answer, but it is one of them that has to be considered.
"Stress Relieving Tips from Heat TreatToday"
Doug Glenn: For those of us who might not know what a “stress” is in a part, can you simply explain? For example: a coat hanger. If I bend it, is that inducing stress? Is that what’s causing stress? What makes stress in a part?
Michael Mouilleseaux: You’ve cold-worked the part. In the cold working, you’ve passed the yield strength. You’ve bent it, and it’s not going to snap back. You’ve cold-worked it enough that you’ve actually got plastic deformation, and there is stress.
Doug Glenn: That’s one way we get stress. That’s the mechanical way of getting stress.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Right. Now, consider stamping. Even though a stamping is flat (because the die has come down in the perimeter of that and maybe internal holes and things), where you’ve sheared the material, you’ve imparted stress there.
If you harden it or case harden it or whatever you might do with that stamping, you have to take into consideration how much stress is there. If I don’t relieve it, is it going to do that at some point in the part’s future that’s going to be detrimental to the part?
Doug Glenn: When you get a stress in a part, that’s the area that’s a weak spot, right? It potentially could break before other parts?
Michael Mouilleseaux: At the absolute extreme, that could happen, yes. More often than not, what you have is an area that’s been cold worked, and it’s been deformed. When it stresses, it’s going to somewhat relieve itself. It may not relieve itself 100% all the way, but it will somewhat relieve itself. Whatever shape of form you’ve put that part into; it’s not going to hold that form forever.
Alyssa Bootsma: You mentioned that stress relieving is not the only way to alleviate the problems. What would be some alternatives to stress relieving?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Thermal stress relieving is, by far, the most common. There is a process that’s called vibratory stress relieving. In order to relieve the stresses in a part, you have to impart some energy in it. Something between 800 and 1200 Fahrenheit is typically used in stress relieving. That thermal energy goes into the part and relieves the stresses.
You could also do that mechanically by a high frequency vibration. It’s not as common. I believe that it’s actually a propriety process, if not patented. It would be for something that you did not want to subject to 800-1000 degrees Fahrenheit because that doesn’t come for free. Obviously, in a ferrous material at that temperature, you’re going to have some oxide forming on the part. You may or may not be able to utilize the part in its final function with that oxide on it.
Those are typically the two ways to do it. Can it occur naturally over time? Yes, but none of us have that kind of time.
Alyssa Bootsma: You did mention how it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s more likely to break if that part is not relieved, but what parts would suffer the most if this process was done incorrectly?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Probably weldments. The detrimental effects of not having stress relieved of weldment would be the most significant. In welding there is a whole range of temperatures proximate to the weld — everything from room temperature to maybe 3000 degrees. That whole range of things changes the structure of the steel.
Leaving it in that condition makes it susceptible to any number of things — embrittlement, accelerated corrosion, and others. There is every reason to stress relieve something like that and almost no reason not to.
Doug Glenn: That’s weldment. Do they do a stress relieve after a braze as well, or is that not as common?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Typically not. The reason for that is, in brazing, the entire assembly is brought up to the same temperature. Then it’s cooled at the same rate.
Bethany Leone: I have two brief questions: 1. How long does stress relieving typically take? 2. Would we see the effects of incorrect stress relieving, or failure to, once something goes to quench?
Michael Mouilleseaux: The first question — would you necessarily see a failure? Those would be extremes. I’m more familiar with stress relieving fabricated components that are machined. Take a gear. They forge a blank and maybe machine out the center of the gear, machine the exterior of the gear, cut the teeth in a shaping operation (a hobbing operation or skiving or other ways of generating teeth).
"You have this part, and it needs to be heat treated. To assume that all of those machining operations would have no effect upon that whatsoever is not a good thought."
Then comes a comprehensive program of evaluating how best to heat treat a part. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of a medium carbon alloy steel or it’s a low alloy steel and we’re going to carburize it, what’s critical is that it’s going to get heated. The material is going to transform into austenite and cool rapidly or quench it. That’s what’s going to cause the hardening operation on the part.
In doing that, there are going to be changes in size. In hardening a part, you get a volumetric expansion. Thin sections are not going to expand as much as larger sections. A misnomer is, “You shrunk the hole.” You haven’t shrunk the hole! The material around the hole has expanded, the exterior portion of that area has increased, and the interior portion of that has decreased.
If you have a spline in that hole, now you’re on for something else because their teeth form in that spline. If it’s in a long section, then how uniform it’s been hardened has to do with whether or not it goes out of round or their taper. There are any number of things there. Those are all critical to the operation of this gear.
But what we have to take into consideration is the broaching operation. We drill a hole, and we put a broach bar through it and cut all of these teeth. All of that has imparted stress in the part.
One of the preliminary things that needs to be done is you stress relieve the part and give it back to the manufacturer. They measure it and say, “Oh, oh, it changed!” That change is not something the heat treater can do anything about. That’s the physics of what happens when you work-harden a part. This all has to be taken into consideration and addressed before we talk about what’s the heat treat distortion.
Bethany Leone: And the other question I had: How long does it take to stress relieve?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Typically, if it’s held at an hour or two at temperature, it’s thought that 1000 degrees for an hour at temperature will relieve most stresses.
Now, in a component part, we’re going to go higher in temperature. Although we’re not going to go high enough to austenitize the part, we’re going to go high enough in temperature that we know we’re going to relieve it.
Michael Mouilleseaux: They’re cousins. Stress relieving, the implication is that you are doing that simply to relieve prior existing stresses. In annealing, the implication is that you are going to reduce the hardness of the microstructure for the purposes of machining or forming. In annealing, there’s subcritical and supercritical and a hundred different flavors of that.
Doug Glenn: I’m trying to get a sense of what percentage of heat treating is stress relieving. Is it super popular? It seems to me it would be very common.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Interestingly enough, I’m going to say that the majority of the gearing product that we do, we incorporate a stress relief in the initial stages of heat treating. By putting the part in and raising the temperature to a stress relieving temperature and then taking it up into the austenitizing temperature, you’re not shocking the part. You’re not just taking it from room temperature to carburizing temperature or hardening temperature, and thereby you’re reducing the thermal stresses. So, you’re not imparting any more.
Doug Glenn: Stress relieving may often be done as a part of another process?
Michael Mouilleseaux: It can be, definitely.
Doug Glenn: Let’s move on to the second forgotten heat treatment.
Michael Mouilleseaux: I don’t know about forgotten. I’m going to say that it’s getting short shrift, and that is conventional atmosphere carburizing. What’s sexy in heat treating? It’s low pressure carburizing and gas quenching. It’s growing very rapidly and it’s being used in a lot of applications.
We’re subject to the same ills that Mark Twain identified years ago, and that is, “To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” Low pressure carburizing and gas quenching, they can save every distortion issue that’s ever been known to man in heat treating, and they don’t. They are other tools in the box, applicable to a lot of application. They are great processes, very targeted and specific. You know, sometimes you need a screwdriver instead of a hammer.
Conventional carburizing: It’s been around for a hundred years. What’s different today than what it ever was? Certainly it has everything to do with the control systems that are being used to control it. It’s eminently more controllable now than it has ever been. It is a precision operation, and it has many applications. By the way, it’s far more cost effective than carburizing would be. In vacuum carburizing, the cost is multiple; is it two, three or four times more expensive? It depends on how you calculate cost of capital and all of those things. But it’s a multiple, more expensive than conventional carburizing.
Doug Glenn: To do vacuum carburizing?
Michael Mouilleseaux: To do vacuum carburizing, yes. Should it be used in every application? I’m going to say no. Are there definite applications? Definitely.
Doug Glenn: Conventional carburizing, atmosphere carburizing is another area largely forgotten. I know it’s quite popular, but it’s not getting a lot of discussion these days.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Right. Any time there is an issue with a carburized part, everyone knows to ask the question, “Why don’t you vacuum carburize it?” The answer to that is, “Let’s solve the problem before we decide what it is that we need to do.”
Karen Gantzer: Mike: At a very basic level, can you explain why do heat treaters use endothermic gas?
Michael Mouilleseaux: In atmosphere carburizing, we need a method of conveying carbon to the part so that we can enrich it; that’s what carburizing is. The carburizing portion of the atmosphere in endothermic gas is carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide — that’s the reaction at the surface of the part — the carbon diffuses into the part. That’s how you generate a case in the part.
It’s a relatively inexpensive form of carburizing. You use natural gas and air in what we call a “generator”, and that’s how endothermic gas is generated. Then, it’s put into the furnace. There’s almost no air in a furnace. People think you’re going to look in a furnace, and you’re going to see flame. You never do because the amount of oxygen in the furnace is measured in parts per million. You put additional natural gas to boost the carburizing potential of the atmosphere, and that’s what allows you to diffuse carbon into the part. That is the case hardening process.
Doug Glenn: Conventional carburizing is done in a protective atmosphere, typically as an endothermic atmosphere which is rich in carbon monoxide.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Yes.
Doug Glenn: A lot of times we’re worried about oxygen in the process because of potential oxidation. Why is it that we use a gas that has oxygen in it to infuse carbon? I know it’s got carbon, but it’s also one C and one O, right? Don’t we run into problems of potential oxidation?
"Comparative Study of Carburizing vs. Induction Hardening of Gears"
Michael Mouilleseaux: In endothermic gas there is hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon monoxide, and there are fractional percentages of carbon dioxide and some other things. The hydrogen is what scrubs the part; that’s what kind of takes care of all of the excess oxygen. The nitrogen is just a carrier portion of it, and the carbon monoxide is what is the active ingredient, if you will, in the carburizing process.
The carbon diffuses into the part. If there is an oxygen, it’s going to combine with the hydrogen. Preferentially, you’re not going to have any free oxygen in the furnace, but you can have a little water vapor. One of the ways of measuring the carbon potential in the furnace is a dewpoint meter. The dewpoint meter is measuring the temperature at which the gas precipitates out, and that’s a monitor or a measure of the carbon potential.
Doug Glenn: A dewpoint analyzer helps you know what the carbon potential is.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Yes. It’s not as good as an oxygen analyzer.
Doug Glenn: An oxygen probe.
Michael Mouilleseaux: The oxygen probe is in the furnace, measuring constantly. You get a picture; you have continuous information. It’s not that there aren’t continuous dewpoint analyzers, but you have to take a sample from the furnace. It has to be taken to an analyzer wherein it is then tested. Best case scenario is you have both of them and you compare the two of them. That gives you a really great picture of what the atmosphere conditions are in the furnace.
Alyssa Bootsma: For a bit of background knowledge: What is the difference between endothermic gas and exothermic gas?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Endothermic gas has 40% hydrogen and 20% carbon monoxide. 60% of it is what you would call a reducing atmosphere. The way that you make endothermic atmosphere is 2.7 parts of natural gas and one part of air. You heat it up to 1900 degrees, and it’s put through a nickel catalyst. You strip off the hydrogens. The gas dissociates, and that’s what results.
Exothermic gas is six parts of air in one part of natural gas. You only have 10 or 15% hydrogen. Although it’s not an oxidizing atmosphere, it’s very mildly reducing.
It can be used in annealing, clean annealing. If you’re annealing at 12-1300 degrees or more or in that ballpark, that kind of an atmosphere is going to keep the work clean. If you did it in air, it would scale.
Bethany Leone: Is there an industry (automotive, aerospace, energy) that it would be most helpful for those parts to be typically atmosphere carburized, and/or is it just generally helpful for all types of industries?
Michael Mouilleseaux: First of all, the transportation industry is the lion’s share of heat treating — automotive, truck, aircraft. Atmosphere carburizing is extremely popular and commonplace in those industries.
If we said that we were going to have a seminar and I’m going to talk about atmosphere carburizing. Somebody else is going to talk about low pressure carburizing in a vacuum furnace. Everybody’s going to go over to the other room. Folks feel they already know what this is all about, and they know what all the problems are. They think that the vacuum carburizing is going to solve all of them.
When you work with the proper kinds of controls, the proper kinds of furnace conditions, the right way of fixturing parts and cleaning them ahead of time, you can have extremely consistent results. You can have extremely clean parts, and you can have very good performance from these things.
What the Europeans call “serial production”: we run millions of gears per year, and we have very consistent case steps in hardnesses as a result of good practice. All of these things need to be monitored and controlled and taken care of. But the results are also very consistent and very predictable.
Doug Glenn: Interesting. And it’s more cost-effective, I’m guessing. Conventional atmosphere carburizing, on a per part basis, is going to be substantially less expensive.
Michael Mouilleseaux: We’ve looked at it. Is it two times, is it three times, is it four times more expensive to vacuum carburize a part? The answer is yes. The question is, does that component justify that? There are any number of them where it does.
Doug Glenn: Where it does justify it?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Yes, absolutely.
Doug Glenn: Let’s go on to #3, the third underdog in heat treating.
Michael Mouilleseaux: Number three is marquenching. Marquenching, martempering, and hot oil quenching are in the family that describes this process.
Martempering is different than just quenching in oil, quenching in regular fast oil. Regular oil is going to be 100 vis, and it’s going to be from 90 degrees to 150 degrees. All kinds of low hardenability, or parts that don’t have a lot of adherent alloy in them, you utilize that so that they can be fully hardened. But components that are distortion-critical, quenched in that manner in regular oil, there is going to be a high degree of distortion. How is that addressed? It’s addressed in marquenching.
Let’s take an example of a carburized gear. A carburized case is heated to 16-1700 degrees and carburized. Best practice would say that I’m going to reduce the temperature before I quench it, and then I’m going to quench it in oil. Do I understand that: I have to have loading that spaces the part; and the parts need to be fixtured in such a way that, physically, they don’t impede on each other; and I get full flow of oil, and all of those things? The answer is yes, yes, and yes.
The martensite starts to form in the case at, let’s say, 450 and it’s plus or minus 25 or 30 degrees or so. Take that part and put it into the range where the martensite starts to form, and hold it at that temperature and let the entire part cool down to that 450 degrees where the martensite is starting to form. Then we remove the part from the furnace and allow it to cool in air to room temperature. At that point, the cooling rate is much lower than it it’s going to be where you’re conducting that in a liquid medium. Because of that, the stresses are going to be less, the distortion is going to be less. That is a strategy for reducing distortion.
You ask, “Why do you need to do that.?” Again, the man with the hammer: I’m going to gas quench this part because I have the opportunity to gas quench it, and the gas quenching doesn’t come for free. The shadowing effects of a gas flow has to be taken into consideration, orientation of the parts. There are a number of things that need to be taken into consideration.[blocktext align="left"]There are a number of applications where in marquenching a part, the distortion can be controlled. We process a lot of gears, and we maintain 20/30 microns of total distortion in ID bores on gears. It is a viable way of controlling distortion.[/blocktext]
Doug Glenn: We say marquenching.
Mike Mouilleseaux: Or martempering or hot oil quenching.
Doug Glenn: The “mar” part of that comes from martensite? I want have you explain what exactly martensite is. But is that where it comes from?
Mike Mouilleseaux: Yes. We’re getting right into the start of the martensite transformation.
Doug Glenn: There are different microstructures in metals. Austenite is pretty much the highest temperature, and it’s where the molecules are almost “free floating.” They’re not liquid, but they can move around. (This is very layman’s terms.) That’s austenite.
What causes distortion is when you’re cooling from austenite down to the point where that thing is, kind of, locked in; that can cause distortion in there because the molecules are still free to move. Some areas cool faster than others, and when you have that, you can get twists and turns or bulges. Once it gets down to the martensite temperature, that’s when things are, locked in. Is that fair?
Michael Mouilleseaux: The other thing that happens is you’re going from a cubic structure to a tetragonal structure. You’re asking, “Why are we there?” That’s where the expansion comes. The close-packed tetragonal structure takes up more volume than the austenitic or cubic structure. That’s where the volumetric expansion takes place.
Doug Glenn: At a higher temperature, the molecules are arranged in such a way that they take up more space; there’s more space between them.
In the cooling process with marquenching, if you bring it down just to the point where it’s, what Mike referred to as, the ‘martensite start temperature,’ that’s the temperature where things are just locking in. But it’s not so drastic that you’re dropping way down in temperature so that there are larger temperature differentials and things are really starting to get torqued out of contortion because of the difference in the cooling rates in the part.
Michael Mouilleseaux: The other part of that is that the formation of martensite is not time dependent. It’s not like you would have to hold it at 400 degrees for a longer period of time than you would at 200 degrees to get martensite. At 400 degrees, you’ve got some percentage of transformation. Say, it’s 30%. The transformation is temperature dependent. Because it’s temperature dependent, you can take it out and slow down the cooling rate. Then, as the transformation takes place, there is less stress, and if there’s less stress, then there is less distortion.
Again, it’s typically going to be distortion-sensitive parts.
The simplest geometric shape is a sphere. There aren’t any changes in section size in a sphere. It can be rotated, and you’ve got the same section size. You don’t have the kind of thing where one area is cooling more rapidly than another.
A major source of distortion is varying mass. Like a hole in a block: one portion of the block is two inches wide, and another portion is an inch wide. To think that that hole is going to stay straight all by itself, that won’t happen because there’s more mass around one end. By marquenching it and slowing down the transformation, you’re giving yourself an opportunity to reduce the amount of stress that’s generated. It’s the volumetric expansion in the thicker section than in the thinner section. Your opportunity to maintain that hole so that it stays round and it stays straight is much better. Otherwise, the thin section is going to completely transform before the thicker section does.
Doug Glenn: Transform to martensite or whatever, yes.
Michael Mouilleseaux: The extreme case in that is if that happens rapidly enough, and there’s a large enough differential in section size, the part cracks.
Doug Glenn: That’s the nightmare for the heat treater.
Guest Michael Mouilleseaux with the Heat TreatToday team
Bethany Leone: Are there any instances where it’s definite that another way to manage distortion would be better than marquenching?
Michael Mouilleseaux: Sure. Again, what’s currently sexy in this industry is gas quenching things. I’m going to say that cylindrical parts that have a thin wall, when properly gas quenched, will give you better distortion control, better size control than it would if you’d quench them in a liquid medium such as oil. We don’t want to forget that marquenching can be performed in salt, as well.
If we were going to talk about a fourth one, it might be salt quenching because that’s one of those things that’s not commonly utilized. There is some real opportunity with it.
Doug Glenn: Mike, thanks for ‘dumbing this down’ for us. We appreciate it! It’s sometimes a struggle to state things simply, but you did a great job.
Are there any closing thoughts you’d like to leave with us regarding the nearly-forgotten, popular heat treat processes, or anything else?
Michael Mouilleseaux: How about the combination of all three that I just spoke about?
Doug Glenn: Okay. Well, how about that?
Michael Mouilleseaux: I’ve got a distortion sensitive gear, and we’ve figured out that there is some stress in the part as a result of the final machining operation. We stress relieve the part, we carburize it conventionally, and then we marquench it. Those gears that I spoke about where we’ve got 20 or 30 microns of ID bore distortion — that’s exactly what’s done there.
Doug Glenn: Okay. Stress relieve first, conventional carburize, and then marquench. A combination of three.
Mike, thank you very much. This has been really helpful and it’s been good to learn a little bit on our Lunch &Learn. We’ll hope to have you back sometime to make other things understandable for us.
About the expert: Michael Mouilleseaux is general manager at Erie Steel LTD. Mike has been at Erie Steel in Toledo, OH since 2006 with previous metallurgical experience at New Process Gear in Syracuse, NY and as the Director of Technology in Marketing at FPM Heat Treating LLC in Elk Grove, IL. Having graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in Metallurgical Engineering, Mike has proved his expertise in the field of heat treat, co-presenting at the 2019 Heat Treat show and currently serving on the Board of Trustees at the Metal Treating Institute.
While this Heat Treat Radio episode about the advances in work flow planning software will be more interesting to our commercial heat treating friends, we think this topic is a fascinating one that speaks to Industry 4.0 and IIoT questions. The question: How are data and human machine interfacing technologies advancing to make the heat treat experience more efficient?
Watch, listen, or read about it in this Heat Treat Radio conversation between host and Heat Treat Today publisher, Doug Glenn, and Jeffrey Halonen, CEO of Steelhead Technologies.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn: We’re looking forward to talking to you today about what is a growing interest, I think, to a lot of people in this industry, primarily because of the growing of technology and data and things of that sort. I know your company is heavily invested in job shop, plant-wide, organization-wide operating systems. That’s basically what we’re going to talk about today.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback!
The first question I wanted to ask you is, what do you think are, for job shop-type businesses, the two or three main reasons that makes them less profitable than they might otherwise be?
Jeff Halonen Co-founder & CEO Steelhead Technologies
Jeff Halonen: Great question. A job shop is a unique business. They don’t have the luxury of centralized planning, or planning in advance and architecting a plant, like they might do if they are making Chevy Tahoes where an immense amount of engineering goes into build a highly efficient operation so it’s highly predictable.
A job shop, on the other hand, is the opposite of predictability. Down to what parts, what hour, what time of day, how many customers, by week, by month. . . everything changes constantly. That buys a lot of inefficiency, not because what they do is overly complicated; it’s the complexity that grows both with a high quantity of customers and a high quantity of specifications they need to build to. Then, obviously, being at the end of the end-customer’s production cycle, the lead-times are often very high pressure because you have to make up time for all of previous mistakes and missed deadlines. You’re the last step before it gets on a plane or a train or goes straight to the customer.
We’ve seen room to improve these operations from a profitability and a data standpoint. Data is not something you’re going to be able to sell out in the market. In your plant itself, it is not very valuable, but it’s the decisions you can make with that data. Specifically, this is the case when it comes to profitability. For example, if you have five to twenty different processes or lines, which one is more profitable than the other? That should be something that you understand. This is what your business does: different types of business, even different part numbers, different customers, different lead times that you offer for customers, what’s your cost versus return on that.
The other opportunity, aside from analyzing the commercial side of all of your work, is your production. If you’re a job shop, generally you are parts in and parts out, go, go, go. It’s more of a service business than a slow moving, very technical manufacture.
So, basically, every time a job comes through your shop, you should be studying — what does it take to make that job go? Anything from the quote, to closing the sale, to receiving the order, to the physical paperwork, to notifying the floor, to building a schedule, to scheduling capacity, to executing production, providing instruction information, how you collect that data, even something as simple as how do you notify customers. Are you notifying customers on the phone or an email? You do twenty to thirty orders a day, 100 orders a day — it adds up quickly.
Invoicing — how do you generate your reports? Aggregate data — that’s the other thing that we see in job shops very frequently. The actual cost of executing an order on a marginal basis can be extremely high if you have many systems; or it’s paper-based; or it’s not streamlined.
Doug Glenn: Not just the processing of the part, in the sense of thermally processing the part, but you’re talking all the way from preparing the quote all the way through to shipping and anything at the end.
Jeff Halonen: Absolutely, Doug. In our experience, the job shop manufacturers are pros at what they do — the actual process. They’ve been doing it for years or sometimes decades. They have it absolutely dialed. In the physical processing of the part, sometimes there is room for improvement; but a lot of times that is a fine-tuned machine. Generally, it’s the business systems that surround it.
One thing that we like to point to is the very heavy investments that the industry makes in physical, tangible goods: natural gas, land, equipment, people, automation systems (physical automation systems). Where we see a huge opportunity is all the things you can’t actually touch and feel. It’s the digital operating system that your plant runs on, all the systems and processes that makes your business tick.
Doug Glenn: You’re talking about data in, from the very beginning of the process, all the way through. I don’t know too many companies, especially job shops, that are actually gathering that type of data. Is it possible? What are the costs involved, let’s say, of starting to gather that data from that point all the way through? It seems like that would be expensive and difficult to do.
Jeff Halonen: Absolutely, Doug. It feels like an asymptotic target. You can try really hard, and you can make progress; but that rate at which you make progress drops off really quickly. It’s what we see as a balance of cost of data and value of the data.
It’s not that manufacturers don’t value the data; they often do make an investments to get the data. They realize quickly that, with help with the proper tools, cost ramps up really quick. They essentially hit that floor or that asymptote, if you will, really quickly. They say, “OK, we are clearly extending more effort than it’s worth; so we’re going to dial it back. We’re going to go right here. That’s where we’re setting the knob, and we’re going to run our plant.”
"They are rudimentary data systems, and the cost is very low." Source: Unsplash
Unfortunately, with the tools available, that setting or their status quo tends to be paper, Excel, systems like that. If you have no system at all, not even paper, it’s very obvious that we need something. We write on paper, we highlight, we put it here, we do this, we do that, we have a whiteboard for scheduling, and you see a lot of yield from essentially those data systems.
They are rudimentary data systems, and the cost is very low. You spend a week or two, and you deploy it. You make it, run it, and get the value. Then you say, “Now, I want to track what part was in what oven at what exact time and exactly what went through. Now I want to see all the parts that went through this or that type of process. We’ve run that part number forty times — I want to see its performance every single time from a commercial standpoint. All of a sudden, the cost of obtaining that data — now you just have a wish list. You look out and say, “That’s going to be impossible. That’s way too much time to get that data.”
That’s really where deploying a centralized platform that takes in everything from the business — anything from inventory, to quoting, to operator instructions, to timing each process, to part numbers, to shippers, to invoicing — it all really is intertwined. When you can track every single movement of every single part going through the entire process, the cost of that data drops precipitously. Especially if you have reporting integrated. Now you can generate reports that will passively collect data as your operations go on. Whatever you look at on a daily, weekly, monthly basis to essentially run your plant.
We like to say, “Digitize, automate, optimize.” To us, these are three core steps to reducing the cost of data. First, digital. If you have no system, or you have paper, it’s very difficult to obtain actual data and actual insights from your plant. Even if you do digitize successfully, but you just have a mass of huge databases, that’s very low usability because now you need to be essentially a data scientist to go in and make it useful.
Next is automation. We need to automatically tailor the data to present profit margin. We need to automatically tailor the data to track reworks. That’s the next step because that gets us to actionable data information.
Then, the last is optimization. The optimization itself often actually happens at the plant level where the management team is now in, what I would say is, a luxurious position of having a lot of their systems digitized then automated as well.
They have the data. They have the time to address it. Now they’re in the position of optimizing their facility. That could mean focusing on marketing; that could mean pursuing a new industry — developing a new process, training your operators. It could mean anything in the world — getting a new permit from the city, for example. These are things that optimize your plant to provide as much value as possible to the world. You have the ability to do that because you’ve done your homework to get your plant into a position to action that data and have the time available as well.
Doug Glenn: Right. You’re collecting the data that you need to make those types of decisions. I find it interesting some of the scope of the types of decisions you just mentioned, that job shops could make based on the data. That’s pretty interesting.
Let me ask you this, Jeff: do you have any examples in the heat treat world? Or where, for example, in the heat treat world do you envision there being some real business efficiencies here? Let me preface this one other way, too: a lot of the people that listen to this podcast are not necessarily job shops; they are what we call “captive heat treaters” who run high volume/low variability. But there are some who actually run high variability — a lot of different parts, maybe not exceptionally high volumes, or at least smaller volumes than our captive heat treaters. I guess, addressing those guys, or even the guys that run low variability - what are the business efficiencies we could see?
Jeff Halonen: It’s going to be different from plant to plant as far as the value you’re going to have because everyone has different proficiencies and profiles like you just mentioned. If you’re in a situation where you have a very high degree of mix, one of the huge inefficiencies that we’ve seen is they want to keep a really tight lead time; but they don’t have the ability to quickly and easily schedule efficiently. They keep all of their equipment at maximum capacity, so they keep as much throughput in the plant as possible. The inefficiency essentially shows itself in the quantity of ovens - they just simply invested in more equipment and just keep more ovens hot. They essentially overcapacitize which is both acap efficiency and an opex efficiency because you have to heat, maintain and run that much more equipment. That’s an environment where you have a lot of complexity, and the scheduling required or the inability to schedule efficiently is leading to capital inefficiency.
If you’re in a position where you’re on the other end of that spectrum, as you mentioned, Doug, where you have lower variability by part number higher volume; some of the inefficiencies there can definitely be more on the data systems — the data processes. Again, scheduling — if it’s a very simple schedule, you can schedule it very quickly and easily and very efficiently because you don’t have a lot of change. It is tracking that information — where are all the parts, for example.
A lot of times it’s the administrative time. People are walking out, still trying to find where the parts are. Simple things like order status or we ran this part with this lot number or purchase order or shipper number or whatever identifier you have — we ran this six months ago, what happened to that part? Often times, something as simple as that can turn into a 20, 30, 40-minute exercise instead of just quickly finding that information.
Doug Glenn: How about equipment inefficiencies? How can a system like yours that’s gathering all the data - how can it help us increase efficiency, just of the equipment that we have?
Jeff Halonen: The first step, as they say, to addressing an issue is knowing you have a problem. The first step is measuring what actually happens in the real world. You can walk out into any shop and just open your eyes and things are happening, right? But your knowledge of what’s happening is almost just instantaneous. As soon as you go to the ball game later, you’ve forgotten all about that pile of parts or that empty oven that you saw. If you have a situation where at the end of the day, week, month, quarter, you have the raw numbers - we know it can do X amount of parts or racks or pounds or whatever the metric is - and it did Y and that’s X percentage below that number, the numbers speak for themselves.
Jeff Halonen and Doug Glenn Source: Heat Treat Today
As far as what the team can do to address the problem, that could be any number of things from a plant management standpoint. That’s where it really gets into the optimization side. Although one thing might be scheduling efficiency. If we find that turnovers or essentially thermal profiles or run speeds or whatever it may be, if we have an opportunity to batch production, increase density which might be a scheduling exercise, we might explore that.
That could also come back into business strategy — it’s all very related. For example, you might offer to expedite fees — fast turnaround at a higher price — but then lower price for long turnaround time because that now gives you the privilege of organizing your work in a more efficient way and providing the same value at a lower price. If that end customer has the time in their schedule, they can say — hey, I want to save money and have my job done in a week or so instead of 24 hours where I’m ready to pay a huge premium. That cost multiple can be dramatic and for good reason.
Doug Glenn: I have two more questions for you. One is a little bit hypothetical. I want you to kind of take a guess about the rate at which software and digitization, of the sort that you’re talking about, is coming into job shops. That’s the first thing. The second and last thing I want to ask is for you to just kind of take us on a walk through, to the best that you know, a heat treat business. How might a system like yours look?
A lot of people say, “Listen, I’ve got my system in hand, I’m okay the way I am.” First, is it coming? Do you think people are going to have to get to this digitalization sooner or later?
Jeff Halonen: I believe so, yes. I understand you can definitely run a shop on paper. You can run it on Excel. As far as macrotrends out in the world, consider first the technology available. The team at Steelhead is obviously very competent with a lot of really great software engineers, but the tools available have progressed dramatically over the last couple of years. We’ve run into heat treating shops that are using a system they may have installed in the ‘90s. It does functionally work, but we do see a lot of symptoms, essentially adverse symptoms, to the business by choosing to use a less effective system. That usually comes in less actionable data. It does facilitate the physical paperwork needed to run your plant, but it’s not a competitive advantage. It just is kind of there, and it’s just kind of barely acceptable. The employee morale is not great - people don’t love using systems where they have to reenter data. They can’t work from home. There are so many different currents that are coming in there.
The other one is the end customers often like more and more visibility and more and more traceability into plants. Transparency, visibility, traceability. I don’t think it’s a situation where it’s going to become unviable to run a shop without really advanced technology. I do think, over time, it will be a situation where the competitive profile is one where there are clear advantages to the shops that embrace the wholistic business advantages that come with that.
Think about your customers — they’re buyers just like anyone else. Everyone loves shopping on Amazon or their favorite website. They get the notifications; they can track everything. You order a pizza at Dominos, and you can see them rolling out the dough and putting on the sauce. The predictability and the visibility is something that is really important.
I think, over time, it is certainly something that the end manufacturer is really going to continue to drive (even automotive, traceability and everything like that). As the requirements of data go up, and the competitive landscape starts to adopt more and more of this technology, it’s going to be more and more of a disadvantage in the competitive landscape to be not at the cutting edge of that technology.
Doug Glenn: Pretty soon it’s not going to be cutting edge, is my thinking. As more and more people are adopting it, it’s going to become easier to adopt. I’m assuming it’s going to be easier to install, easier to launch into any business.
Take us through that, as a job shop. Any of either our captive heat treaters that have a high variability of products or a lot of our commercial heat treat shops which have high variability of products — how would it look? Start us as early as you can in the process and walk us through it.
Jeff Halonen: Starting at the beginning of the process, if you say, “I’m interested. I need a system. I can just feel it. I can see it. I know there is opportunity to improve our business.” Or, “We feel like we really optimized everything about our business, but we still feel like we have restrictions on growth.” This could be — it takes a lot of energy from the management team, the ownership team that are involved. One question I like to ask is: if the business going through your business or business unit doubles, do your headaches double? Do the amount of hours you work double? To me, that’s symptomatic of room for system improvement.
Early on in the process it starts with some level of interest, some level of intrigue. I think this is something we can improve on; our plant manager is complaining that they can’t work from home. Whatever all these issues are that manifest themselves; or you’re losing jobs in quoting, and you’re not sure if you’re a high price or a low price or margins might be unclear; you’re not satisfied with the level of data. Basically, that’s generally where we start our conversations with plants.
We really take an approach of both informing about what’s possible on the tool and what’s impossible on a modern platform. Then we also do a value assessment. How do you do this? How do you do that? That kind of third party provides a great, almost, sounding board to say, “Okay, here’s an itemized list of room for improvement.”
Honestly, that’s what really makes it compelling. When we can sit down with a potential partner and identify how we can actually improve the business in very real and definitive terms, not just insights that you can use to drive your business. Also here’s how much time you spent here, how much time you spent there. It’s a combination of calculating hard costs and hard opportunities and then the upside with the actionable insights from the system.
From there are the deployments at Steelhead. [blocktext align="center"]We do direct-to-direct service, so no third parties. A Steelhead team member will essentially go through a lot of meetings and plant walks, in some cases, and essentially reverse engineer your plant.[/blocktext] Where do parts come in the building, and then what? Then they go here? Do they always go there? Sometimes. Can they be run together? We will ask a million questions to essentially reverse engineer the flow of your plant, and then we design the system to reflect your current operations. Not - here’s a software, now bend your plant over backwards to match the software. Whether it’s quoting, workflow automation, or reporting or any of the other parts of the system, we’re going to want to ask as many questions as possible to configure the system to match your plant.
Doug, you mentioned the cost is going to go down, over time, of technology. Absolutely. Because one thing we can do very quickly since our platform is essentially kind of like a build-your-own; it’s almost like Excel except it’s Excel that is highly, highly engineered to work for this specific industry. One thing we can do is we can prove it out really quickly. So, in just a few hours or a couple of days, we can essentially build your plant, or a part of your plant, and then run your work through your plant and say, “Okay, pick up a quote and let’s write this quote. Here’s a purchase order, let’s do the purchase order. Let’s take this tablet and go out to your plant and step it through your exact operator interfaces. Let’s collect that data. Let’s track it; let’s sit down in the conference room. Let’s pull up the reports, the inventory.
That’s one thing that we really like to do early on — whether it’s in the late sale cycle or evaluation or sale cycle or early on in deployments — is prove it works. Because one of the things we’ve seen time and time again are the horror stories with plant operating software: we’ve tried for 18 months and we put in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we pulled the plug. We went back to whatever we were using before. So, proof of concept really quick.
The other thing is the actual deployment going fast. We like to go hot and heavy, kind of rip the Band-aid off, not drag it out over months. We like to go 2-4 weeks, training the team, iterate, iterate, iterate, test, test, test, test, test, because everyone says how it should work. We build it, and we test it and then there are always a couple of tweaks.
From there, we have a customer success team, as well. Whether it’s a phone call, email, zoom call, or training, we like to have someone available to answer the phone. Our philosophy is that your digital infrastructure isn’t something that should be optimized for low cost because we feel that the service that comes along with it — including a team of experts — is critical. Like a wiring harness for your automobile, it runs your entire plant. When your plant changes and you have changing requirements, to have “pros on your bench” to make adaptations real time in your plant is highly valuable.
Our approach is full service. We kind of own the functionality of the system in your plant — anything from the deployment to ongoing support. We’re always one degree away from engineering, as well. Occasionally when there is a bog or something is not working properly, our engineers are right there on calls with customers to make sure everything is working properly.
Doug Glenn: They can jump into the system and reprogram, as necessary.
Jeff Halonen: Absolutely.
Doug Glenn: Run us through this one then, if you would: Let’s say there’s a company — and you’re going to have to take a very generic-type job shop — that has your system already. It’s fully integrated and everything is working well. What does it look like? The reason I ask this is question, is I think a lot of people have trouble envisioning what it would look like and how it would be different than what I’m doing now.
So, a company that has your system, they go to do a quote for a job, and they receive an inquiry. Is the process they follow any different than what they would have done before your system was there? Let’s just take that first step, process and RFQ: how is that going to change from if they didn’t have your system?
Jeff Halonen: Something like quoting can be a fairly dramatic change, depending on what the current system is. Current systems can be Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook and maybe an Excel sheet to track the quotes. A lot of time to administer them and then there is pretty limited visibility. The transaction that we’d see there with Steelhead is that you can actually build a fully automated quote so you can define the algorithm: all of your flow charts, your Excel sheets, square root functions, looking at the mass of the part, specific gravity, material, etc. We can even reference the current price of natural gas. So, you can build models to reflect how your business runs and reference the past performance of that job.
What that looks like for quoting is that you’re able to build the quote all in one system. You might have multiple people involved in the quote: one person is working with the customer to verify requirements, verify inputs, ask questions, gather more data, and then it lands in someone else’s inbox. Now, a streamlined workflow allows the owner or the plant manager or sales manager can now approve that quote and then sending it to the customer instead of sending it through email and downloading and moving things around, we can send it right out of the platform, attach a file. We can track and see when the end customer is opening the quote. Also, your sales team has a lot of tools. They can say, “Hey, what quotes have never been opened? Hey, we should probably make a phone call. We put a lot of effort into those quotes, why don’t we call them and see what’s going on?” There are a lot more analytics but also just speed.
Another thing we’ve heard a lot is that a customer calls, they send a purchase order that references a quote to go, and find that quote can be a challenge because it’s in someone’s inbox, unread. Instead, they can have one platform to grab the quote, convert it to an order, and now you’re running production! It’s all the same data, it’s your plant. You’re not going to start quoting using different laws of physics. It’s about streamlining what you do today and replicating what you do today, but improving the customer experience, improving your team’s experience, and quoting faster, which leads to more jobs.
Everyone wants the thing quickly. If you can go from two days to two hours or from five hours to five minutes, that can have a dramatic impact on winning deals. For example, I’m in Chicago on vacation, and a customer calls, asking, “Where are my parts?” or “What happened to these parts?” Option A is you’re making phone calls back to homebase, someone is rummaging around looking for the information, and it’s not very enjoyable for you, your team, or your customer. But, it could be you put that customer even on speakerphone or mute, look for 30 seconds, and just text them the file right off your phone in real time! It’s the speed of accessing data, customer service, and actual insights, but a lot of it is workplace satisfaction.
We’ve literally been in shops where people are threatening to quit saying, “Our system is so bad” right in front of the president of the company. . . “I’ve been saying for years, we need a new system. I’m at my wit’s end because what I have to do is so painful and repetitive every day just to make the plant go.” It can manifest in a lot of different ways.
Doug Glenn: Give me a quick history on Steelhead.
Jeff Halonen: Steelhead Technologies was founded early in 2021 by a team of software engineers, mechanical engineers and manufacturing engineers. We started with the need of a single customer who talked about their pain. This particular customer was running on paper; whether it was contacting customers, instructing operators, tracking information, finding information, even something as simple as a customer calling with a phone call asking for information on a job, all were huge disruptions in their day. It took half an hour and they had to physically go find people and paper. Everything was in a huge storage room at the end. What the Steelhead team heard was a high degree of pain and essentially a plea for a solution. So, we founded Steelhead Technologies to address that need.
Source: Steelhead Technologies
The team has grown really quickly, and we’ve raised 2.5 million dollars in investment capital here in 2022. The team went from an original team of about 6 to up to 16 now. As I mentioned, everything is kind of the direct service model. Whether it’s sales, deployments or customer success, it’s all team Steelhead across the board. Everyone is an expert in the platform, and everyone is one degree backed up by our team of engineers. We have six engineers that work fulltime on Steelhead making it the best that we can.
Our customers are amazing. Everything that we work on is driven by a customer request, someone out in the field, using the tool and saying, “Hey, what if. . . ?” or “Hey, this could be better” or “This extra effort. . .” or “We would really like to know this. We are trying to achieve this business objective, but we need that.” That’s really where the Steelhead team excels is taking essentially what we view as requirements and building a platform to meet those requirements.
It's really exciting. What we found is that [we can really help] the job shop industry, specifically, and also the high throughput — or even the high-mixed captive shops as you mentioned — where there is no build materials, no engineering team, no design release, and no supply chain. It’s go, go, go. The assumptions change by the day, hour, or minute, and everything is fast paced. We’ve seen a huge lack of automation and data in the space. With high quality, purpose-built technology for this fast-paced, almost, service type of manufacturing, with specifically built tools, we’re able to achieve minimal effort to achieve each job. To minimize all of the administrative effort, but also aggregate extremely detailed data down to operators, part numbers, and equipment, without driving up costs or sacrificing ease of use. That’s our core strategy.
Our customers are incredible, and a lot of our recent success has been just keeping up with our customers since they’re always pitching for a new tool or feature. We roll out a couple thousand lines of code to address this and they’re like, “This is good, but it needs that.” That’s the other thing — software is a service, so we’ve long accepted that we are never going to build the software and just ship it: it’s a continual living beast, whether it’s cybersecurity, speed, everything. So much of it is service because this type of software [requires] pros to extract the maximum value from it.
Doug Glenn: All right, last question. This is your challenge question for the session here. You, personally: What do you find most interesting and exciting about it? When you look into the future, what are you excited about?
Jeff Halonen: What excites me the most is the transition that shops can see by adopting technology and systems whether it’s impact to the bottom line — which we’ve seen in some shops, where it’s really stunning — or something else. A marginal labor cost where one customer’s job takes three minutes and another takes nine minutes. . . The manufacturer can now address that 3X marginal labor cost with the data where, before, they were just eating it. “This customer is not profitable; we’re not doing that; we are no longer accepting batch sizes below X, because we’re armed with the data.”
What really excites me personally is the journey that each of these plants are able to go on. I also get really passionate about when I’m able to see a difference between the way things are and the way they could be. That’s what every single interaction with our partners is: we see the way that they are and we work really hard to build the best one possible. So, it’s like, hey, look at this difference? Look what we can do? It’s that sense of accomplishment on a customer basis to really get as much as is possible out of their time, resources, people and their entire enterprise.
Doug Glenn: It’s kind of nice seeing the smile on your customer’s face, I think, right? When things go well, to be able to say, “Man, that was good!”
Well, Jeff, thanks. I really appreciate it. It’s very exciting. It sounds like you guys have got a lot of interesting things going on and, hopefully, some of our readers/listeners/viewers will be able to give you a call but thanks for joining us.
Jeff Halonen: Thank you, Doug. Thank you very much.
About the expert: Jeff Halonen is a co-founder and the CEO of Steelhead Technologies, a plant operating system provider serving job shop manufacturing plants in the USA. Jeff is a Mechanical Engineer by training and spent several years at General Motors before starting in technical sales and manufacturing software. Jeff most enjoys the personal impact that he can have on customers when they discover exciting new ways to run their business. Residing in South East Michigan, Jeff enjoys time with friends and family, being outdoors, and playing hockey.
What does cybersecurity look like in a heat treat shop? In this episode, Doug Glenn, publisher of Heat TreatToday and host of Heat TreatRadio, will be speaking with four industry experts about this challenge: Heather Falcone, CEO of Thermal-Vac Technology, Inc.; Brian Flynn, plant manager at Erie Steel Ltd.; Mike Löpke, head of software & digitalization at Nitrex Metal; and Don Marteeny, VP of Engineering at SECO/VACUUM Technologies LLC. Watch, listen, and learn all about the risks, preventions, practical steps, and future outlook that this panel has to share.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn (DG): Welcome to another episode of Heat Treat Radio. We’re going to talk about a relatively serious issue today. I hope to have a little bit of enjoyable time doing it. I’m really happy to have these four people on the call with us. We’re going to talk about cybersecurity -- probably one of the most pressing issues. Obviously, it’s not heat treat specific, but we’re hoping to take some of the specific issues that deal with cybersecurity and, if possible, drill them down into the heat treat industry, as best we can.
So, I’d like to introduce our prestigious crowd here today. They’re going to talk a little bit about it.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback
Heather Falcone CEO Thermal-Vac Technology, Inc.
First, I’d like to introduce Heather Falcone who is the CEO of Thermal-Vac Technology, Inc. out of California. Heather is the CEO, as I mentioned, and currently serves as a member on the board of directors of the Metal Treating Institute. She is a recognized trainer, writer, public speaker on a variety of topics such as leadership, business, and heat treat equipment. At her company, she has led them to be fully compliant in missed 800-171 and DFAR 252.204-7012 -- that’s important, I’m sure -- cybersecurity program as well as EOS system. Heather is, in fact, a member of Heat TreatToday's 40 Under 40 Class of 2019. And I, also -- I don’t know if they’re going to be able to see this; I’ll put it up on the screen if not -- there’s Heather’s picture in a really nice magazine that we got about leadership. Anyway, I am glad to have you here, Heather.
Brian Flynn plant manager Erie Steel Ltd.
Next is Brian Flynn from Erie Steel, Ltd. Brian is a third-generation heat treater. He attended the University of Cincinnati earning a Bachelor of Science and Chemical Engineering degree with a minor in Material Science. He’s also completed an executive MBA from the University of Toledo. As a plant manager, he has close familiarity with technology development, people skills, customer service, and management of technical services. He is also a member of Heat TreatToday's 40 Under 40 Class of 2021. We’ve asked Brian to get involved here because I think he’s probably got a good perspective on implementing some of this cybersecurity stuff. I appreciate you being here, Brian, thank you.
Mike Löpke head of software and digitalization Nitrex Metal
Next on our list we have an international entry -- Mike Löpke from Nitrex, actually. He’s working out of Germany, right now, but let me read what we’ve got here. Mike has been with Nitrex going on two years and is leading the creation, implementation and marketing of new digital platform for the Nitrex group. He has a background in mathematics and physics as well as substantial knowledge in R&D and metallurgical modeling and is currently in charge of Nitrex software and digitalization department. His expertise in AI (artificial intelligence) and process prediction led Nitrex to develop the very first IIoT-based platform called QMULUS. His thirst for knowledge enables him to remain ahead of evolving technologies. As I mentioned, he’s working out of Germany and he was, and maybe still is, a professional wind surfer. I did enjoy the videos, by the way, Mike. It was very, very good.
Mike Löpke (ML): Thank you very much!
DG: It’s interesting and it looks exciting. You certainly went to some nice places there.
Don Marteeny VP of Engineering SECO/VACUUM Technologies LLC
Finally, I would like to introduce Don Marteeny (DM) who I’ve had the pleasure of working with in the past. Don, it’s always good to see you. Don is the VP of engineering at SECO/VACUUM Technologies for over 5 years. During his career, Don has fulfilled many roles including 3 years as a project engineer, 2 years project manager and 2 years as the engineering team leader. He’s a licensed professional engineer. Don led the implementation of a 3-D modeling tool at SECO/WARWICK, when he is not busy being a Cub Scout den leader, which is great, Don presents papers on state-of-the-art heat-treating technologies. Don is also a Heat TreatToday's 40 Under 40 Class of 2021 recipient; congratulations on that. And Don’s just a heck of a nice guy all around, which I’m sure all of you are!
It's good to have you all.
Let’s jump in, guys. This is a relatively serious topic that we’ve got going on here but let me just throw out some questions to you. Heather, maybe I’ll start with you, if you don’t mind.
When we look at the risk potential in the heat treat market, I guess the first question that comes to my mind is: Okay, who should really be worried about this? Who are some of the people? Brian, maybe I’ll jump to you after Heather is done with some input on that, as well. Go ahead, Heather.
Heather Falcone (HF): Well, the short answer is literally everybody. Literally every person in the United States is subject to being a target for a nation-state level adversary such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea. No one is safe, no one should assume they are safe, and every single person in this country, regardless of whether you’re a businessperson or not, should protect the data that keeps us safe.
DG: Do we have a sense, Brian, maybe over to you on this -- and again, as I mentioned before we started, if somebody doesn’t have a comment on this, just pass on it -- but are there people or organizations or systems in the heat treat industry, specifically, that are at a higher risk? What do you think as far as risk?
Brian Flynn (BF): In terms of age group demographics the Baby Boomers as well as Gen Z and younger are considered the most vulnerable for cyberattacks. Baby Boomers didn’t have great exposure to today’s brand of cyberattacks nor did they grow up with the internet and computers as we know them today. Gen Z and younger, there is a certain carelessness in terms of sharing personal information they’re too trusting. On top of that, Covid created new types of uncertainty in conjunction with the influx of new users going online since 2020.
But more from a business perspective, I guess it depends. Healthcare, government and financial-like institutions pose the highest potential reward but also the highest risk. In terms of frequencies, small businesses, like myself as a commercial heat treater, are the number one target as they typically lack resources and capital expenditures in order to invest in the infrastructure. And it might just be a pipeline where they’re going through the small businesses to get to my bigger Fortune 500 customers, but it’s really mainly phishing emails that are infected with malware. Over the past 12-18 months, it’s been crazy how many have made it through our firewall.
DG: Over to our equipment guys. I should mention -- Heather and Brian are both commercial heat treaters, Mike and Don are really both kind of equipment guys, although Nitrex also does some commercial heat treating, as well. Don, why don’t we start with you. The same question: Who’s at risk here? And then, Mike, we’ll end with you, please.
Don Marteeny (DM): Well, in addition to what Brian said, which I found interesting on some of the demographics, it’s important to realize, too, that it’s not just people, it’s also equipment. The equipment is becoming more and more interconnected, especially with the IIoT capabilities that most of them have now and all the unique features that that brings, but what that means is -- in order for that technology to function as it intended, it has to be connected to the internet which opens up more doors for access to sensitive data. And it’s not just data that you receive, it’s data that you generate, right? And that’s the important thing, I think, that everybody’s got to realize is that once you’re in that chain of subcontracts, shall we say, and you’re working with those folks that are contracting to the government -- handling sensitive data, you’re in that, too. It’s important to recognize that it’s not just you and your users but also your equipment and how it’s interconnected to the network.
DG: I’m reading a book right now -- I’ll give a plug to this guy -- Mark Mills, who we’ve interviewed before, on this show actually -- it’s called The Cloud Revolution and he’s been talking a little bit about this. The amount of data that is out there, because we’re able to get data off of machines and things like that now and are doing more and more, is just skyrocketing. It’s that data that’s going to be an issue.
Mike, over to you; I just want to wrap up as far as risk assessment, here. Who are the people, organizations, equipment or whatever that is most at risk?
ML: From our perspective, there’s not that much to add. We covered already the topic so we have this human factor which plays a really, really big role in terms of cybersecurity, how people are really sloppy and do not have the right mindset to treat data as they should. We have also, a lot of times, not the right policy in place, we do not have the education needed and so on. There is always this human factor.
But also, with heat treatment as a really old industry and steel manufacturing, as well, we have a lot of facilities with outdated infrastructure. This is also a also big topic. Outdated infrastructure, old, dated network designs firmware which we do not need to talk about it’s 20 years old and older so nobody knew about the potential risks that arise during the last decade and during the last years. This is also a really important factor. That’s it, from my perspective. Everyone, as said, is at a high risk, so, summing it up -- it’s literally everyone and everywhere.
DG: If you think you’re safe, you’re not, right? I think when Heather first started talking, I thought, “Boy, this is going to be a horror show.” If you think you’re safe, you’re not; you’re most at risk.
Let’s talk about data and data storage. Those types of things are really at the core of this, I think. Where are we going to store of all our data? How do we do it safely? When it comes to data storage, what problems have you witnessed or are you aware of, and how about solutions for data storage?
Don let’s start with you on this one then we’ll go to Mike. I know a lot of companies say, “Well, I just want to keep my data in-house.” Is that the answer? What are we doing with data?
DM: That varies. From my observations, it varies from customer to customer, industry to industry. There is a sense to move it to the Cloud, just because it’s easier to manage there, but with that brings risks. I think everybody’s got to be aware of that when they make that decision. On one hand, do I maintain my own servers, do I hire the people to man those servers, etc., or do I pay somebody else to do that in the Cloud? Do I take that risk of the data being someplace I don’t know and I rely on the Fortune 500 company who I’m contracting to maintain the Cloud to secure it, or do I do it myself? Especially for small businesses, these are not easy questions to answer. Like I say, I’ve seen both. And, again, with the invent of Industry 4.0 and IIoT, the pressure to move to the Cloud is pretty high, so, if you want to take advantage of those technologies.
DG: Mike, how about you? What do you think as far as data storage and things of that sort?
ML: I think Don mentioned already the two options we have. We could take of all the data storages ourselves, having big data service on premises, having people responsible for it, managing everything, keeping it running, no creation of redundancy, call it like this, having back-up systems -- all of these things you would need to manage by yourself. And the requirements are getting tougher. If you think of having data for the aerospace stored, you’re talking about decades of years, so that’s it.
The alternative is to put everything to the Cloud so then you’d just say, “Ok, I need more data” and more data storage space is available. You can also make use of all the security measures created, for example, by the big Cloud infrastructure providers like AWS in Asia. They are professionals in this. If they say your data is secure because we are using the latest technologies, I think you can be sure that it is. We, at Nitrex, rely fully on this. We say we could not do it better. There are thousands of people working every day on Cloud security, on infrastructure security, and so on and so on. I think our facilities could not be safer.
DG: Brian, let’s go to you on this one and then, last, to Heather. Data security -- if you want to make comments on that and maybe even, if I can put a little sharper point on the pencil on this -- just because a person keeps data in-house, does that make them safe from cyberattacks? General question, or if you want to answer that specific one, Brian.
BF: In today’s climate, the security of the data storage remains at the top of our lists. Knock on wood, very fortunately, we haven’t been on the receiving end of any of those types of cyberattacks, likely because we have a good firewall in place. More relevant to Erie Steel, the problems we face are data storage limits, length of data retention and scalability, and also accessibility -- whether it be video records, furnace records, quality records, shipping records, the list goes on, as far as how long do we want to retain that data and how accessible does it need to be? We utilize surveillance cameras, not spying on employees but really more proof of key operations, proof of start, proof of completion. The cardinal sin of heat-treating is don’t ship a green part back to the customer, so what better way to prove that other than by surveillance systems.
But that poses an issue -- we make sensitive cameras, increase the sensitivity, length of retention goes down. It’s a nice balance between form and function as well as retention, whether we use IP high-definition cameras or low-definition cameras. But that’s on its own internal server, on-site.
A lot of our continuous furnace trending software is continuously recorded -- that’s on its own separate dedicated server with off-site back-ups. Then we have all of our PLC data -- that could fill up a server in a matter of weeks if we really wanted it to. At times, we were recording every second; we don’t need to do that for most operations. Every minute, make the data accessible for a month and then, after that, we send it off to the Cloud.
For our ERP system and our quality management system, we utilize Bluestreak which is a web-based platform. We used to have on-site grid-based platform and that frees up a tremendous amount of space for the server so we can A. keep it 70% or less for capacity reasons. The only issue then, of course, is if we have a power outage, we lose internet -- but those are risks, at this point, that we’re willing to take.
DG: Heather, how about you? Data storage, generally speaking, what’s the situation?
HF: I think whether you’re deciding to store locally or in the Cloud, there are a couple things to consider: your digital rights management and your data loss prevention. If you’re working in-house, that means isolating assets on the land to make sure that, if there is an infection, it stops immediately. That’s one of the basic controls in, what is now, level 1. You have to have some of that in place so that if someone does get into your system, and we’re not talking a brute force attacker, we’re talking a person with the password of 1 2 3 4. We’re talking about the person that has not changed their password in 23 years and they’re still working on a DOS-based system. All those legacy systems that are not yet updated, that’s where the real risk comes from -- storing data locally. It’s really user behavior oriented that’s backed up by the solid digital rights management and data loss protection, as far as storing locally. One thing to be very careful about when moving to Cloud solutions, most commercially off the shelf available Cloud solutions are not compliant within the 800-171. If you’re talking about just Office 365, you have to move to the government version. Now we’re on zoom.gov instead of regular zoom, Doug, I don’t know.
DG: We are not, so be careful what you say.
HF: The problem with that is when you move to those Cloud solutions, they are inherently user prohibitive. They’re awful to work with, and they’re extremely expensive. You are kind of in a rock and a hard place: do we store locally and take on more risk and more in-house compliance cost or do we trust these big guys who have a billion-dollar backing them up who seems to know what he’s doing but also humans are humans and it’s still an inherent broken system? We all have to be careful and take our ownership of the programs that we’re putting in place -- that we have working knowledge where our data is going, how it’s being backed up, how it’s being stored or retained.
DG: Just a quick round-robin question, just kind of a yes or a no, and if you want to elaborate a little bit, feel free: Do you think, in today’s day and age, that it’s just as safe to store things in the Cloud as it is locally? Mike, what do you think?
ML: Yes. But you have to respect the requirements.
DG: Don, what do you think?
DM: Yes, for the most part. Like we said, the larger companies have teams of people working on this every day, so not only can they react, they can be more proactive in staying out in front of it than the rest of us can because they the resources. So, in theory, yes.
DG: Heather, what do you think? Just as safe to store in the Cloud as local?
HF: I believe that it has the potential to be more safe because you can rely on a group of resources that you don’t have to actively manage yourself. However, it takes a lot of oversight and research. It might be easier for a smaller company to create a very small locus of control as opposed to moving to a large collect Cloud solution during their migration to CMMC.
DG: Brian, how about you? Just as safe?
BF: I think the short answer is yes but, you know, it depends on which Cloud are we talking about and what does your internal infrastructure look like as well as what are your internal policies. Then it gets into more of a convenience discussion. How do you need that data? How frequent do you access it? But, I think, there’s the potential to be as safe or potentially more safe.
DG: I want to take a brief break and ask Heather a question. If you can just do a 30-second/60-second explanation of CMMC for us, and then we want to ask some questions about that. But I want to make sure that those who are listening who might not know what that is -- what is that? CMMC -- it’s important.
HF: It’s the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification. The government, in all of their perpetual wisdom, decided that they’re really tired of getting attacked by all the bad guys. To protect the state of the defense infrastructure and, I guess, maybe protect themselves because they have to do it too, they designed this system. Now, for today’s talk, I want to make sure that we understand that I’m personally going to be vacillating between CMMC 1.0 and CMMC 2.0. They are drastically different -- CMMC 2.0 is in rulemaking, but it’s got a lot of exciting, better things, potentially, in it versus CMMC 1.0. The point is, CMMC 1.0 is the law of the land and has been since 2019, so, it’s up to everyone who deals with the federal government to ensure that they are up to the minimum standard requirements for CMMC 1.0 which is just, basically, a self-assessment and some basic controls.
The government really wants to put in place the supply chain that is not full of holes for the enemy to take our most trusted and effective data.
DG: I’m curious, when it comes to CMMC then, implementation, best strategies for implementation, how do we find out about it more? Heather, I’ll stick with you on this one and then maybe we’ll move down to Mike and Don and then over to Brian.
CMMC -- what are some good strategies for implementing this?
HF: The first thing is to identify what you’re going to attack. If your whole company does not deal with CUI or FCI (control of unclassified information or federal contract information), then you don’t need to be talking about CMMC. The first step is to get your senior leadership team together and start with a block of information that’s manageable, either by location, by area, by contract, by project. Start at that top level and read the flow-downs to find out if you even have to do this, then decide a plan of action. I strongly recommend a phased integration approach over a period of about 18 months. If you’re trying to jam this into a 6-month process, it likely will be unsuccessful, strictly because that’s not enough time to even get the written policies and procedures in place. Plan for this to take about 18 months to 2 years and plan for it to cost you about $180,000; it’s about 60 grand a year. This is what the government, the Department of Defense says it will cost.
"The first thing is to identify what you’re going to attack. If your whole company does not deal with CUI or FCI (control of unclassified information or federal contract information), then you don’t need to be talking about CMMC. The first step is to get your senior leadership team together and start with a block of information that’s manageable, either by location, by area, by contract, by project. Start at that top level and read the flow-downs to find out if you even have to do this, then decide a plan of action." - Heather Falcone, Thermal-Vac Technology, Inc.
DG: Alright. You’re speaking from experience though, yes? You guys have done this?
HF: Absolutely, yes. It took us closer to 2 ½ years but, luckily, we started early enough to where that phased approach was okay.
DG: Mike, how about to you -- CMMC. Are some of your customers needing to do it? Are you guys needing to do it? What do you think?
ML: Nitrex is a solution provider so we are not only having commercial heat treatment, but we are also creating furnaces, we are building furnaces. We are also creating this control software and lately we released our QMULUS IIoT platform. We are really involved with this topic because we need to make sure that our customers are getting a solution which is CMMC compliant in the end. One thing which I really would like to mention here is that it does not only stop with the software. It’s not only software, it’s also controllers, it’s a hardware on the controllers, it’s even the network. Let’s say, a component on your controller which has to be CMMC compliant, in the end, which makes it really hard for small companies to take care of it. I suggest that you outsource a lot of these things. You can make your suppliers responsible for it, for sure. This would come with rising prices and so on, but for small heat treatment shops, it’s not maintainable, I guess. Maybe with the new approach of the CMMC release, which is relaxing a lot of things, it might be better, but we still do not know.
DG: Your suggestion is to outsource a lot of these, whether it be components or whatever.
ML: I would just like to add -- because we spend a lot of time to figure out what it really means (the CMMC things) and, as Heather already said, it will take you months to understand everything and if you’re not a professional in cybersecurity and maybe created these policies, you are lost.
DG: Don, how about you?
DM: I think I would echo a lot of what Mike is saying. As the whole industry goes more towards the IIoT implementing things, CMMC will be more and more difficult and you need help. Bottom line, unless you’ve got enough resources internally that can address the needs and understand, first off, as Heather mentioned, understanding the law (the regulations), in and of itself is usually enough to keep someone occupied for quite some time. But, even after that, then knowing what it means in implementing it, getting the right person on it, would certainly help the process.
DG: Brian?
BF: I think Heather really hit the nail on the head. The first step is to make sure it matches your strategic plan and your business plan. Currently, this is not a certification that Erie Steel possesses. It’s on our business plan as a threat under SWAT analysis but based on our current and forecasted customer base, this isn’t something that we plan on moving forward on here in the near future.
DG: Heather, you had mentioned about the control of unclassified information. Can you just expound on that a little bit? If I remember what you were saying, you were saying that it’s important to know whether you’re in that category, right? Because if you are, you need to do certain things; if you’re not, you don’t need to do certain things.
HF: Yes, if you handle CUI at your company or if you create CUI, then you’re likely going to be subject to the DFAR’s requirements when they’re flowed down to you. If you’re a federal contractor, it’s likely you don’t have a choice in this; it’s going to be in your contract flow-downs.
If you want to know more about control of unclassified information, there is an ongoing and everchanging list that’s available to you on the National Archives’ website which is archives.gov. If you go in there and you search controlled, unclassified information, it has a subsection list by industry. If all you do is firearms, cool, click on firearms and it’s going to tell you which CUI you have. If you only work defense, ok cool, here’s a nice little chart. It’s an invaluable resource on picking out key terms of your parts of your business to see if it matches up with the CUI.
But also, FCI, which is the Federal Contract Information, grand jury data is protected. Now, do we all deal with that? No. But financial transactions and general data information that you might not think is protected is protected. Spend some time in the National Archives -- it’s not boring, I promise, it’s actually pretty easy reading. It has nice charts and hyperlinks.
DG: It sounds boring, if I may just say so. Being the National Archives doesn’t sound like a place I want to spend my Friday afternoon.
HF: Well, call me, I’ll make it more exciting for you.
"Lately, we started with education because, we said it already multiple times in this discussion here, that the human factor is the most important part. We need to sensitize people about all the risks and all the things the internet brings. That’s why we started to have these security trainings, web-based and so on, which really help, also, to make people aware of these things."
DG: I want to deviate a little bit from the questions that we sent and maybe wrap up with two questions. We’ll deal with them individually but I’ll get you thinking about it just a little bit. Because we want to make this fairly practical for people, question one will be: Can you tell us what your company has done, thus far, to address cybersecurity? Again, it’s going to be a range of things; some have done a lot, some have done a little. Then, the second question I want to ask you which we will wrap up with is: If you could put on your prognostication hat here and you’re looking into the future -- what do you see being some of the major movements that we’re going to have to be dealing with as far as cybersecurity? It’s a little bit of fun looking into the future and seeing what we’re going to have to deal with in the heat treat industry.
Mike, if you don’t mind, we’ll start with you with Nitrex. What have you had to do so far to really deal with the whole cybersecurity threat?
ML: In the past, we started with the human factor. Until 6 years before, everyone had administrator rights on his local PC and everyone was installing everything -- malware, spyware and even things which were ‘unsuspicious.’ But a lot of things happen in the background without even noticing and these actions are opening doors for cybersecurity things. That’s why we installed something like MS LAPS which is a local admin password solution so that we can make really sure that people are only installing things which have been approved and so on. This was one of the things. Then, we also introduced something like MS Defender as an antivirus solution which is hosted in the Cloud which is making use of AI-identifying things before they get really serious. This for all internal IT infrastructure, making use of the latest approaches and software solutions we can get.
Lately, we started with education because, we said it already multiple times in this discussion here, that the human factor is the most important part. We need to sensitize people about all the risks and all the things the internet brings. That’s why we started to have these security trainings, web-based and so on, which really help
In terms of our solutions which we are offering, we planned accordingly a roadmap on how to make it CMMC compliant. All our hardware, we have to rework our whole controller infrastructure which we are offering to make our furnace CMMC compliant. The same for our MES software which we are having on premise for QMULUS, as well, which is our IIoT solution which is hosted in AWS. Here, it really depends on our customers if you’re hosting it in the Cloud or in the usual, let’s say, public Cloud. That’s what we are doing. We’re investigating our needs and to the needs of our industry.
DG: Good. And we will get to what do you plan on doing in the future, too.
Brian, why don’t we jump up to you on this. So far, what is Erie Steel been up to?
BF: As I stated during the risk assessment portion of management review, cybersecurity is regularly listed as a consistent internal and external threat. Historically, it’s been less relevant than it is today so little action was done. Now, over the past few years, we’ve really focused in this area and targeted internally on internal infrastructure. With that, we always try to keep a focus on understanding current environmental trends in cybersecurity, but with anything, any policy, any initiative, it should start and end with a strategic plan. Plans need to be well thought out, employee expectations clearly communicated prior to rollout, and feedback welcomed throughout these transitions.
Here, we practice self-audits and realize that server capacity as well as the life expectancy of our server was a great concern. We met with IT several times and came up with the plan to replace and upgrade our existing server and came up with it in four separate phases -- phase 1 being clean up the current system, phase 2 being change the system over, phase 3 being the new file structure for day-to-day operations, and phase 4 is to implement our new cybersecurity policy. Right now, we’re approaching the end of phase 3; so we’ll be sitting down again and reviewing the cybersecurity policy. Like I said, though, if you have doubts, self-audit, or you can always have a third-party auditor come in and share their two cents.
Some other things we’ve done are antivirus, antispyware software -- those should be givens. When individuals need to access the servers remotely, make use of VPN’s, utilize firewall security, ensure management has a firm understanding on the server capacity and requirements, regularly back-up the critical data, have redundant back-ups in different locations, of course make sure your Wi-Fi is secure, passwords should regularly change, same for all the usernames. You’ll see this with a lot of larger companies -- you really want to limit access to data and limit authority to make changes.
One thing we have done is our PLCs are operating locally on our own internal internet in case there is a server storm, in case there is a power outage. Well, a power outage wouldn’t help us in that situation but in case there is a server storm or internet outage, we can still operate locally, we just don’t have all the trending software to support it like day-to-day operations.
DG: That, just by itself, sounds like a huge task. Just switching over a server sounds like a lot of work. I think a lot of companies are going to be listening to this, especially some of the smaller captive heat treaters. Where to start? I think self-audit is a good idea and good advice.
Don let’s go to you then we’ll finish up this question with Heather then we'll move into thinking about the future.
DM: From our perspective, we’re focusing on the human factor. We’re trying to increase training and then once it’s out there, we test it. Once in a while, you’ll get forewarned that sometime within the next 24 hours you’re going to get a phishing email and what do you do with it? Sometimes they won’t tell us and all of a sudden, it’s, “Oo, what’s that?” I’m not going to click on that link. But honestly, those are the doors that are easier to close that we need to.
Some other activities have been like adding multifactor authentication where it’s necessary. Yes, it takes longer, yes, it’s a pain, but it’s necessary to make sure it is you and not somebody else. And then, as everybody else has mentioned, the usual firewalls, protecting Wi-Fi data networks, etc.
I did want to touch a little bit more on the equipment side, for just a minute. In my experiences with customers, sometimes an easier way to deal with this, especially because the interconnectivity to the equipment is becoming more and more prevalent, it’s just basically have a separate service, a separate internet connection that you control. And it’s basically if you need help, if you need to connect that piece of equipment to the internet, you physically plug it in, if not, you take it out. And when it’s out, you are in control. On your network, you’re passing data where you need to and that’s it. It’s back under that umbrella. Then, when you physically plug it in, you’re doing so making that decision consciously to say, “Okay, for this period of time, I need it to be connected.” But at least, then, you have some direct control. Is it rudimentary? Yes. Is it maybe not the most convenient? Yes. But, until you’re to the point where you can research all the needed data and regulations, they can get you to the point where, at least, you have some control.
DG: Right. Nothing like a physical line to plug in and unplug to help you feel safe.
Heather, how about you? What has Thermal Technology been doing?
HF: We started with an assessment that we paid people to do -- an expert that came in and evaluated our system against the CMMC requirements. That was very scary and expensive and it felt like someone was speaking Greek to me and, frankly, I got bored within the first 30 minutes of him giving me the report. But that’s where you start. And don’t be afraid if you get a negative score on the darn test because you’ve got to pick a place and you’ve got to get the baseline.
The nice thing about CMMC is it’s progressive; it’s meant to be transitional. You’re not going straight to level 3 and your whole life is going to change. You go from that assessment and then you work your way into phase 1. The CMMC level 1 is meaning we’re doing this stuff; we just can’t repeat it and we don’t have any documentation. And then level 2 -- okay, now we’re doing stuff and now we’re going to make it repeatable by documenting it. Then phase 3 is now we’re going to make machines manage the processes that are documented so we can repeat them and do them. It builds upon itself. So, embrace the stages. That’s what we’ve done and we started all the way back when we were a .79.
DG: Out of what?
HF: Out of the level 1 – 3. We were .79. Now, I’ve seen people who are minus numbers (-2, etc.) and that’s okay. Everyone starts somewhere, and if you haven’t had to look at infrastructure as related to information technology in 20 years, then why would you have ever looked at it? Take it in the phased approach. That’s what we did and we baby-stepped our way in and took all the painful points and broke them down into 1,000 substeps and that was the best thing we could have done.
DG: We’re going to go backwards in order, if I can, and let’s talk about the future. I guess, what I want to get a sense from you guys, to wrap up, is 1.What do you see as being the greatest risks to your companies, and, I think, especially with our equipment guys with Nitrex and with Mike and Don, if you’re able to address from your customer’s perspective, 2.What are the issues with new equipment going in? What are the biggest risks that you’re seeing, if there are any, and what do you see us doing in the future differently than what we’re doing now as far as mitigating any of those risks?
Heather, back to you on this one?
HF: The biggest risk is complacency or denial. This will come to you and it already has. If you take the viewpoint of, “Well, I’ll do it when my customer makes me,” you will be so far behind the ball, it’s going to be painful. The absolute worst risk you could possibly take is not looking at it or denying that you’re involved in it. If you’re in heat treating, it is 90% likely that this is going to apply to you in some way. Now, the great news is CMMC 2.0 -- over 60% of the industrial supply base is only going have to be a level 1 -- that’s a self-report annually. That’s not that big a deal. Anybody can do that. And there are great resources that are being developed to help people that want to get that basic level of CMMC compliance.
So, don’t wait, don’t deny it, get your customers to pay for it, put it in your RFPs. It is an allowable cost for reimbursement; don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. If you need more help on that, let me know.
"On the note of chaos, when it sets in, communication is key. If you’re the responsible party, designate primary and secondary points of contact for cybersecurity support. Have performance incentives in place for the responsible managers. If you’re rolling out a new policy, based on the successful rollout of that policy, put some incentives in place. Maintain open lines of communication and welcome feedback."
DG: That’s one of the questions we didn’t get to and that was how to make your customers pay for it which sounds like a very intriguing question, but yes, you mentioned it there.
Don, how about you? We’ll go over to you on this one.
DM: I think, moving forward, a couple of things are happening: The labor market is changing; it’s changing to a demographic that’s more familiar with this technology, which is a good thing. Although, as we said, I think it was Brian that said earlier on, some of those generations may not be as sensitive as they need to be. But what that means is that the older days when we relied heavily on operators to know what’s going on, now we’re switching more towards the technology managing the equipment from the equipment’s point of view. What that means is there will be fewer people managing more equipment from fewer places. So, if you’re looking at a multilocation operation that’s managing data from a central location, that becomes pretty complex pretty quick; but it’s becoming more commonplace in the industry than it used to be. Obviously, that opens up a lot of doors for cybersecurity risk and that’s got to be carefully managed, in the light of CMMC and others as far as cybersecurity goes.
I think the future is -- the technology is there, it’s available, but it has to be implemented carefully and it has to be well thought out by people who know what they’re doing.
DG: Brian, I think we go to you and then we end with Mike.
BF: When chaos sets in, the one standing by your side, without flinching, can be considered your family. When chaos sets in manufacturing, managers must remain flexible, patient and understanding which leads to the difference between a leader and a manager. A good manager is not always a leader, and good leaders are always managers. Managers have people work for them while leaders have people follow them. On the note of chaos, when it sets in, communication is key. If you’re the responsible party, designate primary and secondary points of contact for cybersecurity support. Have performance incentives in place for the responsible managers. If you’re rolling out a new policy, based on the successful rollout of that policy, put some incentives in place. Maintain open lines of communication and welcome feedback. Make sure that training materials are available. Something that I’ve come to realize is that employees often shy away from asking for help. Instead, try to get the help at their fingertips and ask specific, strategic questions to prove they’re understanding.
Really, at the end of the day, conduct your risk assessments. You don’t know what you don’t know, and that’s 95% of what is knowledge today. Be cognizant of what’s out there. Let’s face it -- cyberwarfare, cyberterrorism are very real, very selective, quick and cheap attacks from the hacker’s perspective, and they remain anonymous.
DG: And devastating for the companies that are on the receiving end, potentially.
BF: On the microscale, it’s real, especially for small businesses.
DG: You’ve hit on an interesting thing, Brian, and obviously we can’t spend time talking about everything but, it’s just the way you address this from a personnel perspective inside your company -- are you having someone there that’s the point person for cybersecurity? This shows my ignorance, but that’s okay, it’s easy to do. Do they have a chief security officer, a CSO, now, I assume, adding to the ‘C-suite’?
But yes, I think that’s a good point.
Let’s go over to Mike. What do you see as being the future threats and how are we going to be mitigating them?
ML: I think there is not that much to add here. We talked about the human factor, as I said, is the most important thing. Education and also more of education is needed here. Also, with the people on the shop floor, they are often working still with pen and paper -- they are not really used to going with the digital mediums and components and so on. So, really, we have to be sensible there, as well. You mentioned that the management has to take care that they are not "steamrolled" by all these approaches. This is really important.
The other thing, I already mentioned as well, is to outsource as much as possible, if it’s possible. Talking about the hardware, the software components and solutions and so on -- if you can get a solution which is CMMC compliant and the vendor is stating it, get it, because it’s taking a lot of work from you.
DG: The last thing we’ll do, and you may or may not have anything for this -- any final thought you want to leave with the people that might be listening to this, watching this? These are basically going to be people who are manufacturers who have their own in-house heat treat shops, commercial heat treaters, suppliers to the industry. Are there any last comments that you want to leave?
Don, anything?
DM: The only thing I’d add is just to be proactive. That always helps in these cases. And what that means is up to you but be proactive to address it.
DG: I was thinking the same thing: Don’t stick your head in the sand. Or, if it is there, get it out. Get it out of wherever it is and pay attention. Be proactive.
Heather, how about you?
HF: That’s exactly right. And some of us have larger egos that prevent us from reaching out for help. Understand that the literal federal government wants to help you, and there are so many resources out there that can be a nightmare to navigate but start with the people on this call. Reach out, talk to someone, get outside your circle and start figuring out how to make it work for you.
DG: Mike, how about you and then we’ll end with Brian, if you have any other comments. Again, if you don’t, no problem.
ML: That statement of Heather’s, I think, of being proactive, ask for help, don’t be shy. Invest the money. It will be worth it to invest.
DG: Brian, how about you?
BF: I think, find what works best for your organization and remain flexible. Solutions to cybersecurity should not be a one size fits all approach, so plan for the worst and strive for the best.
DG: Guys, thanks very much. I appreciate it. This is a huge, huge topic. I know we’ve just skimmed across the top.
Today's episode delves into the term "austempering". What is it? Why do heat treaters need to use it? For what applications is it necessary? Join Doug Glenn, publisher of Heat Treat Today and host of this podcast, as he talks with "The Heat Treat Doctor", Dan Herring, about all things austempering.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Earlier Episode of Lunch & Learn
Doug Glenn (DG): Alright, welcome everyone. We’re here with another Lunch & Learn with Dan Herring. Today, we’re going to be talking about the principles of austempering. We do these Lunch & Learns really for the benefit of our Heat TreatToday team and we knew that learning from Dan would also be educational for the entire industry. We are just really happy to be able to have Dan Herring with us once again to educate us a bit. We’re going to try to spend about 30 minutes or so learning about some of the very basic principles of austempering. So, the ball is over the fence to you, Dan.
Dan Herring (DH): Well, welcome everyone. It’s my pleasure to discuss the heat treat topic that we call austempering. One of the things we’re going to do today is we’re going to recall from a previous Lunch & Learn the definition of heat treating. We called it the controlled application of time, temperature, and atmosphere to produce a predictable change in the internal structure of what metallurgists call the microstructure of a material. So, we’re going to introduce various words that are related to different types of microstructures today or these internal structures.
But before we do, I’ve put on the screen a brief definition of austempering. It’s certainly a heat treat process. It’s used in medium to high carbon, both plain and alloy steels, as well as cast irons (an example being ductile iron) and we’re trying to produce a microstructure called bainite which is probably a foreign word to most of you and I’ll endeavor to explain it in a moment.
But to give you just a view from about 30,000-feet, you might be asking yourself, “Well, what types of products are austempered and why?” So, I put a couple of examples here. I’ve put an example of a lawnmower blade, seat belt components like the tongue and receptacle, and some tractor parts, as well.
A good example of this might be the seatbelt components. We’ve learned to put on seatbelts (in my day, we didn’t have them, but now we do) and we all learned to buckle up. And, if you get into an accident, you discover why your seatbelt is really your friend. We want something that’s strong, that if we get into an accident, it will not shatter and break. But, at the same time, we want something that’s tough and slightly ductile so it will bend and not break.
Austempering is a process that’s used to produce all seatbelt components, that I’m aware of. Similarly, with lawnmower blades- we don’t want a blade, if it hits a rock as we’re mowing the lawn, (I don’t expect most of the people on the call to have mowed the lawn), but if we hit a rock or a hard object as we’re mowing the lawn, we might want that lawnmower blade to get a ding in it, but we don’t want it to shatter. So, those are some typical examples.
You might ask yourself, why do you austemper? What we’re seeing here is that if you need increased ductility, toughness, and strength at a given hardness level, austempering is right for you. We’re typically talking about parts that are in the range of, maybe, 35-55 Rockwell C. We are developing, as I said, a bainitic structure as opposed to a martensitic structure, which is what’s produced when we harden a steel and quench into something like oil or water.
So, we get improved toughness. And we get some superior properties related to that, as well. And some of the properties don’t change very much but they’re equal to what we get when we harden the steel, when we get this martensitic structure.
The bottom line is we typically get less distortion, we get better wear resistance, we don’t suffer from cracking as some of the high carbon steels are prone to do, and, interestingly enough, with cast irons, we get some, what are called "improved dampening characteristics" -- noise and vibration. So, wire is an important like, for example, in an automotive engine to have dampening characteristics because we want the engine to run quietly.
What types of materials can be austempered? This is just a partial list, but mostly it’s medium carbon steels. That’s carbon steels with anywhere from .5 carbon to .95 carbon or, in other words, an AISI 1050 to 1095 grade. We can also do medium alloy steels -- the 4130’s, the 4140’s, the 5140’s, the 5160’s, etc. Certain stainless steels can be austempered although not many of them. And, as I said, cast irons, the example being ductile iron, can also be austempered.
And I wanted to give you some idea of the mechanical and different properties of steel. We talked in an earlier Lunch & Learn about the fact that steel is an alloy of iron and carbon and manganese. And we add other elements to the mix in order to get various either mechanical properties, chemical properties, electrical or magnetic properties, and certain other advantages.
So, an example of mechanical properties that we’re typically interested in is hardness and strength, brittleness, ductility, elongation, wear, and shock resistance. Now, strength is measured a number of ways. There are things called "fatigue strength" and "flexure" and "impact strength" and "sheer strength" and "tensile strength" and "torsion strength" and "yield strength."
This is a metallurgist’s rendition of a teeter totter in a schoolyard. Now, don’t laugh. This is what defines the difference between a metallurgist and a mechanical engineer. For all the mechanical engineers out there, metallurgists draw cartoons -- that’s the easiest way to say it. Howsoever, at one point in all of our lives, we’ve probably been on a teeter totter. We know that, in this particular teeter totter, we have strength properties on one side of the teeter totter and ductility properties on the other. We know that as the strength goes up, the ductility will go down and as the ductility will go up, the strength will go down. As a result of this, we decide what we want for properties and we realize that there’s a compromise going on. If we make them extremely strong, they’ll be brittle because they’ll have very, very low ductility. If we make them extremely ductile, they’ll have very low strength. So, this balancing act is what we’re trying to do when we look at the properties we’re trying to achieve. And, if you remember, the microstructure is what gives us these properties.
Now, this is something that is not intended to confuse, but I thought I’d add a little metallurgy into the mix because we are going to talk about several microstructures. This is what metallurgists call a "time temperature transformation" or "TTT diagram." This is really an artist’s rendition of one. There is a lot more information typically contained in one of these diagrams. But for our purposes, it isn’t too important. We can use this artist’s rendition to get the essence of what we’re trying to do.
We start off by heating steel to austenitizing temperature. And that’s above the dotted line shown in this particular diagram, so, at the very top of those turquoise lines and temperature. And then what we do is we make sure that the component part is uniformly up to temperature and now we get ready to harden it. We get ready to quench it. What we’re dealing with is we’re rapidly cooling, and under normal hardening, you’ll notice that there are two lines there- one called MS and one called MF. MS is the martensite start line and MF is the martensite finish line.
Typically, in hardening, our goal is to produce martensite. In order to do so, we want to cool rapidly enough to miss what we call "the nose of the curve" because if you look at this type of diagram, you’ll see that it, on profile, looks like somebody’s nose and the turquoise lines are missing the "nose" of the curve. As a result of that, we’re cooling rapidly. But the difference between hardening and austempering is that we don’t cross the MS point, we don’t cross into the martensite range. We don’t transform to martensite, instead what we do is we put the brakes on, we stop, and then we introduce a long soak or hold period and we cross into the banitic range of the curve.
And, so, austempering is typically performed about 25-50 degrees Fahrenheit above the martensite start temperature of steel. Now, there are some exceptions, but that’s a very typical range. If we’re not controlling the process properly, we might get a microstructure that’s both bainite and martensite. But if we do our job right, we’ll get a fully bainitic structure, which is often what we desire.
Read More in Dan Herring's Books
Now (and I realize this has words that some people may be unfamiliar with) but we’ve heated the part up until we’re austenitic- we’re in the austenite range, and there are three various methods of cooling that can be employed. On the far righthand side, if we rapidly quench a part into oil or into water, we might produce a microstructure that’s called martensite. It’s a body-centered tetragonal microstructure. We get something that’s very hard, but brittle. That’s why we have to reheat it and perform a process called ‘tempering’ in order to take some of the brittleness away and add some ductility back in.
Now, on the far lefthand side, we may slow cool the part rather than rapidly quench it and we produce a microstructure that is both ferrite and pearlite, the result of slow cooling. So, instead of getting something that’s very hard, we get something that is very soft. You might say, “My gosh, why do we want to do that?” Well, we like to do that sometimes because we like to take a steel and, for example, machine it into a final form before we go back in and reharden it. So, as a result of that, we form a ferrite/pearlite microstructure, we’re able to machine the part, then we can go back in and reharden it.
So, slow cooling gives us a ferrite/pearlite microstructure, rapid quenching gives us a martensitic microstructure, and a moderate cooling rate (the one shown in the center) gives us a bainitic microstructure. Bainite is a mixture of ferrite and cementite. Again, words that you’re perhaps not familiar with. But the way I like to say it is martensite gives us a microstructure that is not as hard as martensite but tougher, in general, than martensite, and we’ll explain that as we move forward.
But I thought before we do, you might want to see some typical type of heat-treating equipment that is used to austemper parts. A lot of parts are done in a mesh belt conveyer line. The one that is shown on the left, where parts are loaded onto a table, sent through the furnace, and dropped at the end of the furnace into a salt quench which is located in the floor, in this particular drawing. Salt is the primary medium that we quench parts that will be austempered in because salt gives us the temperature-range we need to be above the martensite start point.
Now, a number of people have asked me in the past: Can I use oil rather than molten salt to perform this operation? There are certain oils that can be used at extremely high temperature, but there are fire hazards and other hazards associated with them so the typical answer is ‘no’; molten salt is typically used to perform the quenching.
So, you have a mesh belt conveyer system for high volume, shown on the left. On the right, you’re showing a typical Shaker Hearth furnace where what happens is you load parts onto a pan that vibrates and the parts are moved down the length of the furnace and then drop into a salt quench at the back end.
I thought you might want to see some pictures of some stampings and things that are going into one of these mesh belt conveyer furnaces. You see the endothermic gas in this particular picture burning out the front of the furnace and the stampings moving on a conveyor belt, a mesh belt, in through the furnace. All sorts of different types, shapes, and sizes of stampings. One thing you’ll notice is that these parts are, typically, not single layer loaded; they’re loaded, perhaps, one to three to five parts thick, somewhere between anywhere from a half inch to about two or three inches thick as they’re moving through this conveyor belt.
And to complete the metallurgy aspect of it, you might say, “Hey, what type of microstructure am I actually seeing?” The picture on the left is a primarily bainitic microstructure with some martensite and its hardness is 44 Rockwell C. The microstructure on the righthand side is a combination of bainite and ferrite. The ferrite in this microstructure shows up as white or very light in color, exactly. This hardness, because you have ferrite present, is about 36 HRC. So, depending on the hardness you’re trying to achieve, you will get different types of microstructures- that’s the purpose of this slide.
Now, as far as molten salt goes, a typical austempering bath consists of either a sodium nitrate or a potassium nitrate salt, typically in a 50/50 mixture, and this salt is operating somewhere between 300 degrees Fahrenheit and 650 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on, again, the desired, not only the composition in the salt, but the desired temperature that we would want to hold to.
Let me back up for a second, Doug. So, to kind of summarize this: What we’re trying to put the brakes on as we’re rapidly cooling down, missing the nose of the transformation curve, we want to fall into this bainitic region and, in order to do so, we need to stay above that martensite start temperature which for many steels is in the 400–450-degree Fahrenheit range. So, our molten salts will typically run at 475, 500, even 550 degrees, all the way up to 650 degrees. So, we pick our salt temperature, not only depending on the salt, but also depending on the temperature that we want to hold the bath in.
Some of the reasons for selecting a salt quench are that the temperature of the salt bath dictates the ultimate hardness that we’re going to achieve. You might find this interesting: If I didn’t mention it in a previous Lunch & Learn, but I did, it’s that when we quench into the martensite range or field, martensite is the instantaneous sheer transformation. It really progresses at the speed of sound. So, martensite forms almost instantaneously, but bainite requires time for the transformation to take place.
So, a typical time in the salt is somewhere in the range of 18-20 minutes. I’ve seen parts held in salt for as short as 10 or 12 minutes and for as long as 30 minutes, but it depends on the thickness of the part, the material and, ultimately, the desired hardness we are going to reach. Now, interestingly enough, as opposed to a part that we harden to martensite and have to retemper or temper to balance the teeter totter, so to speak, with an austempering process, we do not need to temper afterwork because the parts are effectively tempered, so to speak, in the salt. So, we have a hardening operation that results in a banitic structure but we don’t need to temper. So, that’s one of the differences between hardening and austempering.
Again, the time in the salt will decrease as the transformation temperature increases and the time in the salt is similarly associated with the carbon content in the steel.
Let me give you a couple of examples: I mentioned in an earlier slide that SAE 1050, 1055, 1075 steel are typical steels that are austempered. Again, your austempering goes to put the hardness typically in the range of 40-45 Rockwell C, not nearly as hard as if we harden and quench them into oil or water, but certainly hard enough to give you a properly austempered part, giving you this part that is a combination of good hardness and yet a lot of ductility.
This, in a nutshell, is a brief summary of austempering. We’ve kind of said what it is -- it’s a process that’s going to get us a bainitic microstructure. We’ve looked at a little of the metallurgy of what we’re dealing with here and we’ve seen that it’s a different type of microstructure than is something like annealing or normalizing which gives you a primarily ferritic and pearlitic microstructure. And it’s different than hardening that gives you primarily a martensitic or tempered martensitic structure.
So, for those parts that require not only hardness but toughness, austempering is a process that should be considered by heat treaters.
Doug, that’s really the end of the presentation that I’ve prepared. We can certainly discuss it a little bit more if anyone has any questions.
DG: At the beginning, you were talking about pearlite and all that stuff, did we talk about austenite?
DH: Well, we talked about austenite because, again, that’s the temperature to which we heat the parts up to at the very beginning. In other words, to start the process, we heat the parts up to the austenite field, if you will. In other words, the parts are essentially red hot. They are above the proper transformation point that they turn into austenite.
DG: So, I assume that’s here, if you guys can still see the images: That’s austenite. The austenitic temperature is up above this dash line, right?
DH: That’s correct.
DG: And as you bring it down, you come through, perhaps, other, there’s a lot of different "ites" in heat treating, right? There’s austenite, pearlite, ferrite, bainite, martensite, you know, it sounds like a stalagmite and whatever those other things are in the caves, but all of those things basically are telling us about the orientation of the molecules inside the metal.
DH: Well, think of it this way, Doug: When we have a steel, its microstructure, if it isn’t hardened, its microstructure is typically body-centered cubic, which means the atoms are all lined up in a certain structure. Now, what we do when we heat it up is -- when it gets above the transformation temperature (that dotted line, for simplicity, in this example) the atoms will realign themselves from body-centered cubic to face-centered cubic and a face-centered cubic structure is called austenite. Then, when we quench it, until we move into the nose of the curve or past those red lines, we still maintain an austenitic crystal structure as we’re cooling. The ferrite, the pearlite and things occur when we cross over into those reddish lines in that area there.
I think you can do this- if we start off as austenite, and we slow, slow cool.
Slow, slow cool. We go all the way down like that. Keep going down, down, down, down, down. Okay, if we do something like that, (and I’ve got some pictures to show it better), but the idea being the fact that because we’ve fallen into the nose of the curve, we form a microstructure that is typically ferrite and pearlite. The first line you’ve drawn is indicative of an annealing process where we’re slow cooling inside the furnace. The second line you’ve drawn is more indicative of a normalizing process where we’ve cooled at a faster rate but still, in this case, we’ve fallen into the nose of the curve because it’s not that quick.
And to give everyone a perspective of the time element involved here, and I haven’t shown numbers, but the time element is for plain carbon steels, you may only have a few seconds to reach the nose of the curve. So, as a result of that, you have to move very rapidly where those turquoise lines are shown; you’re cooling at a very, very, very rapid rate to try to miss the nose of that transformation curve.
The secret with austempering is that you have to put the brakes on before you form martensite, and that’s not as easy as you might think it is. But that’s one of the reasons why molten salt is an excellent medium to quench into.
Don’t mix up crystal structures with microstructures. The ferrite, the pearlite, the bainite, the martensite are microstructures whereas the crystallographic structures -- body-centered cubic, face-centered cubic, body-centered tetragonal- represent how the atoms realign themselves.
DG: Does anybody have questions for Dan?
Bethany Leone (BL): I was thinking about asking you, Dan, but you have already essentially answered it: How difficult is it to have that rapid cooling and then control it to remain quite stable for a long period of time? You hit on the first part of the question which is the salt quench does a good job in this instance. But how does a heat treater maintain that stability of temperature for such a long time?
DH: That’s a great question because one of the interesting properties of salt, molten salt, is the fact that it is a bath that’s extremely uniform in temperature. So, when, for example, the parts, the stampings, and other parts are conveyed through a furnace, they then drop off into a quench and there is a conveyer belt in the quench, under the salt, that the parts drop on to this conveyor belt and then move through the salt. So, if I want 20 minutes in the salt bath, I have to run the speed of the conveyor slow enough to allow that time to take place.
Now, not to confuse everyone, but there are other ways you can austemper: You can heat in molten salt and then quench in the molten salt. So, there is a molten salt you can actually preheat in molten salt, have a high heat in molten salt and then a quench in molten salt. A lot of people don’t use that for high volume production work, but they still use that.
But, yes, you need time in the salt for that transformation to fully take place.
DG: Any other questions?
Let me do a couple other things and, again, we can probably put this up on the screen, but we just recently, I believe, already released this -- the Heat Treat Radio interview we did with Bill Disler regarding salt quenching. That may be of interest to people who have an interest in what about salt quenching? You might want to reference that sometime so, feel free to look into that. You also can just search our website for "bainite" or "austempering" and you may come up with some additional articles.
So, that’s it. Dan, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Unless anybody else another question, I think we’ll sign off at this point.
Today’s episode revolves around gun parts: How are they heat treated? How many gun component manufacturers are there in the U.S.? Doug Glenn, publisher ofHeat Treat Today and host of this podcast, and Steve Kowalski, president at Kowalski Heat Treating, dive into this topic and what it takes to heat treat gun parts.
Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn (DG): Well, welcome to another episode of Heat Treat Radio. I have the immense pleasure of being able to sit down today with Steve Kowalski of Kowalski Heat Treating. Steve, you know, it’s nice to finally sit down with you. We’ve been talking for quite some time about doing this, so first off, welcome to Heat Treat Radio.
Contact us with your Reader Feedback!
Steve Kowalski (SK): Well, good morning, Glenn. Thank you very much for having me today.
DG: You are very, very welcome. Now, we have to start, as I told you before hit the record button, over your left shoulder there is an interesting ball. You need to tell us about that real quick.
SK: Can you see it?
DG: Yes, yes, we can see it.
SK: For you and folks at home, this is a rubber band ball. For perspective, how’s that? It’s twenty-two plus years in the making.
"For you and folks at home, this is a rubber band ball. For perspective, how’s that? It’s twenty-two plus years in the making." -Steve Kowalski
DG: For those of you who are on the audio only version, it’s about the size of a basketball. Steve was telling us that you guys [Kowalski Heat Treating] have been using only the stuff that comes in the U.S. mail. It’s very impressive. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with heat treating, but I did want to say that it’s pretty interesting.
Anyhow, Steve, we’re going to talk a little bit today about the heat treatment of guns, ammo, and that type of stuff. That’s just to whet the appetite of those who are listening and watching; that’s what we’re going to be talking about a bit, your organization does it.
But I’d like to have you take a minute just to talk about your background, very briefly. I know that it’s a long, long background . . . . ~chuckle~
SK: Careful, careful!
DG: Yes, I know! Trust me, you and I graduated from college the same year, so I know. So, it has been a long background. But briefly, tell the listeners/viewers about you, about the company, and then we’ll jump in with some questions about firearms.
SK: Wonderful. I’m second generation. My dad started the business back in 1975, so I was underage working, yes. Those of us in the commercial heat treat, a lot of us have grown up in businesses where we were the underaged employees. The transition took place about 15 years ago. We started off with one building, roughly 3,000 square feet, to process tools and dyes. Back in the day, Cleveland was one of the tool and dye capitals of the world- we had tons of tool and dye makers. Well, that business has evolved away.
Since 1975, we’ve grown the business to now having nine facilities on our campus, roughly 80,000 square feet, and those of you who know Kowalski Heat Treat, we specialize in those PIA jobs — it’s what we do. If it’s a problem, it’s pretty sure that it’s going to be coming to our facility.
We started in salt bath. Over the years we added high pressure quench vacuum processing, plasma nitriding, plasma nitrocarburizing, heat pyrogenics. One of our divisions specializes in nothing but keeping parts flat- round and flat. You can go to our website at KHTE.com and check out the various divisions and what we do. Basically, in our world today, we rack or assemble 95-97% of everything that comes through this door — it’s specially handled.
DG: The PIA, the “pain in the ass” ones is what you’re talking about. Do you guys have, therefore metallurgists and things of that sort on staff, as well, I assume?
SK: We have 48 people, we have 8 engineers on staff — anything from chemical to mechanical to electrical. We do not have any metallurgists on staff. We have access to great metallurgists in the area.
DG: Cleveland has them.
SK: Oh, my gosh, we actually are blessed here in Cleveland. If you need something — one phone call and we can find it.
You’re from Pittsburgh, aren’t you?
DG: Yes, just north of Pittsburgh. Don’t hold that against me.
SK: No, no, it’s okay — you’ve done remarkably well. ~chuckle~
DG: All things considered, there you go. I appreciate that. How very gracious of you, Steve!
SK: Oh, my pleasure.
Kowalski Heat Treating is a family company. Source: Kowalski Heat Treating
DG: You’re right, though. Cleveland, I think, especially. Ohio, in general, but Cleveland, in general, are kind of like the forging center of the world. There’s just a lot that goes on there. But heat treat, in between Detroit and Cleveland, it’s kind of “heat treat central.”
Well, listen, that’s great. You’ve obviously been very successful. You’re good at what you do. I know it’s still a family business --- you’ve got you and your sister, at least, involved, right?
SK: Sisters, yes, correct. Two sisters are involved: one in the back office and Peggy Andrews is inside sales customer service. You’ve met Peggy.
DG: We’ve met Peggy; we know Peggy. Peggy is wonderful.
SK: And for all of you listening — I’m the quiet one in comparison.
DG: I believe that, now. I’ve met Peggy and she’s great.
Also, you’ve been a little bit humble because you were the president of the Heat Treat Society not too long ago, were you not?
SK: Yes.
DG: Which is quite an honor.
SK: Before me was Roger Jones and after me was Jim Oakes.
DG: Let’s talk firearms for a second. You know, it’s kind of interesting, because when you talk firearms, it’s always a little bit controversial. Obviously, there’s a political side to this conversation. We don’t really want to go down that road too much because we’re just going to talk about heat treatment. But I do want to ask you, which could be slightly bumping up against the political side: Have you seen, recently or in the recent past, any increase in that business that Kowalski is doing as far as firearms go?
"Well, in our firearms business (and I know we’ll be talking about the who, what, where, when, why of firearms and how processing is incredibly important), we work with the DOD (Department of Defense) and very unique programs, we work across the spectrum in the firearms from long guns to handguns and there seems to be a huge misconception in the world on firearms. ATF controls that world from the registration standpoint."
SK: Well, in our firearms business (and I know we’ll be talking about the who, what, where, when, why of firearms and how processing is incredibly important), we work with the DOD (Department of Defense) and very unique programs, we work across the spectrum in the firearms from long guns to handguns and there seems to be a huge misconception in the world on firearms. ATF controls that world from the registration standpoint. Every firearm has a serial number (certain components of it) so it is tracked. Our systems have evolved over the years — we’ve developed specific systems that are very sophisticated to be able to track the product that we process. The key components that require serialization or a serial number — we track them. We do hundreds of thousands of units a year, and they’re all tracked so that you and I can go across the political side. We’re really very, very proud of the fine work that my team does in the firearms industry. Most of our first responders, law enforcement, defense — they require and depend on what we do. I can make it very dramatic, but in reality, if we don’t do our jobs correctly, they can’t do their jobs correctly.
DG: Yes. And it’s somewhat of a life and death thing, too. I mean, if you’ve got malfunction because of a defective heat treat, or for any reason, it can be an issue.
SK: Our business has definitely grown in the last seven years. We’ve built a very good reputation in this industry. If you have a problem, chances are we’re going to be working with you to help you solve your problem. Firearms are extremely highly engineered with very tight tolerances.
DG: It’s kind of interesting, here, because you’re talking about serialization of parts and things of that sort that come in; you’re not getting fully assembled guns — you’re getting parts and pieces. So, you’re able to track— I’m curious, is that tracking a barcode, is it optical — how do you do it?
SK: The answer is “yes” to all of the above. It depends on the customer. If you have a sales agent, you have a serial number or you have a code and, in some cases, some of our customers are moving toward QR codes. So, if you receive in 10,000 units, whatever they may be, well that’s 0 to 10,000 and you need to ship 0 to 10,000 back. If you do not, ATF is notified.
DG: That’s interesting. Types of furnaces: Are you guys running batch furnaces or are you running continuous furnaces?
SK: We do batch. The majority of what we process for the gun world, for the firearms world, would be either salt to salt rack austempering or marquenching, vacuum and actually plasma processing, whether it’s FNC or nitriding. Those three areas, we’re involved with the gun world.
DG: Yes, I was curious, because you hear a lot about, especially. It’s a different market, but in the faster world, you hear fallout. If you’re going through a mesh belt furnace, you know, “Oh well, you lost a few fasteners down on the bottom of the furnace.” That would not work in your . . . .
SK: I can make light and we joke a little bit about it, but you do not want folks with three letters on the back of their coat coming in.
DG: Exactly. If that happened, probably the next interview we’d do with you, you’d be wearing an orange suit and maybe you’d have a roommate.
SK: And I just don’t look good in orange.
DG: So, now, as far as the firearms industry, there are a lot of different metals and materials of that sort, but there are two basic things — I mean, I always talk about it and we talked about this a little bit before we hit the record button: There is ammunition and then there are gun components. You guys do not do ammo, correct?
SK: Correct. That is not a world we’re in. We are in the gun side — all of the components for guns. On any given firearm, you may have, in our particular case, we may be processing 12–15 different components for a handgun — anything from a barrel to a slide to a receiver to a firing pin, ejectors, extractors, triggers, trigger guard — the list goes on. It tends to be a different material; there are different properties that they develop that they need a firing pin versus a trigger guard versus a slot.
DG: Just a quick example if you don’t mind. It’s important for the heat treater to know what they’re doing, obviously, right? Why is that? Can you give us an example of why it is?
On any given firearm, you may have, in our particular case, we may be processing 12–15 different components for a handgun — anything from a barrel to a slide to a receiver to a firing pin, ejectors, extractors, triggers, trigger guard — the list goes on. It tends to be a different material; there are different properties that they develop that they need a firing pin versus a trigger guard versus a slot.
SK: Well, when you say “a barrel” is true. If a barrel is not “true,” straight, no distortion. We’ve all seen various TV shows where the person swings the gun around and the bullet shoots around the corner. No. Doesn’t happen. So, if the barrel isn’t true and hasn’t been processed appropriately and correctly, it’s not going to function the way it was designed.
A firing pin, which is a very distortion-sensitive component- if it’s bent, it doesn’t work. The gun will not fire. We could go on: slides and receivers. If they’re distorted, they’re not going to work. It’s not going to function. So, each component must be processed to achieve dimensional tolerance control. And then metallurgically, the structure: A gun has a very aggressive action.
DG: Mini explosions, basically.
SK: Literally. And so, it’s been designed to support all of that.
DG: The different components that I think about are the firing pin you were mentioning, right? It’s going to have a lot of impact on the shell casing on the firing pin.
SK: In that particular case (and we’re not giving any IP away), but those are austempered for structure. Doug, are you a metallurgist?
DG: No, I am not, actually.
SK: Nor am I. I’m a marketing guy, folks, with experience.
DG: Same here, same here.
SK: The design — if that pin chips, cracks, breaks, it doesn’t fire.
DG: Exactly. So, you’ve got the high impact parts like the firing pin, you’ve got barrels where you want good wear resistance and things of that sort and, obviously, they need to be true and straight. You’ve got springs in a lot of guns, especially your Ruger style where the receiver’s back — those things have to be heat treated appropriately.
Steve, what type of alloys typically are we talking about in some of these different parts?
SK: They range from high carbon materials (1050, 1060, 1070) up to high temp stainlesses, whether it’s 400 series, whether it’s a precipitation hardened series, mid to high alloy materials (4340, 4150) and then, as we get into the specials, the engineering world is continually trying to make a better product- a longer acting product, a more robust product- so we’re starting to see materials that, historically, weren’t used in this area. Plus, things that we don’t deal with, there are many components that are carburized using 8620, 9310, carburized and hardened, for the same purpose: wear and performance.
DG: Being in the Cleveland area, you are kind of in another hub and that’s where a lot of this 3D printing, additive manufacturing; I mean, there’s a lot that goes on there. I think there’s an organization in Youngstown, or in that area, that’s kind of a central hub there. Are you guys seeing any of that, whether it be in firearms or not? Have you had any experience with any of the AM?
SK: The answer is yes. AM is absolutely taking place; it’s incredible. The technology — what you can do today that you couldn’t do two or three years ago and then you have to effectively engineer backward forward, make it, and then make it right, then produce it, thermally process it (maybe); so, it’s one of those.
DG: It’s an interesting and evolving technology.
As a heat treater of gun components, not that you want to help any competitors or anything of that sort….
SK: Heck no, we love all of our competitors who are not working against us, how’s that?
DG: That’s fair enough, that’s fair enough.
As a heat treater, what are the things that jump into your mind that you have to be careful about when heat treating gun components? And if it helps, pick a specific component, whether it be a pin, a barrel or whatever. What do we need to be careful of?
SK: I’m looking up over your head (which is beautiful, by the way) at the sky here in Cleveland, Ohio. The way I’m going to answer this is this: You are dealing with a component that, if we take guns out of it and, say, use medical devices. We’ll use medical devices in lieu of saying guns so people can appreciate where I’m going with this. You have bad players out there — people who are trying to circumvent the system. With medical devices, you need to have approvals — you need to have FDA. It’s very similar in the gun world- you need approvals, you need make sure that they’re making components that comply with, whether it’s the OEMs’ specification or ATF specification being sterilization (making sure things are marked appropriately). Internally, here, we have secure quarantined areas where we do all of this work. Your personnel — I have to be approved to be able to process these parts. My background has to be checked.
This company, my company, approves those people who can touch these components. Internally, we have secure, bonded areas. Parts are bonded in and they are bonded out. Use the terminology you like, but basically, you’re securing from our floor to an area because it is that important. If we’re dealing with the aerospace world or nuclear world, you are going to make sure your systems and processes and procedures are all locked down.
DG: So that’s a procedural, operational uniqueness, let’s say, to handing guns. How about technically? Like in the aerospace industry, you’ve got NADCAP, in automotive you’ve got, you know, in aerospace still you’ve got AMS for pyrometry, CQI-9 and things of that sort. The medical industry, which you mentioned, Steve, has MedAccred and things of that sort. Any such beast in the firearms? I haven’t heard that there is.
SK: Basically, we have overlapped between our guns and gun industry as a whole with the DOD work that we do, so we go back and forth. What you mentioned here, most of those requirements and procedures are already in place. It makes it easier if you’re doing CQI-9 relevant work, you’re not going to start and stop. So, the equipment is already covered in those areas. The procedures — you build them so that you’re not building fourteen different procedural systems. It’s difficult to control.
DG: You’ve already kind of answered this but let me just ask it straightforward just in case there’s something else, and if there’s nothing else, that’s fine. For the people in your company and for you guys, generally speaking, is there any specific training or knowledge or experience that you have to have to be heat treating gun components?
SK: Yes. And those are: one, experience is an incredible teacher and often times. For Kowalski Heat Treat (I can’t speak for competitors, I’ll speak for us), normally, if a product hits our floor, hits our dock, hits my inbox, historically, somebody has had a problem with processing that component — whether it’s distortion, whether it’s metallurgically the properties they’re achieving, whether it’s actually out in the field — you’re my favorite, you’re my test. You’re going to call and say, “Hey, Steve, I got this thing and I’m not happy with its performance and I need to improve its performance. What can we do?” Then you start the entire investigatory process of what have you done, what have you achieved, did you actually test or are you just feeling that what you’re telling me is you’d like to have something better but you don’t know what? So, we have a design team here that will work very closely with your folks to help design a better process, a more robust process. If we’re talking to the general industry, as we are right now, I think we can all agree that the quality and consistency of the materials that we are receiving in today are dramatically different than they were five years ago, eight years ago, ten years ago.
SK: Worse. Worse being not as consistent as they were. Yes, we all have that grade A and four of us will process grade A today and we will get result B. Next week you’re going to get B-, B+, possibly an A, maybe a C.
We’re joking internally, but the first thing most heat treaters do — because, quite frankly, we’re paranoid; the entire world is out to get us and it’s always the heat treaters fault. . . . It’s always our fault. So, the first thing we do when enter into a relationship is we say, “Doug, hi, I’m Steve. I’m sorry.”
DG: Get that out of the way, start out that way.
SK: Then we move forward from there. But that has been a serious challenge on the consistency of the materials coming to us.
DG: So, you guys test all incoming material?
SK: Yes. And don’t use the word “all.” But yes, we have an inspection and we work closely with customers. As you get your material in, send it to us. Before you start making a product, send us something that we will process and validate for you so that you know that what you’ve got will respond the way you thought it’s supposed to respond. Then, we can move forward being more efficient with that.
DG: You’ve hit on this before, too, but I just wanted to see if there are any other comments that you want to make on this and that is the type of equipment that is necessary for doing the heat treating of these gun components. I know you mentioned salt, so you’re in a salt bath, right?
SK: Salt neutral hardening, salt hardening, and then marquenching or austempering, depending on the component. It’s critical. There are a significant number of parts that respond extremely well to rack austemper, rack marquenching. Extremely well. And we’d probably say that our team here, they’re spectacular. I get to talk about it which is really pretty cool. Hey, I’ve got these great people with me that do this great work, and they do! Their job is to make me look good. As you know, your support staff, yes, don’t even say it, I know it’s a fulltime job, it’s never done . . . . ~chuckle~
DG: You took the words out of my mouth! ~chuckle~
SK: So, salt is critical in this industry. Vacuum processing.
DG: Why did you go vacuum, by the way?
SK: With stainlesses and the various materials that we’re currently using, having high pressure quench vacuums/high pressure quench, it allows for a significant amount of flexibility. We can finetune a recipe, or cycle, to achieve properties that the customer needs where it makes it repeatable.
DG: And you’ve got, what, how high pressure? What bar are we? Ten bar quench?
SK: Yes.
DG: So, you’ve got salt to salt, you’ve got high pressure gas quenching coming off of a vacuum heat treat. Anything else?
SK: And then we do plasma nitriding. I will say that we have the technology we have utilized to optimize processing. Is ours the best for everything? Absolutely not. No question about it. And when it’s not, we’re going to say, “Hey, Billy, I need you to call Doug and I need you to tell Doug that Steve said to call him and ask the following three questions. Doug’s got the answer for you.” And your equipment for his application is better than mine; it works best. So, I think anyone in the heat treat world can recall the scars on our backs from the days that we thought we could give you exactly what you need [indiscernable]. It’s not the best answer.
DG: Do you do much heat treating of gun components in straight atmosphere or air furnaces?
SK: We don’t have them.
DG: You don’t have them at all. And do you do induction?
SK: No, not yet. No oil quenching here whatsoever. We’re here in Cleveland in a residential area and we are zero quantity generator of hazardous waste.
DG: Nice. I’m sure your neighbors appreciate that.
SK: Oh, they absolutely do.
DG: If they know.
SK: Oh, they do.
We know what we’re really good at and that’s our work.
DG: A couple more questions on this. We talked about the uniqueness of heat treating gun components because of the traceability and the serialization and all that stuff. Is there anything else technically unique about the heat treatment of any of these gun parts that kind of make them interesting or more of a challenge?
SK: Yes. Have you met my wife?
DG: I don’t believe that I have.
SK: There is a comment that she tells me all the time: Everything that goes through my mind doesn’t have to come out my mouth. She’s incredibly wise and way smarter than I am!
In the heat treating world of gun components, one of the areas that would be critical is it is not a bulk processing world. It’s not about running more and more and more parts at one time. You will not get optimum results. It’s a sensitive process. We’re heat treaters and we’re very sensitive with what we do.
But distortion is critical. The way the parts have been designed, you cannot effectively, in my humble opinion, put them into a 2436 or 3648 basket and max load it — you will not get optimal results. It’s not going to happen. So, there is a tremendous amount of racking.
"In the heat treating world of gun components, one of the areas that would be critical is it is not a bulk processing world. It’s not about running more and more and more parts at one time. You will not get optimum results. It’s a sensitive process. We’re heat treaters and we’re very sensitive with what we do." - Steve Kowalski, Kowalski Heat Treating
DG: That, actually, was my question: Not that you would know this number right off the top of your head or anything, but the percentage of time spend racking, I assume, is higher.
SK: It’s 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1.
And, for those of your listeners who understand salt processing, we can rack for two days and process for an hour/two hours.
DG: Let’s say it’s just manually intensive, then.
SK: We have an incredible team of individuals here who do things that, if you watch, you’re just like…. In some cases, it’s truly awe-inspiring because they create for us success. They help us learn new ways of processing. It’s not, hey, you’re going to do it the way Steve says. Critical process control, but they provide us the answers on making things better.
DG: I’ve got two other quickie questions for you. We may have already covered them. One was just if there is any common mistakes? I know you guys don’t make mistakes, but . . . .
SK: Heat treaters do not make mistakes!
Source: Kowalski Heat Treating
DG: That’s correct. But is there any common mistakes with the heat treatment of gun components? Because, if you guys really are, as you say, the people that are taking care of the PIA jobs, it’s usually coming from people who have made a mistake.
SK: Yes. It’s when to say no. You and I have talked and we’ve talked to our peers — they’re brilliant people. We tend to all lament, usually, the same thing. Something comes in and it’s not quite right or correct and we don’t say, “Stop. Doug, you did not make this correctly. We can’t do what you want us to do because of you’ve provided to us.” Or the next step would be folks who assume.
But the rest of it is process control. Once you develop, you rock the process and when you do that, the only real big issue we’ve run into anymore is consistency of material coming in.
DG: I’ve heard, and I want to be careful, and we may have to edit this out, but you mentioned incoming material specs being an issue, the consistency of the material coming in. I have heard that a lot of times the inconsistency in that material is coming in from overseas, let’s just put it that way, and not necessarily Europe.
SK:Far overseas.
DG:Far overseas. Let’s just say far to the East overseas. I guess my question is: Is that still the source of it or are you seeing less issues with that?
SK: Because of what we’ve run and because of the customers that we’ve worked with, historically, that hasn’t been a big problem — not in this market. Although there is high volume, it’s not a tremendous amount of weight. It’s more of the chemistries, the supply chain. We’re hearing it. Part of it is frustrating stop saying supply chain when your guy just didn’t show up and do his job. But, as heat treaters, we will say, we have to be very diligent in contract review. There is mentoring of our younger employees, customers mentoring their younger employees who don’t have the knowledgebase, yet, to understand what they’re actually working with. It’s not a disparaging comment — you learn from making mistakes. You absolutely learn, and that’s experience. So, we’ve seen a talent drain in the last few years. And that is exacerbating the problem.
DG: Right now, you’re doing heat treatment of gun components. Obviously, I’m not going to ask you company names because that wouldn’t be the right thing to do, although it would be fun to do, but it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. But are you pulling in business, let’s say, from pretty much nationwide?
SK: Yes. We don’t get a significant business from overseas. This is due to transportation challenges. Plus, it’s part of our continuous supply chain worth being manufactured, let’s just say, in England, and then ship it to the states to do X, Y and Z, and it ends up being assembled in some state in this country. But as far as countrywide, continent-wide: yes, we’re all over the country.
DG: Do you think the normal guy, like myself (I’m going to classify myself as a normal guy, in this case), would be surprised at the number of gun component manufacturers in this country?
SK: Yes.
DG: Because when I think of gun manufacturers, I’m thinking there are maybe a half dozen to a dozen at most.
SK: Try a different number.
DG: Try a different number — maybe add or multiply that. See, I don’t know!
SK: We’ve been very fortunate that we’ve attended and been at the SHOT show; it’s been held in Las Vegas for the last number of years. You get a better perspective attending that. Now, you have to be approved to attend it, and those who have understand where I’m going with this. There are a number of manufacturers in this country. And we’re not talking about folks who . . . . I’m a family business — we are a family business; we have 45–48 people. We are a small business. I’m talking about companies with hundreds of employees that you’ve never heard of that make components and guns and support that industry.
It’s a significant industry and, by and large, without getting into the politics of this, some of the nicest people we have ever met — truly just generous. I’m talking about even purchasing agents! (For those of you who have dealt with purchasing agents in industries that we will not discuss that have four wheels and an engine!) They’re basically decent people. It’s fascinating.
DG: It kind of rocks your world when a purchasing agent is a real person. It’s like, Oh really, they have heart.
Well, listen Steve, congratulations. It sounds like you guys are doing great work there. I know that you guys do more than guns. Do you care to share, just briefly, what else you do?
Rolls, slitter blades racked, and SS valve seats for vacuum processing Source: Kowalski Heat Treating
SK: Those that know the company, when we say PIA stuff: if it’s a problem, it’s coming to us. Distortion sensitive. We have a significant market in power transmission, clutch plates, brake discs, big round flat things, visually, from three inch in diameter to 50 inches in diameter — that’s our world. You name the market: power transmission, auto . . . . We don’t do much in the aerospace industry; it’s just not something that my people and I want to deal with. Other than that area, medical, nuclear, Department of Defense. We do a significant amount of research and development where folks like you say, “Hey! I have an idea! Can you help us?” and we assist them on the metallurgical heat treat side on building processes. Outdoor power equipment. Basically, if you have a problem, I’ve got 10 guys for you who are incredible at what they do. We just like having problems. I’m telling you how we work: If I can solve your problem, if our team can solve your problem, are you going anywhere else?
DG: Exactly right. Nope, not going to do it.
SK: And we like to try and have fun doing it.
DG: Yes, that’s right. Get the work done and enjoy it if you can.
Steve, listen, I really appreciate you being here, I appreciate you talking to us a little bit about guns and ammo, I guess mostly gun parts. And, again, congratulations, it sounds like you guys are doing well. We appreciate your insights.
SK: It’s a pleasure, an absolute pleasure. Thanks, Doug.
About the Speaker:
In a special 
We would also like to highlight our footprint on the U.S. market because we have three companies. We have RETECH, SECO/VACUUM Technologies, and SECO/WARWICK Corporation. We like to see the companies working together, and we see a big interest from U.S. customers to get equipment made in America. RETECH produces vacuumatological equipment (vacuum melting equipment) in the United States. We would also like to build vacuum furnaces in the U.S. SECO/WARWICK Corporation has been in business for many years, and we would like to continue with production of atmospheric furnaces and aluminum process furnaces. We are also thinking about aluminum brazing equipment we build in U.S.
Next is automation. We need to automatically tailor the data to present profit margin. We need to automatically tailor the data to track reworks. That’s the next step because that gets us to actionable data information.
But before we do, I’ve put on the screen a brief definition of austempering. It’s certainly a heat treat process. It’s used in medium to high carbon, both plain and alloy steels, as well as cast irons (an example being ductile iron) and we’re trying to produce a microstructure called bainite which is probably a foreign word to most of you and I’ll endeavor to explain it in a moment.
DH: Well, think of it this way, Doug: When we have a steel, its microstructure, if it isn’t hardened, its microstructure is typically body-centered cubic, which means the atoms are all lined up in a certain structure. Now, what we do when we heat it up is -- when it gets above the transformation temperature (that dotted line, for simplicity, in this example) the atoms will realign themselves from body-centered cubic to face-centered cubic and a face-centered cubic structure is called austenite. Then, when we quench it, until we move into the nose of the curve or past those red lines, we still maintain an austenitic crystal structure as we’re cooling. The ferrite, the pearlite and things occur when we cross over into those reddish lines in that area there.
