CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Why and How Do We Heat Treat Gears? Part Two

/ AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT TECHNICAL CONTENT, CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, HARDENING TECHNICAL CONTENT, INDUCTION HEATING TECHNICAL CONTENT, OP-ED, QUENCHING TECHNICAL CONTENT, VACUUM FURNACES TECHNICAL CONTENT

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor® has returned to bring sage advice to Heat Treat Today readers and to answer your questions about heat treating, brazing, sintering, and other types of thermal treatments as well as questions on metallurgy, equipment, and process-related issues. In this installment, Dan Herring continues his discussion on gear heat treatment, exploring vacuum and induction hardening methods for gears — from low-pressure carburizing for advanced materials to single shot and tooth-by-tooth induction techniques — and how each can be matched to the specific demands of any gear application.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s March 2026 Annual Aerospace Heat Treating print edition.

In Part One of this discussion (Air & Atmospheres Heat Treating, February 2026), we discussed various gear types, materials, and how they can be atmosphere heat treated. This month, we are focusing on vacuum and induction heat treating methods. Let’s learn more.

Vacuum Heat Treatment Processing Methods

Table A. Advanced Materials Processed by LPC

Vacuum processing can be used for most of the atmosphere treatments mentioned in Part One including carburizing (Figure 1). Low pressure carburizing (LPC) is a proven technology and the choice for many advanced applications in aerospace, automotive, off-highway, and motorsports markets, as well as the development of carburizing cycles for high-performance materials (Table A).

Figure 1. Typical commercial heat treat load of gears for vacuum carburizing (Otto and Herring 2007) | Image Credit: Photo courtesy of Midwest Thermal-Vac
Figure 2. Pyrowear 675 – LPC – anneal – double normalize – harden – anneal – deep freeze – double temper | Image Credit: The HERRING GROUP, Inc.

The range of effective case depths for most of these grades can range up to 2.0–3.0 mm (0.080–0.120 inches) without significant sacrifice of microstructure (Figure 2). Furnace variables, such as temperature uniformity (± 3°C or ± 5°F), control of cycle parameters (boost/diffuse times, gas flow rate, pressure, hydrocarbon type) and surface carbon optimize the microstructure, producing case uniformities of ± 0.05 mm (± 0.002 inches). Where permitted, the range of carburizing temperatures now includes the use of high temperature (> 980°C, or 1800°F) techniques.

All these advanced materials required extensive development testing to produce custom designed recipes to optimize cycle parameters. Also, quenching methods (Otto and Herring 2002) have improved, allowing us to achieve desired core properties with quenching parameter selection (high-pressure gas or oil) for distortion-sensitive and distortion-prone part geometries (Otto and Herring 2005, 2008).

Induction Hardening Methods

Various methods of hardening via applied energy are used in manufacturing gears, including flame hardening, laser surface hardening, and induction hardening.

Of the various types of applied energy processing, induction hardening is the most common. Induction heating is a process that uses alternating electrical current that induces a magnetic field, causing the surface of the gear teeth to heat. The area is then quenched resulting in an increase in hardness within the heated area. This process is typically accomplished in a relatively short time. The final desired gear performance characteristics are determined not only by the hardness profile and stresses but also by the steel composition and prior microstructure. External spur and helical gears, bevel and worm gears, racks, and sprockets are commonly induction hardened. Typical gear steels include AISI/SAE grades 1050, 1060, 1144, 4140, 4150, 4350, 5150, and 8650.

Figure 3. Patterns produced by induction hardening (Rudnev 2000)

The hardness pattern produced by induction heating (Figure 3) is a function of the type and shape of inductor used, as well as the heating method. Quenching or rapidly cooling the workpiece can be accomplished by spray or submerged quench. The media typically used for the quench is a water-based polymer. The severity of this quenchant can be controlled by the polymer’s concentration. Cooling rates are usually somewhere in between what would be obtained from pure water and oil. In some unusual situations compressed air or nitrogen is used to quench the part.

The most common methods for hardening gears and sprockets are by single shot (Figure 4) or the tooth-by-tooth method (Figure 5). Single shot often requires large kW power supplies but results in short heat/quench times and higher production rates. This technique uses a circumferential copper inductor, which will harden the teeth from the tips downward.

Figure 4. Typical single shot induction hardening operation | Image Credit: Photo courtesy of Ajax-Tocco-Magnethermic
Figure 5. Tooth-by-tooth induction hardening of a helical gear | Image Credit: Photo courtesy of Ajax-Tocco-Magnethermic

The larger and heavier loaded gears (where pitting, spalling, tooth fatigue, and endurance are issues) need a hardness pattern that is more profiled like those produced by carburizing, which can be obtained by tooth-by-tooth hardening. This method is limited to gear tooth sizes with modulus 4.23–5.08 (6 or 5 DP) using frequencies from 2 to 10 kHz and about 2.54 (10 DP) using a range of 25 to 50 kHz.

The lower the frequency, the deeper the case depth. Tooth-by-tooth hardening is a slow process and usually reserved for gears and sprockets that are too large to single shot due to power constraints. The process involves heating the root area and side flanks simultaneously, while cooling each side of the adjacent tooth to prevent temper-back on the backside of each tooth. The induction system moves the coil at a pre-programmed rate along the length of the gear. The coil progressively heats the entire length of the gear segment while a quench follower immediately cools the previously heated area. The distance from the coil to the tooth is known as coupling or air gap. Any changes in this distance can yield variation in case depth, hardness, and tooth distortion. The gear is indexed after each tooth has been hardened, often skipping a tooth. This requires at least two full revolutions in the process to complete the hardening of all teeth. Straight, spur, and helical gears up to 5.5 m (210 inches) weighing 6,800 kg (15,000 lb) have been processed with this method. The entire process yields a repeatable soft tip of the tooth with hard root and flank. In other applications, the tip and both flanks can be hardened simultaneously and yield a soft root.

In Summary

Today’s design engineer has the good fortune of being able to choose from a number of heat treatment technologies for any given type of gear material and design. When selecting a gear hardening method, it is essential to specify not only the desired mechanical and metallurgical properties, but the critical dimensions that must be held and even the desired stress state of the gears themselves. The secret to success is understanding the advantages and limitations of each technology and taking these into consideration when determining the overall cost of gear manufacturing.

References

Herring, Daniel H. 2004a. “Gear Heat Treatment: The Influence of Materials and Geometry.” Gear Technology, March/April.

Herring, Daniel H. 2004b. “Reducing Distortion in Heat-Treated Gears.” Gear Solutions, June.

Herring, Daniel H. 2007a. “Oil Quenching Technologies for Gears.” With Steven D. Balme. Gear Solutions, July.

Herring, Daniel H. 2007b. “Heat Treating Heavy Duty Gears.” With Gerald D. Lindell. Gear Solutions, October.

Herring, Daniel H. 2012–2016. Vacuum Heat Treatment. Vols. 1–2. BNP Media Group.

Herring, Daniel H. 2014–2015. Atmosphere Heat Treatment. Vols. 1–2. BNP Media Group.

Herring, Daniel H., Gerald D. Lindell, D. J. Breuer, and B. Matlock. 2001. “Atmosphere vs. Vacuum Carburizing.” Heat Treating Progress, November.

Herring, Daniel H., Gerald D. Lindell, D. J. Breuer, and B. Matlock. 2002. “An Evaluation of Atmosphere and Vacuum Carburizing Methods for the Heat Treatment of Gears.” In Off-Highway Conference Proceedings. SAE International.

Otto, Frederick J., and Daniel H. Herring. 2002a. “Gear Heat Treatment: Today and Tomorrow, Part 1.” Heat Treating Progress, June.

Otto, Frederick J., and Daniel H. Herring. 2002b. “Gear Heat Treatment: Today and Tomorrow, Part 2.” Heat Treating Progress, July/August.

Otto, Frederick J., and Daniel H. Herring. 2005. “Vacuum Carburizing of Aerospace and Automotive Materials.” Heat Treating Progress, January/February.

Otto, Frederick J., and Daniel H. Herring. 2007. “Advancements in Precision Carburizing of Aerospace and Motorsports Materials.” Heat Treating Progress, May/June.

Otto, Frederick J., and Daniel H. Herring. 2008. “Improvements in Dimensional Control of Heat Treated Gears.” Gear Solutions, June.

Rudnev, V. 2000. “Gear Heat Treating by Induction.” Gear Technology, March/April.

About the Author

Dan Herring
“The Heat Treat Doctor”
The HERRING GROUP, Inc.

Dan Herring has been in the industry for over 50 years and has gained vast experience in fields that include materials science, engineering, metallurgy, new product research, and many other areas. He is the author of six books and over 700 technical articles.

For more information: Contact Dan at dherring@heat-treat-doctor.com.

For more information about Dan’s books: see his page at the Heat Treat Store.

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Why and How Do We Heat Treat Gears? Part Two Read More »

Perspectivas de Sostenibilidad: Calculadors de Cuantificación de Emisiones de Carbono

/ CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH

El reporte de emisiones de carbono ya no es opcional para los especialistas en tratamiento térmico — se está convirtiendo en una necesidad competitiva y regulatoria. En esta entrega de Perspectivas de Sostenibilidad, Heat Treat Today examina la investigación del Profesor Fu Zhao y la candidata a Doctorado Lakshmi Srinivasan del Heat Treating Consortium de Purdue University, detallando una nueva calculadora de carbono basada en Python, desarrollada específicamente para operaciones de tratamiento térmico, cómo modela las emisiones del Alcance 1, 2 y 3 a partir de la geometría del horno y los parámetros del proceso, y cómo los especialistas en tratamiento térmico con operaciones internas pueden utilizarla para cumplir con las crecientes exigencias de transparencia con un mínimo de intervención manual.

Este artículo informativo se publicó por primera vez en Heat Treat Today’s February 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.

Si tiene comentarios o preguntas sobre este artículo, háganoslo saber en: editor@heattreattoday.com.

To read this article in English, click here.

El reporte de emisiones se ha convertido en un paso esencial. Navegar los requisitos en un entorno político cambiante solo añade complejidad al desafío. ¿Cómo pueden los especialistas en Tratamiento Térmico mantenerse en el cumplimiento normativo? Una herramienta diseñada a través de Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium (PHTC, por sus siglas en inglés) podría ser la respuesta.

El consorcio ha financiado investigaciones en proyectos de tratamiento térmico que abarcan desde la eficacia de nuevos medios de temple hasta la mejora de dureza de los materiales. Hace aproximadamente dos años, las empresas miembros del PHTC solicitaron una investigación para el desarrollo de una herramienta que hiciera posible la estimación de carbono.

Lakshmi Srinivasan, Candidata a Doctorado en School
of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University
Professor Fu Zhao, Miembro del Profesorado de School
of Mechanical Engineering and the School of
Sustainability Engineering and Environmental
Engineering at Purdue University

El Profesor Fu Zhao, miembro del profesorado de School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue decidió asumir esta solicitud de investigación. Incorporando a la candidata a Doctorado Lakshmi Srinivasan, una destacada investigadora en el modelado de sistemas energéticos y evaluación del ciclo de vida en School of Mechanical Engineering y la School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental, para la investigación y desarrollo de esta herramienta. “Este proyecto tiene como objetivo modelar los requerimientos energéticos del horno en función de su geometría y los parámetros de entrada de tratamiento térmico”, explicó Srinivasan. “A partir de estos flujos energéticos modelados y de los insumos asociados a la construcción del horno, calculamos las emisiones de carbono del Alcance 1, Alcance 2 y Alcance 3 asociados a la operación del horno”.

  • Alcance 1: Emisiones directas de carbono derivadas del consumo de energía dentro de la planta (por ejemplo, combustión de gas natural u otros combustibles)
  • Alcance 2: Emisiones indirectas provenientes de electricidad, vapor, calor o enfriamiento adquiridos
  • Alcance 3: Todas las demás emisiones indirectas a lo largo de la cadena de suministro (por ejemplo, proveedores, transporte, uso del producto)

La herramienta es una aplicación de escritorio basada en Python, diseñada pensando en la escalabilidad. Dado que el desarrollo está orientado al proceso de carburizado tanto por razones de mercado como regulatorias, se encuentra altamente enfocada en las necesidades de la industria. Adicionalmente, Zhao y Srinivasan diseñaron la herramienta para que los usuarios puedan integrar características adicionales y conjuntos de datos que se alineen con nuevos requerimientos o tecnologías emergentes. También subrayaron que la arquitectura de la herramienta está pensada para su crecimiento como una aplicación basada en la web.

Imagen de la herramienta digital de seguimiento de carburizado | Image Credit: Srinivasan and Zhao

La facilidad de uso es un aspecto esencial. Zhao y Srinivasan han refinado la herramienta para limitar la cantidad de entradas únicas requeridas por el usuario para generar un resultado preciso. El equipo explicó que este aspecto fue particularmente desafiante, ya que se examinaron alternativas para simplificar la interfaz sin simplificar en exceso la “física subyacente”. Describieron como funcionará la versión final de la herramienta, explicando que una vez que se introduzcan los parámetros clave (tipo de horno, temperaturas de proceso, tiempo, pieza) la herramienta automáticamente calculará la energía usada y las emisiones con una intervención manual mínima.

Los miembros del PHTC, de los cuales muchos representan compañías manufactureras que cuentan con tratamiento térmico interno, han mostrado interés, proporcionando retroalimentación y recursos para dar forma al desarrollo de la herramienta. Un entusiasmo adicional se observó durante el IHEA’s annual SUMMIT en agosto de 2025, donde Srinivasan presentó el desarrollo de la herramienta. Cuando se les preguntó qué interrogantes han guiado su investigación, Zhao y Srinivasan compartieron lo siguiente:

  1. Versatilidad y funcionalidad: ¿Qué tan flexible es la herramienta para adaptarse a diferentes geometrías de horno, geometrías de piezas, tipos de hornos y procesos de tratamiento térmico?
  2. Asignación basada en piezas: ¿Cómo asigna la herramienta las emisiones de manera precisa a piezas individuales o lotes de una carga dentro del horno?
  3. Emisiones específicas por ubicación: ¿Cómo considera las variaciones regionales en las emisiones del Alcance 2 y Alcance 3, tales como las diferencias en la generación de electricidad o los impactos de la cadena de suministro?

Otro desafío ha sido garantizar la calibración y verificación cuidadosa de la herramienta. Para ello el equipo ha utilizado datos reales y precisos de consumo de gas natural y electricidad provenientes de operaciones de tratamiento térmico, cortesía de los miembros del PHTC, con el fin de verificar el consumo energético predicho por el modelo a temperaturas de operación definidas del horno.

Eventualmente alguna versión de esta herramienta estará disponible para usuarios fuera del consorcio. Sin embargo, actualmente, los miembros del PHTC se encuentran a la vanguardia tanto del desarrollo como del uso. Los investigadores enfatizaron este punto: “Esta herramienta es particularmente oportuna y esencial para la industria, ya que las empresas enfrentan una creciente expectativa de proporcionar reportes de emisiones transparentes y precisos”.

Si bien el mundo de las normas y regulaciones puede sentirse como un campo minado, las discusiones comparativas sobre esta herramienta revelan aplicaciones prometedoras a corto plazo para los especialistas en tratamiento térmico con operaciones internas.

Perspectivas de Sostenibilidad: Calculadors de Cuantificación de Emisiones de Carbono Read More »

Sustainability Insights: Quantifying Carbon Calculator

/ CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH

Carbon emissions reporting is no longer optional for heat treaters — it’s becoming a competitive and regulatory necessity. In this Sustainability Insights installment, Heat Treat Today examines research from Professor Fu Zhao and PhD candidate Lakshmi Srinivasan of Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium, detailing a new python-based carbon calculator built specifically for heat treat operations, how it models Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions from furnace geometry and process parameters, and how in-house heat treaters can use it to meet growing transparency demands with minimal manual effort.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s February 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.

If you have any comments or queries, on this article, let us know at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Para leer el artículo en español, haga clic aquí.

Emissions reporting has become an essential step. Navigating the requirements in an influx political environment only adds to the challenge. How can heat treaters remain in compliance? A tool designed through Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium (PHTC) may be the answer.

The consortium has funded research across heat treat projects ranging from the efficacy of novel quenchants to improving materials hardness. Roughly two years ago, the PHTC member companies requested research to develop a tool that would make carbon estimation possible.

Lakshmi Srinivasan, PhD Candidate in the School
of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University
Professor Fu Zhao, Faculty Member at the School
of Mechanical Engineering and the School of
Sustainability Engineering and Environmental
Engineering at Purdue University

Professor Fu Zhao, faculty member at the School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue, decided to take on this research request. He brought on PhD candidate Lakshmi Srinivasan, an astute researcher of energy systems modeling and life cycle assessment in the School of Mechanical Engineering, to research and develop the tool. “This project aims to model furnace energy requirements based on furnace geometry and heat treating input parameters,” Srinivasan explained. “From these modeling energy flows and furnace build inputs, we calculate Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 carbon emission associated with operating the furnace.”

  • Scope 1: Direct carbon emissions from energy consumption within the plan (e.g. combustion of natural gas or other fuels)
  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling
  • Scope 3: All other indirect emissions across the supply chain (e.g., suppliers, transportation, product use)

The tool is a python-based desktop application with scalability in mind. Since development targets the carburizing process for both market and regulatory reasons, it is highly focused on industry needs. Additionally, Zhao and Srinivasan built the tool for users to integrate additional features and data sets to align with new requirements or emerging technologies. They also underscored that the tool’s architecture is designed for growth as a web-based application.

Image of the digital carburization tracking tool | Image Credit: Srinivasan and Zhao

Ease of use is central. Zhao and Srinivasan have refined the tool to limit how much unique user input is required to generate an accurate output. The team explained this as particularly challenging, having examined alternatives to simplify the interface without oversimplify the “underlying physics.” They described how the final form of the tool will work, saying that once key parameters are entered (furnace type, processing temperatures, time, part geometry), the tool will automatically calculate energy usage and emissions with minimal manual intervention.

PHTC members, many of whom represent manufacturers with in-house heat treating, have shown great interest, providing feedback and resources to shape the development of the tool. Additional enthusiasm was found at IHEA’s annual SUMMIT in August 2025, where Srinivasan presented the tool’s development. When asked what inquiries have directed their research, Zhao and Srinivasan shared the following:

  1. Versatility and functionality: How flexible is the tool in accommodating different furnace geometries, part geometries, furnace types, and heat treatment processes?
  2. Part-based allocation: How does the tool allocate emissions accurately to individual parts or batches within a furnace load?
  3. Location-specific emissions: How does it account for location-based variations in scope 2 and scope 3 emissions, such as differences in electricity generation or supply chain impacts?

Another challenge has been ensuring careful tool calibration and verification. To do so, the team has taken accurate, real-world natural gas and electricity consumption from heat treat operations, courtesy of PHTC members, to verify the model’s predicted energy consumption at defined furnace operating temperatures.

Eventually, some form of this tool will be made available to those outside the consortium. Currently, however, PHTC members are at the forefront of development and usage. The researchers underlined this, commenting, “This tool is particularly timely and essential for industry, as companies are increasingly expected to provide transparent and accurate emissions reporting.”

While the world of standards and regulations can feel like a minefield, benchmarked discussions of this tool reveal promising applications for in-house heat treaters in the near future.

Sustainability Insights: Quantifying Carbon Calculator Read More »

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Why and How Do We Heat Treat Gears? Part One

/ ATMOSPHERE AIR FURNACES TECHNICAL CONTENT, CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, HARDENING TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH, NITRIDING TECHNICAL CONTENT, NITROCARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, OP-ED

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor® has returned to bring sage advice to Heat Treat Today readers, answer questions about heat treating, brazing, sintering, and other types of thermal treatments, as well as metallurgy, equipment, and process-related issues. In this installment, Dan Herring examines the essential role of heat treatment in gear performance: exploring the key material and design considerations for power transmission gears, the difference between through hardening and case hardening, and the atmosphere heat treatment processes — from carburizing and carbonitriding to nitriding and nitrocarburizing — that determine how well a gear handles load, wear, and fatigue in heavy-duty applications.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s February 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.

Have questions or feedback? We’d love to hear from you — reach out to our editorial team at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Gears play an essential role in the performance of many products that we rely on in our everyday lives. When we think about gears, we generally separate them into two categories: motion-carrying and power transmission. Motion-carrying gears are generally nonferrous alloys or plastics, while load bearing power transmission gears (Figure 1) are usually manufactured from ferrous alloys and are intended for heavy-duty service applications.

Figure 1. Typical off-highway truck power transmission gears | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®

Gear Materials & Engineering

Power transmission gears involve a wide variety of steels and cast irons. In all gears, the choice of material must be made only after careful consideration of the performance demanded by the application end-use and total manufactured cost, taking into consideration such issues as pre- and post-machining economics.

Key design considerations require an analysis of the type of applied load, whether gradual or instantaneous, and the desired mechanical properties, such as bending fatigue strength or wear resistance — all of which will define core strength and heat treating requirements.

Figure 2. Stress profile in a heavy-duty transmission gear | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®

It is important for the designer to understand that each area in the gear tooth profile sees different service demands (Figure 2). Consideration must be given to the forces that will act on the gear teeth with tooth bending and contact stress, resistance to scoring and wear, and fatigue issues being paramount. For example, in the root area, good surface hardness and high residual compressive stress are desired to improve endurance or bending fatigue life. At the pitch diameter, a combination of high hardness and adequate subsurface strength are necessary to handle contract stress and wear and to prevent spalling.

Some of the factors that influence fatigue strength are:

  • Hardness distribution, a function of:
    • Case hardness
    • Case depth
    • Core hardness
  • Microstructure, a function of:
    • Retained austenite percentage
    • Grain size
    • Carbide size, type, and distribution
    • Non-martensitic phases
  • Defect control, a function of:
    • Residual compressive stress
    • Surface finish and geometry
    • Intergranular toughness

In the total manufacturing scheme, a synergistic relationship must exist between the material selection process, engineering design, and manufacturing (including heat treatment). A balance of the priorities in each discipline must be reached to achieve the optimization necessary for the ultimate performance of the gear design. This is often not an easy task.

Various atmosphere heat treatment methods are used for most types of gears including pre-hardening steps (e.g., annealing, normalizing, stress relief) and hardening processes (e.g., neutral hardening and case hardening).

Hardening

Neutral (aka through hardening) refers to heat treatment methods that do not produce a case. Examples of commonly through-hardened gear steels are AISI/SAE grades 1045, 4130, 4140, 4145, 4340, and 8640. It is important to note that hardness uniformity should not be assumed throughout the gear tooth. Since the outside of a gear is cooled faster than the inside, there will be a hardness gradient developed. The final hardness is dependent on the amount of carbon in the steel. The depth of hardness depends on the hardenability of the steel.

Through hardening can be performed either before or after the gear teeth are cut. When gear teeth will be cut after the part has been hardened, machinability becomes an important factor based on final hardness. The hardness is achieved by heating the material into the austenitic range, typically 815°C–875°C (1500°F–1600°F), followed by quenching and tempering.

Case Hardening

By contrast, case hardening is used to produce a hard, wear resistant case (surface layer) on top of a ductile, shock resistant interior (core). The idea behind case hardening is to keep the core of the gear tooth at a level under 40 HRC to avoid tooth breakage while hardening the outer surface to increase pitting resistance.

Carburizing

Figure 3. Atmosphere carburizing of large gears | Image Credit: Photograph courtesy of Aichelin Group

Atmosphere carburizing is the most common of the case hardening methods in use today and can handle a diverse range of part sizes and load configurations (Figure 3). In general, a properly carburized gear will be able to handle somewhere between 30–50% more load than a through-hardened gear. Examples of commonly carburized gear steels include AISI/SAE grades 1018, 4320, 5120, 8620, and 9310, as well as international grades, such as 20MnCr5, 17CrNiMo6, 18CrNiMo7-6, and 20MoCr4.

Atmosphere carburizing is typically performed in the temperature range of 870°C–955°C (1600°F–1750°F) although temperatures up to 1010°C (1800°F) are used for deep case work. Carburizing case depths can vary over a broad range, typically 0.13–8.25 mm (0.005–0.325 inches).

Carbonitriding

Carbonitriding is a modification of the carburizing process, not a form of nitriding. This modification consists of introducing ammonia into the carburizing atmosphere to add nitrogen to the carburized case as it is being produced. Examples of gear steels that are commonly carbonitrided include AISI/SAE 1018, 1117, and 12L14.

Carbonitriding is done at a lower temperature than carburizing, typically between 790°C–900°C (1450°F–1650°F), and for a shorter time. Combine this with the fact that nitrogen inhibits the diffusion of carbon, and what generally results is a shallower case than is typical for carburized parts. A carbonitrided case is usually between 0.075–0.75 mm (0.003–0.030 inches) deep.

Nitriding

Nitriding is another surface treatment process that has as its objective increasing surface hardness. One of the appeals of this process is that rapid quenching is not required, hence dimensional changes are kept to a minimum. It is not suitable for all gear applications; one of its limitations is that the extremely high surface hardness case produced has a more brittle nature than say that produced by the carburizing process. Despite this fact, in a number of applications, nitriding has proved to be a viable alternative. Examples of commonly nitrided gear steels include AISI/SAE 4140, 4150, 4340, and Nitralloy® 135M.

Nitriding is typically done in the range of 495°C–565°C (925°F–1050°F). Case depth and case hardness properties vary not only with the duration and type of nitriding being performed but also with steel composition, prior structure, and core hardness. Typically, case depths are between 0.20–0.65 mm (0.008–0.025 inches) and take from 10 to 80 hours to produce.

Nitrocarburizing (Ferritic or Austenitic)

Nitrocarburizing is a modification of nitriding, not a form of carburizing. In the process, nitrogen and carbon are simultaneously introduced into the steel while it is in a ferritic or at times an austenitic condition. A very thin “white” or “compound” layer is formed during the process, as well as an underlying “diffusion” zone. Like nitriding, rapid quenching is not required. Examples of gear steels that are commonly nitrocarburized include AISI/SAE grades 4140, 5160, 8620, and certain tool steels, such as H11 and H13.

Nitrocarburizing is normally performed at 550°C–600°C (1025°F–1110°F) and can be used to produce a 58 HRC minimum hardness, with this value increasing dependent on the base material. White layer depths range from 0.0013–0.056 mm (0.00005–0.0022 inches) with diffusion zones from 0.03–0.80 mm (0.0013–0.032 inches) being typical.

In Summary

There are many ways to heat treat gears. While atmosphere heat treatment (discussed above) is perhaps the most widely used technology today, other types of heat treatments, namely vacuum and induction hardening, are becoming more and more common methods. These will be discussed in Part Two.

About the Author

Dan Herring
“The Heat Treat Doctor”
The HERRING GROUP, Inc.

Dan Herring has been in the industry for over 50 years and has gained vast experience in fields that include materials science, engineering, metallurgy, new product research, and many other areas. He is the author of six books and over 700 technical articles.

For more information: Contact Dan at dherring@heat-treat-doctor.com.

For more information about Dan’s books: see his page at the Heat Treat Store.

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Why and How Do We Heat Treat Gears? Part One Read More »

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Hot Topic for a Cold Day — Why Is Hot Gaseous Corrosion So Devastating?

/ ATMOSPHERE AIR FURNACES TECHNICAL CONTENT, CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH, OP-ED

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor® has returned to bring sage advice to Heat Treat Today readers, answer questions about heat treating, brazing, sintering, and other types of thermal treatments, as well as metallurgy, equipment, and process-related issues. In this installment, Dan Herring examines the devastating effects of hot gaseous corrosion on furnace alloys: exploring the mechanisms behind metal dusting, the gas-solid reactions that drive catastrophic carburization, and the mitigation strategies to extend the life of heat treaters’ most valuable furnace components.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s January 2026 Annual Technologies To Watch print edition.

Have questions or feedback? We’d love to hear from you — reach out to our editorial team at editor@heattreattoday.com.

Corrosion is a concern experienced by everyone involved in manufacturing industrial products. While there is a plethora of data and information on the effects of corrosion on engineered materials available (sources provided in the references section of this column), most corrosion engineers are focused on aqueous corrosion. By contrast, heat treaters must understand the effects of hot gaseous corrosion, especially on our furnace alloys. Let’s learn more.

Corrosion Basics

It is important to understand that all materials are chemically unstable in some environments and corrosive attack will always occur. In the scientific world, it can often be modeled and its effects predicted by studying thermodynamic data and knowing which of the many corrosion-related chemical states are active. In our world, however, it is equally important to understand the various forms of corrosion, namely:

  • Dezincification (aka selective leaching)
  • Electrolytic
  • Erosion
  • Galvanic (or two metal) action
  • General (aka uniform) attack
  • Intergranular attack
  • Pitting
  • Stress corrosion

The greater the metal’s solubility, the greater the degree and severity of the corrosive attack. There are many important variations of these forms of corrosion; two of the most important are 1) localized corrosive attack (e.g. pits, intergranular attack, crevices) and 2) interaction with mechanical influences (e.g., stress, fatigue, fretting). These actions are frequently rapid and have catastrophic effects.

The number of ways to combat corrosion have been well-documented, including alloying to produce better corrosion resistance materials; cathodic protection (via sacrificial anodes); coatings (metallic or inorganic); organic coatings (e.g. paints); metal purification; alteration of the environment; and nonmetallic or design (i.e., physical) changes.

Heat Resistant Alloys

Furnace interiors contain numerous examples of heat-resistant nickel-chromium-iron (Ni-Cr-Fe) alloys, including radiant tubes, fans, heating elements, roller rails and rollers, thermocouple protection tubes, chain guides, and atmosphere inlet tubes, to name a few. Baskets, grids, and fixtures are other examples. These alloys are normally selected based on their strength (at temperature) rather than resistance to corrosive attack.

Since these heat-resistant alloy parts are often the most expensive furnace components, heat treaters must understand how they can be attacked and what can be done to extend their life by minimizing or preventing corrosion.

Gas-Solid Reactions

A chemical reaction involving a (non-equilibrium) gas or gas mixture and a solid is classified as a gas-solid reaction. Examples of intermediate and high temperature reactions of this type include oxidation, sulfidation, carburization, and nitriding. Effects of gases containing vapors of chlorine, fluorine, and effluents from deposits of various alkaline chemicals (from cleaning compounds) and even phosphates are also problematic. The principles are the same for all types — only the details differ. As heat treaters, our interest is in controlling, retarding, or suppressing these reactions to prevent unwanted corrosion, gasification, or embrittlement of the furnace alloy or materials being processed.

Examples of Catastrophic Carburization (a.k.a. Metal Dusting)

Figure 1. Pusher furnace alloy fan and shaft assembly | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®

Metal dusting (Figure 1) is a hot gaseous corrosion phenomenon in which a metallic component disintegrates into a dust of fine metal and metal oxide particles mixed with carbon.

Generally, metal dusting occurs in a localized area, and how rapidly the disintegration progresses is a function of temperature, the composition of the atmosphere and its carbon potential, and the material. Other significant factors include the geometry of the system, reaction kinetics, diffusivities of alloy components, the specific-volume ratio of new and old phases, and the ultimate plastic strain.

Metal dusting usually manifests itself as pits or grooves on the surface, or as an overall surface attack in which the metal can literally be eaten away in a matter of days, weeks, or months. As an example, this writer has seen a 330-alloy plate mounted underneath a refractory-lined inner door of an integral quench furnace (where atmosphere passes underneath the door and into the quench vestibule) reduced in thickness from 12.5 mm (0.50 in) to less than 0.75 mm (0.03 in) in a little over two months.

Figure 2. 330 alloy radiant tube removed after six months of use (rotary retort furnace) | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®
Figure 3. Microstructural view: catastrophic carburization | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®

In another example, a metallographic investigation performed by this writer on a failed wrought 330 alloy radiant tube (Figure 2) was conducted. Optical microscopy of the inside (Figure 3) and outside diameter surfaces in the attacked area revealed evidence of massive carbides. These carbides are formed by the reaction of carbon with chromium, depleting the matrix of chromium in regions adjacent to the carbides. Grain detachment and subsequent failure by erosion then occurred.

How Does It Occur?

In general, catastrophic carburization of ferrous alloys proceeds via the formation and subsequent disintegration of metastable carbide. The first step in the process is absorption of the gaseous phase on the surface of the metal; the more reactive this phase, the easier it decomposes or is catalytically decomposed (in the case of iron) on the surface. This step is followed by diffusion of carbon atoms from the surface into the bulk metal.

As a result, there is a continuous buildup of carbon within the surface layer. As this layer becomes saturated with carbon, a stable carbide, metastable carbide, or an active carbide complex forms, which then grows until it reaches a state of thermodynamic instability, at which point it rapidly breaks down into the metal plus free carbon.

It’s at this stage that the metal disintegrates to a powder as the result of plastic deformation and subsequent fracture in the near-surface layer. The process is controlled by internal stresses due to phase transformation; in other words, competition between stress generation and relaxation exceeds the ultimate strength in this near-surface layer and causes fracture to occur.

In Ni-Cr-Fe alloys, the phenomenon occurs slower (but does not stop) since the disintegration leads to larger metal particles, which are less active catalysts for carbon deposition than the fine iron particles that form with ferrous metals. Therefore, the mass gain from carbon depositing onto high-nickel alloys is much lower. Also, the decomposition of high-nickel alloys occurs by graphitization and not via unstable carbides.

Pourbaix-Ellingham Diagrams

Thermodynamics can be applied to solid-gas reactions to obtain equilibrium dissociation pressures below which no reactions occur. Data and diagrams are available for the free energies of formation versus temperature for most metallic compounds. An interesting use of Pourbaix diagrams (generally reserved for mapping out possible stable equilibrium phases of an aqueous electrochemical system) as a predictor of stable alloy systems is found by superimposing the various elemental constituents. These diagrams are read much like a standard phase diagram (with a different set of axes).

In Summary

Hot gaseous corrosion should be an area of focus for every heat treater to extend the life of alloy components, reduce downtime, and save money. Mitigation in the form of alloy selection, equipment design, type of atmosphere, process/cycle selection, and idling temperatures will play a huge role in extending the life of our furnace alloys, baskets, and fixtures.

References

ASM International. 1971. Oxidation of Metals and Alloys.

ASM International. 2003. ASM Handbook. Vols. 13A–C.

Fontana, Mars G., and Norbert D. Greene. 2008. Corrosion Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Herring, D. H. 2003. “What to Do About Metal Dusting.” Heat Treating Progress, August.

Herring, Daniel H. 2015. Atmosphere Heat Treatment. Vol. 2. Troy, MI: BNP Media Group.

Javaheradashti, Raza. 2008. Microbiologically Induced Corrosion. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

NACE International. www.nace.org.

Nateson, K. 1980. Corrosion–Erosion Behavior in Metals. Warrendale, PA: Metallurgical Society of AIME.

National Bureau of Standards. 1978. Gas Corrosion of Metals.

Pourbaix, Marcel. 1974. Atlas of Chemical and Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions. Houston, TX: NACE International.

Pourbaix, Marcel. 1998. Atlas of Chemical and Electrochemical Equilibria in the Presence of a Gaseous Phase. Houston, TX: NACE International.

Schweitzer, Philip A. 1996. Corrosion Engineering Handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Staehle, R. W. 1995. “Engineering with Advanced and New Materials.” Materials Science and Engineering A 198 (1–2): 245–56.

Stempco, Michael J. 2011. “The Ellingham Diagram: How to Use It in Heat-Treat-Process Atmosphere Troubleshooting.” Industrial Heating, April.

Uhlig, Hubert H. 2008. Corrosion and Corrosion Control. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.

Fabian, R., ed. 1993. Vacuum Technology: Practical Heat Treating and Brazing. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.

The Boeing Company. n.d. “Practical Vacuum Systems Design Course.”

About the Author

Dan Herring
“The Heat Treat Doctor”
The HERRING GROUP, Inc.

Dan Herring has been in the industry for over 50 years and has gained vast experience in fields that include materials science, engineering, metallurgy, new product research, and many other areas. He is the author of six books and over 700 technical articles.

For more information: Contact Dan at dherring@heat-treat-doctor.com.

For more information about Dan’s books: see his page at the Heat Treat Store.

Ask The Heat Treat Doctor®: Hot Topic for a Cold Day — Why Is Hot Gaseous Corrosion So Devastating? Read More »

Pit LPC: A Modern Take on High Throughput Heat Treat

/ CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH, VACUUM FURNACES TECHNICAL CONTENT

Producing durable, wear-resistant gears for the wind turbine industry requires exacting control of carbon diffusion. Modern low pressure carburizing (LPC) is pushing the boundaries of control and consistency. This technology fine tunes carbon diffusion into the surface of components, and applied in a new pit-style vacuum furnace, it also delivers temperature uniformity, stronger gears, and shorter cycle times for large, complex components, all while eliminating oxidation and direct CO₂ emissions. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Tom Hart, director of sales for North America at SECO/WARWICK Corporation, examines how modern LPC technology in a pit-style vacuum furnace is reshaping high-volume carburizing for today’s in-house heat treaters.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s November 2025 Annual Vacuum Heat Treating print edition.

The Need To Carburize

Carburizing is a thermochemical treatment that finds applications across the automotive, aviation, and energy industries, particularly in power transmission systems. The widespread use of this process across many industries stems from its ability to improve mechanical properties by enriching the surface of steel with carbon.

Consider the wind turbine industry, growing with a CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of 6.2% from 2024 to 2033 (GlobeNewswire 2024). Carburizing plays a key role in the production of gears and pinions. These components, often made of alloy steels, such as 18CrNiMo7-6, 4320, 4820, and 9310 (GearSolutions 2009, Jantara 2019), must meet high strength and quality requirements. Carburized layers, often over 4 mm thick, provide resistance to wear and dynamic loads, which is important given the turbine’s expected service life of at least twenty years.

In practice, however, gears often require servicing after five to seven years (Jantara 2019), with their failures generating long downtimes and high costs (Perumal and Rajamani 2014).

Figure 1a: Pit-LPC in a hardening cell (model)
Figure 1b: The view from the operator platform

The carburizing process, combined with hardening (usually in oil) and tempering, increases:

  • Surface hardness: improving abrasian resistance
  • Core ductility: protecting against cracks
  • Fatigue strength: extending the life of the part, which translates into lower operating costs

Alternative technologies, such as nitriding or surface hardening, offer other benefits (e.g., reduced deformation), but have limitations, such as thinner hardened layers, relatively long nitriding process times, or difficulties with complex geometry for surface hardening.

Pit Meets Vacuum LPC

Traditional atmospheric carburizing, despite its established position, has reached its limits in process performance expectations. In response to market needs, LPC (low pressure carburizing) technology is being increasingly implemented to enable precise process control, reduced emissions, and improved energy efficiency. More specifically, a pit furnace with vacuum heat treatment capabilities, aka the Pit-LPC, has been designed and developed to carburize thick layers on very large and/or long parts. This furnace combines the advantages of LPC technology with the ability to integrate existing hardening cells, facilitating the modernization of older installations.

While a vacuum furnace opening to an air atmosphere is a feature previously reserved for atmospheric furnaces, this innovative pit furnace has ceramic insulation and a dedicated heating system to leverage this capability. The chamber door can therefore be opened at process temperature in an air atmosphere for the direct transfer of the charge to the hardening tank. Additionally, the furnace is equipped with a closed circuit forced cooling system, which significantly shortens the charge cooling time from the carburizing temperature to the hardening temperature, increasing efficiency and shortening the production cycle.

Furthermore, the furnace allows for the process to be carried out at temperatures of 1925°F (1050°C) and higher, significantly shortening carburizing time and reducing production costs, even while maintaining a safe level of grain growth (e.g., 1800°F (980°C)).

Benefits of LPC technology designed in a pit furnace include:

  • Reduced process time due to higher operating temperatures
  • Elimination of internal oxidation (IGO) in the carburizing process
  • Highly uniform carburized layer
  • Low process gas consumption
  • No direct CO₂ emissions and fire risk
  • Ready for operation without lengthy conditioning
  • Computer-aided process support

Additionally, the furnace design increases work safety and comfort in its elimination of open flames, risks of explosion, and the need for constant atmospheric monitoring.

Figure 2. SimVac program window with an example LPC process simulation

This new pit furnace is compatible with SimVac software, developed by Lodz University of Technology and SECO/WARWICK, which enables the simulation and optimization of LPC parameters, reducing the need for process tests. SimVac Plus is a simulation software that includes a vacuum carburizing module (Figure 2). The program can be used either as a standalone tool for designing processes based on the desired carburized layer requirements or to visualize the effect of a given boost/diffusion sequence in the form of a carbon profile.

Testing the Furnace Characteristics and Technical Parameters

The furnace was designed to meet the highest requirements for heat treatment equipment. The basic technical parameters are as follows:

  • Working space / charge weight: 71″ diameter x 118″ deep / 17,600 lb (1,800 mm x 3,000mm deep / 8,000 kg)
  • Operating temperature: up to 2010°F (1100°C)
  • Heating power: 360 kW, three independent zones
  • Vacuum level: 10⁻² torr
  • Carburizing gas: acetylene

Temperature Uniformity

Temperature distribution tests were conducted in the furnace, with 12 load thermocouples arranged according to the diagram shown in Figure 2. Measurements were taken at several temperatures under vacuum conditions. The purpose of the tests was to confirm compliance with the Class 1 ±5°F (3°C) requirements of the AMS2750 standard.

Figures 3a-d. Location of the TUS load thermocouples and the results in vacuum at temperatures of 1550°F (840°C), 1800 °F (980°C), and 1925°F (1050°C)

The results presented in Figure 3 indicate that the furnace provides above-average temperature uniformity, which is particularly important for a large workspace with 71″ diameter x 118″ deep (1,800 mm diameter × 3,000 mm deep) and the processing of large-sized components with thick layers. The temperature difference (ΔT) between the extreme thermocouples, measured at 1550°F (840°C), 1800 °F (980°C), and 1925°F (1050°C), did not exceed 3.5°F (2°C). This means that the furnace meets the Class 1 requirements of the AMS2750 standard by a wide margin.

Operational Dynamics

Additionally, to evaluate the furnace’s operational dynamics, heating and cooling tests were performed on an empty device with samples. Figure 4a shows the heating curve; the furnace reaches a temperature of 1800°F (980°C) in 60 minutes. The furnace’s high energy efficiency has a heat loss of just 32 kW under these circumstances.

Figure 4a. Heating Rate
Figure 4b. Cooling Rate

Figure 4b shows teh curve of cooling forced by nitrogen at atmospheric pressure, measured in three zones and on samples with diameters of 1″ (25 mm) and 4″ (100 mm). The temperature drops from 1800°F (980°C) to 575°F (300°C) in 60 minutes; reaching 210°F (100°C) takes only two hours, whereas natural cooling would take several days.

Vacuum tests show that the furnace reaches operating vacuum of 10⁻¹ hPa in under 30 minutes and has a leakage rate of 10⁻³ mbar·l/s, which meets the industry standard for vacuum furnaces.

Test of Atmosphere vs. Vacuum Carburizing Processes

To obtain a carburized layer 0.145–0.160″ (3.7–4.0 mm) thick for 52.3 HRC (550HV1), two tests were compared: one in the PEGAT atmosphere furnace (Figure 5a) and another in the Pit-LPC vacuum furnace (Figure 5b). In both cases, the charge consisted of seven gears made of 18CrNiMo7-6 material, with a total weight of approximately 6.5 tons and a surface area of 280 ft² (26 m²). The process consisted of three stages:

  • Stage I: heating to the carburizing temperature and soaking
  • Stage II: actual carburizing with cooling to the hardening temperature and holding
  • Stage III: hardening in an external quenching tank — identical in both processes
Table A. Atmosphere vs. Vacuum Carburizing Process Comparison
Figure 5a. Essential process data and schematic flow of the carburizing process in a PEGAT atmosphere furnace
Figure 5b. Essential process data and schematic flow of the carburizing process in the Pit-LPC vacuum furnace

The LPC process, which consists of saturation and diffusion segments (Figure 6) allows for the precise control of carbon distribution. As the process progresses, the duration of the diffusion segments is extended, ensuring uniform saturation of the material.

Figure 6. Vacuum carburizing process trends in the Pit-LPC

After carburizing and hardening, all components were tempered at 355°F (180°C) for three hours.

Metallurgical Results: Gears & Samples Destructive Testing

Table B. Chemical Composition of 18CrNiMo7-6 (according to EN10084)

Gears and samples made of 18CrNiMo7-6 steel were used for destructive testing, in accordance with the EN 10084 standard. Six cylindrical samples were placed throughout the workspace — inside and outside the part — to assess carburization uniformity.

Tests conducted:

  • Vickers microhardness (HV1): performed on a Struers Durascan 70 device, allowing for the determination of hardness profiles and carburized layer depth (ECD) — a load of 9.81 N (HV1).
  • Surface and core hardness (Rockwell): measurements were performed on a Wilson Wolpert TESTOR tester with a load of 1470.1 N. At least five measurements were taken for each sample.
  • Microstructure: assessed on a Nikon LV150 optical microscope after nital etching.
  • Internal oxidation (IGO): analyzed on the unetched surface of the microsection.
Figures 7a-f. Microhardness profiles after the full process (carburizing, hardening, and tempering)

Figure 7 shows the microhardness profiles for the tested samples. For each sample, microhardness paths were inspected in three cross-sections. Based on this, the effective ECD layer thickness obtained on each sample was determined, as presented in Table C.

Table C. Thickness of the Carburized Layer Read from the Microhardness Charts (effective case depth average is 0.145–0.160″ (3.7–4.0 mm) at 52.3 HRC (550 HV1))

Average ECD values obtained for the samples ranged from 0.148 to 0.154″ (3.77 to 3.91 mm).

Surface and core hardness values for all samples were consistent and typical of carburized layers (Table D). Surface hardness ranged from 61.0 to 63.2 HRC and core hardness from 39.9 to 40.7 HRC. Interestingly, samples located on the inner side of the wheel achieved slightly higher surface hardness values (caused by retained austenite and cooling intensity).

Table D. Measured values of surface hardness and core hardness

Microstructure images of low-tempered martensite, along with retained austenite, were identified, ranging from 17 to 20% (Figure 8). The amount of retained austenite was determined using NIS-Elements software. No variation in structure was observed depending on sample location.

Figure 8a. Exemplary post-processing microstructure pictures of sample 1 surface. Magnifications x100 (left) and x500 (right). Nital etching 2%. Martensite with residual austenite (approx. 18%).
Figure 8b. Exemplary post-processing microstructure pictures of sample 4 surface. Magnifications x100 (left) and x500 (right). Nital etching 2%. Martensite with residual austenite (approx. 20%).

The presence of intergranular oxidation (IGO) was also inspected, averaging 5.5 μm throughout the tested samples. For comparison, intergranular oxidation in the atmospheric process averages above 15 μm. In the new LPC pit furnace, internal oxidation only occurs during unloading and transfer of the charge to the hardening tank, whereas in the atmospheric furnace, the presence of oxygen in the carburizing atmosphere is also significant, significantly increasing the IGO value.

The level of hardening deformation after the process conducted in the new LPC pit furnace and the atmosphere furnace is comparable due to the use of the same hardening tank in both devices and the absence of the carburizing process.

Comparison of Process Economics

Economic aspects play a key role in modern heat and thermochemical processing. Therefore, the consumption of basic utilities was compared for the reference processes (described in Chapter 5), resulting in a 0.152″ (3.8 mm) thick hardened layer. The analysis included a Pit-LPC and a PEGAT-type atmospheric furnace, both with identical workspace and the same charge. In addition, the LPC process was simulated at 1900°F (1040°C). The results are summarized in Table E.

Table E. Comparison of utility consumption and costs

The results show that the new LPC furnace model consumes significantly less electricity by approximately 57%, which translates into a lower carbon footprint, especially when energy is derived from fossil fuels. Nitrogen consumption is comparable, with a slight advantage for the Pit-LPC (savings of up to 10%).

The largest differences are found in carburizing gases. The atmospheric furnace consumes 9,900 ft³ (280 m³) of methane — approximately 440 lb (200 kg) and an additional 4.4–13.2 lb (2–6 kg) of propane per process. In the LPC furnace, acetylene consumption is reduced to 39.2 lb (17.8 kg) because carburizing gas only flows during the boost phase.

Importantly, the LPC process does not generate direct CO₂ emissions, unlike an atmospheric furnace, which emits approximately 1325 lb (600 kg) of CO₂ per cycle. Cooling water consumption in the new LPC furnace is also reduced by over 45%.

The presented comparison of utility consumption in the two types of furnaces directly translates into the economic aspects of using these devices and conducting production processes. For cost comparison purposes, the following unit utility costs were assumed, as presented in Table F:

Table F. Unit costs of energy factors and technological gases according to European averages

In summary, the total utility costs for the process conducted in the Pit-LPC at 1800°F (980°C) are 53% lower compared to an atmospheric furnace conducted at 1700°F (925°C). At a temperature of 1925°F (1040°C), savings reach 60%. These savings are primarily due to lower energy and process gas consumption. Furthermore, the lack of CO₂ emissions eliminates the need to pay emission fees.

The efficiency of this furnace is almost twice as much at 1795°F (980°C) and three times as much at 1925°F (1040°C) compared to an atmospheric furnace.

Summary

The new Pit-LPC vacuum furnace combines the design features of a top-loaded pit and performs carburizing using vacuum technology instead of atmospheric technology. Bringing higher processing temperatures than traditional atmospheric furnaces to the market, as well as the ability to open hot in an air atmosphere, this technology proves that direct transfer of the charge to the hardening tank is possible in vacuum furnaces.

Another key development, this design significantly shortens carburizing time compared to atmosphere furnaces since the furnace can operate under vacuum, inert gas (nitrogen, argon), air, and carburizing gases, at temperatures up to 2010°F (1100°C).

Since this new pit furnace design does not require the use a retort or atmosphere mixer, which are the most vulnerable components inside a traditional atmospheric furnace, the furnace operates with greater reliability and lower costs. Furthermore, an efficient and robust vacuum pumping system provides the vacuum environment and operational readiness in less than 30 minutes. Time is also saved by the integrated closed-loop gas cooling system that shortens cooling time: dropping temperatures from 1800°F (980°C) to 1545°F (840°C) in 30 minutes for a full charge and to 210°F (100°C) in two hours for an empty furnace, operations which would take several hours and days respectively in atmosphere furnaces.

The advanced thermal insulation and a uniform heating element layout ensure high energy efficiency and precise temperature uniformity in the working space, yielding additional cost and energy savings.

This carburizing process is based on FineCarb LPC technology and supported by the SimVac simulator, enabling precise carbon profile shaping and achieving layers 0.148–0.154″ (3.77–3.91 mm) thick with high repeatability.

With the ability to operate at temperatures up to 1925°F (1050°C), the new LPC pit-styled furnace significantly shortens process time, reduces utility consumption, and lowers operating costs by up to 50%, while increasing productivity by a factor of x2 to x3. One of these furnaces can replace two to three atmosphere furnaces of the same size.

Finally, the furnace operates in a safe and non-flammable atmosphere, emits no direct CO₂, and reduces energy consumption, making it an environmentally friendly solution.

Conclusions

The Pit-LPC furnace is a modern alternative to the traditional atmosphere furnace and offers a number of advantages in terms of quality, efficiency, safety, economy, and ecology. Providing an innovative solution for vacuum carburizing and meeting stringent carburization layer thickness guidelines, this design is a viable option to fully replace traditional atmospheric pit furnaces operating in a carburizing atmosphere.

References

GlobeNewswire. 2024. “Wind Turbine Market to Reach $115.2 Billion Globally by 2033 at 6.2% CAGR: Allied Market Research.” GlobeNewswire, September 18, 2024. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/09/18/2948365/0/en/Wind-Turbine-Market-to-Reach-115-2-Billion-Globally-by-2033-at-6-2-CAGR-Allied-Market-Research.html

GearSolutions. 2009. “Carburizing Wind-Turbine Gears.” Gear Solutions, May 1, 2009. https://gearsolutions.com/features/carburizing-wind-turbine-gears/

Jantara, Valter Luiz Jr. 2019. “Wind Turbine Gearboxes: Failures, Surface Treatments and Condition Monitoring.” In Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring Techniques for Renewable Energy Industrial Assets, edited by Mayorkinos Papaelias, Fausto Pedro García Márquez, and Alexander Karyotakis. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Perumal, S., and G. P. Rajamani. 2014. “Improving the Hardness of a Wind Turbine Gear Surface by Nitriding Process.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 591: 19–22.

Rolinski, Edward. 2016. “Modern Nitriding Techniques for Gear Applications.” Gear Solutions, March 16, 2016. https://gearsolutions.com/departments/hot-seat-modern-nitriding-techniques-for-gear-applications/

About The Author:

Tom Hart
Director of Sales for North America
SECO/WARWICK Corporation

Tom Hart joined SECO/WARWICK in 2011 as a sales engineer and has been in the precision manufacturing industry for over 16 years. His responsibilities have him caring for SECO/WARWICK’s clients and their various process and heat treatment equipment needs. Tom received his manufacturing engineering degree from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, has authored numerous white papers, and is recognized throughout the heat treatment industry as a go-to-guy for thermal processing.

For more information: Contact Tom at Tom.Hart@SecoWarwick.com.

Pit LPC: A Modern Take on High Throughput Heat Treat Read More »

Mercury Marine’s Vacuum Carburizing and Closed-System Cleaning: A Case Study

/ CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, Manufacturing Heat Treat Technical Content, PARTS CLEANING TECHNICAL-CONTENT

What are the ways to improve the cleaning process of component parts and reduce smoke from residue and environmental impact? Mercury Marine faced this challenge head on with a new system. Learn more about their solution in today’s Technical Tuesday case study written by Chris Tivnan the sales manager for North America at SAFECHEM North America Inc.

This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’s August’s 2025 Annual Automotive Heat Treating print edition.

Mercury Marine’s Need for Clean

Mercury Marine is a world leading manufacturer of marine propulsion systems headquartered in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. A subsidiary of Brunswick Corporation, Mercury Marine designs, manufactures, and distributes engines, services, and parts for recreational, commercial, and government marine applications.

Mercury Marine has an in-house heat treatment facility for the components they manufacture. These components include gear case parts, such as propeller shafts, pinions, forward and reserve gears, and clutches. The parts undergo typical manufacturing steps like turning, milling, or gear tooth generation. Some machines allow for dry cutting, while others involve hydraulic oil. In total, more than 170 distinct metal parts require cleaning before undergoing vacuum carburizing, hardening, tempering, and/or cryogenic treatments.

Carburizing with Closed-Vacuum Solvent Cleaning

But vacuum carburizing has not always been the technology of choice for Mercury Maine. Prior to 2023, parts and components underwent initial cleaning in an aqueous washer before proceeding to atmospheric carburizing. Then, they were quenched in oil and then underwent another round of cleaning with a water-based cleaner.

Figure 1. NANO vacuum carburizing system from ECM

Mercury Marine made the strategic decision to transition from atmospheric carburizing to vacuum carburizing in 2023. The shift was motivated by concerns related to smoke and environmental impact, particularly the evaporation of oil residuals during tempering. The desire for an overall environmentally friendlier process further fueled this change.

Vacuum carburizing benefits from more stringent cleanliness requirements on parts whereby all residue oils, greases, and debris must be removed entirely to prevent contamination of the furnace and the vacuum pump system. As a result of these considerations, Mercury Marine replaced their existing aqueous cleaning process with solvent-based cleaning, convinced that this solution provided superior and consistently reliable cleaning results.

Figure 4. With lipophilic and hydrophilic properties, DOWCLENE™* 1601 removes oils and greases just as effectively as certain polar contaminants like cooling emulsions or solids (e.g., particles and abrasives).
Source: ECM USA

Their furnace equipment manufacturer ECM recommended a closed-vacuum solvent-based cleaning machine (Model: SOLVACS 3S) from the manufacturer HEMO. This design could be seamlessly integrated into their NANO vacuum carburizing system.

The vacuum cleaning machine runs on the modified alcohol solvent DOWCLENE™* 1601. Because of its lipophilic and hydrophilic properties, DOWCLENE 1601 can remove oils and greases just as effectively as certain polar contaminants like cooling emulsions or solids (e.g., particles and abrasives). The solvent also has low toxicity and good biodegradability.

Enabling High Environmental and Safety Standards

The switch from aqueous to solvent cleaning initially raised some safety concerns within Mercury Marine’s environmental safety committee. However, these concerns were swiftly addressed once the committee understood the operation of a closed vacuum cleaning machine and how it contributes to the highest safety and sustainability standards.

First, the airtight design of the machine virtually eliminates air emissions. The hermetically sealed construction means there is minimal risk of contaminating groundwater. Additionally, full machine automation removes operator handling and minimizes chemical contact.

Figure 2. While closed vacuum cleaning machines enable high-quality cleaning results with strong safety and sustainability standards, HEMO designs integrate seamlessly into furnace lines

Second, the machine’s built-in distillation unit enables continuous solvent recovery — as high as 95% in Mercury Marine’s case — thereby significantly reducing chemical consumption and waste while lowering overall cleaning costs. Distillation ensures that parts are consistently cleaned in fresh solvent. The effective cleaning result is further warranted by the high solvent quality in the rinsing step, followed by vapor degreasing as the last cleaning step, which is highly effective due to high temperature difference between parts and vapor. With the drying process below 0.1 psi, a perfect drying of the parts is guaranteed.

Additionally, unlike aqueous cleaning, solvent cleaning does not consume significant water, nor does it require wastewater treatment, providing a considerable cost and environmental advantage.

Using a simple test kit, solvent conditions can be easily monitored on a regular basis. Solvent lifespan can also be extended by adding stabilizers, reducing the need for frequent bath exchanges. Due to the high stability of the cleaner, only minimal stabilizer additions have been required since the machine was first put into operation.

Leveraging CFC for Solvent Cleaning

Another crucial factor supporting solvent cleaning is the use of carbon fiber composite (CFC) workload trays and fixturing of the heat treat batch in the cleaning machine. After cleaning the parts, the CFC fixtures are directly transferred into the vacuum furnace. This streamlined workflow eliminates the need to transfer parts between different fixtures, minimizing part damage or contamination while saving time. The durability and thermal stability of CFC fixtures make them ideal for such demanding applications.

Figure 3. Industrial robots streamline the loading and unloading of components in ECM’s vacuum furnaces and facilitate part transfers between systems, ensuring a fully automated heat treatment line

Since CFC is a highly absorbent material, it can soak up liquids during the cleaning process. Any remaining residue in CFC fixtures can be released during a vacuum heat treatment process, contaminating the oven, which will impact the process and cause improper heat treatment outcomes. Unlike aqueous cleaning, which leaves some liquids behind, solvent cleaning under vacuum conditions effectively removes these absorbed residues.

Additionally, CFC fixtures must be properly dried and moisture-free before entering the vacuum furnace. Moisture can lead to contamination, inefficient carburizing, oxidation, or vacuum system problems. Solvents dry much faster than water, mitigating the risk of water vapor migration into the vacuum carburizing system.

Superior Controllability and Quality Results

Since transitioning from atmospheric to vacuum carburizing, Mercury Marine has experienced many benefits due to a significantly more consistent and repeatable heat treatment process.

It is known that residual oxygen within the furnace atmosphere can react with alloying elements on the component’s surface. This interaction can lead to the formation of an oxidation layer, potentially affecting the compressive stress profile. Such layers need to be ground off. However, with vacuum carburization, these intergranular oxidations (IGO) no longer occur.

The vacuum carburizing process follows a precise “boost and diffuse” cycle, where the presence of carbon is transferred via acetylene. This approach provides superior controllability compared to atmospheric carburizing, where natural gas is used. Additionally, the absence of open flames and the energy-efficient design contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past, Mercury Marine faced cleaning challenges following oil quenching. While maintaining clean quench oil is essential, frequent oil changes can be costly. When the quench oil was not cleaned frequently enough, deposits adhered to parts, especially drive shafts with spiral oil grooves for passage. Despite attempts at aqueous cleaning, such debris could persist, and additional blasting was needed to remove them.

Vacuum carburizing has eliminated this problem as the parts now undergo gas quenching instead of oil quenching, removing the aqueous cleaning step altogether.

The investment in a new furnace system, along with the integrated closed vacuum solvent cleaning machine, has proven highly beneficial. The fully automated system ensures that technicians are not manually handling baskets, while parts are cleaned to the highest standard, enabling a seamless vacuum carburizing process. Mercury Marine has expressed great satisfaction with the results, recognizing the system as a valuable addition to their manufacturing operations.

About The Author:

Chris Tivnan
Sales Manager North America
SAFECHEM North America Inc.

With two decades of experience in the chemical industry, Chris assists manufacturers in determining the right choice of cleaning agent and their parts cleaning operation. He also manages relationships with regional distributors as well as local OEMs/OEAs.

For more information: Contact Chris Tivnan at c.tivnan@safechem.com.

Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

Mercury Marine’s Vacuum Carburizing and Closed-System Cleaning: A Case Study Read More »

How To Reduce Carbon Footprint During Heat Treatment

/ CARBURIZING, CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, HARDENING, HARDENING TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT TECH

Given changing ecological and economic conditions, carbon neutrality is becoming more important, and the heat treatment shop is no exception. In the context of this article, the focus will be on how manufacturers — especially those with in-house heat treat — can save energy by evaluating heating systems, waste heat recovery, and the process gas aspects of the technology.

This article, written by Dr. Klaus Buchner, head of Research and Development at AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH, was released in Heat Treat Today April/May 2024 Sustainable Heat Treat Technologies print edition.

Introduction

Contact us with your Reader Feedback!

Uncertainties in energy supply and rising energy costs remind us of our dependence on fossil fuels. This underlines the need for a sustainable energy and climate policy, which is the central challenge of our time.

European policymakers have already taken the first steps towards a green energy revolution, and the heat treatment industry must also take responsibility. Many complementary measures, however, are needed that can be applied to new and existing thermal and thermochemical heat treatment lines.

Heat Treatment Processes and Plant Concepts

The heat treatment process itself is based on the requirements of the component parts, and especially on the steel grade used. If different concepts are technically comparable, it is primarily the economic aspect that is decisive, and not the carbon footprint — at least until now. Advances in materials technology and rising energy costs are calling for production processes to be modified.

Figure 1. Donut-shaped rotary-hearth furnace for carburizing with press quenching
Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

An example is the quenching and tempering of automotive forgings directly from the forging temperature without reheating, which has shown significant potential for energy and CO2 savings. Although the reduced toughness or measured impact energy of quenching and tempering from the forging temperature may be a drawback due to the coarser austenite grain size, this can be partially improved by Nb micro-alloyed steels and higher molybdenum (Mo) contents for more temper-resistant steels; it may also be necessary to use steels with modified alloying concepts when changing the process.1, 2 AFP steels (precipitation-hardening ferritic pearlitic steels) and bainitic air-hardening steels can also be interesting alternatives, since reheating (an energy-intensive intermediate step) is no longer necessary.

Similar considerations apply to direct hardening instead of single hardening in combination with carburizing processes because of the elimination of re-austenitizing. Distortion-sensitive parts often need to be quenched in fixtures due to the dimensional and shape changes caused by heat treatment. Heat treated parts are often carburized in multipurpose chamber furnaces or small continuous furnaces, cooled under inert gas, reheated in a rotary-hearth furnace, and quenched in a hardening press. In contrast, ring-shaped (aka donut-shaped) rotary-hearth furnaces allow carburizing and subsequent direct quenching in the quench press in a single treatment step. Figure 1 shows a typical ring-shaped rotary-hearth furnace concept for heat treating 500,000 gears per year/core hardness depth (CHD) group 1 mm.

Table 1. Saving potential due to increased process temperature for gas carburizing (pusher type furnace, 20MnCr5, CHD-group 1 mm)
Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

This ring-shaped rotary-hearth concept can save up to 25% of CO2 emissions, compared to an integral quench furnace line (consisting of four single-chamber furnaces, one rotary hearth furnace with quench press and two tempering furnaces as well as two Endothermic gas generators). Due to the reduced total process time (without reheating) and the optimized manpower, the total heat treatment costs can be reduced by 20–25%.

The high-temperature carburizing aspect should also be mentioned, although the term “high-temperature carburizing” is not fully accepted nor defined by international standards. As the temperature increases, the diffusion rate increases and the process time decreases. As shown in Table 1, the additional energy consumption is less than the increase in throughput that can be achieved. Therefore, the relative energy consumption per kg of material to be heat treated decreases as the process temperature increases.

There are three key issues to consider when running a high-temperature carburizing process:

  • Steel grade: Fine-grain stabilized steels are required for direct hardening at temperatures of 1832°F (1000°C). Microalloying of Nb, Ti, and N as well as a favorable microstructure of the steels reduce the growth of austenite grains and allow carburizing temperatures up to 1922°F (1050°C) for several hours.
  • Furnace design: In addition to the general aspects of the optimized furnace technology (e.g. heating capacity, insulation materials, and feedthroughs), failure-critical components must be considered separately in terms of wear and tear, whereby condition monitoring tools can support maintenance in this area.
  • Distortion: This is always a concern, especially in the case of upright loading of thin-walled gear sections. As such, numerical simulations and/or experimental testing should be performed at the beginning to estimate possible changes in distortion and to take measures if necessary.
Figure 2. Recuperative burner with SCR system for NOx reduction Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

Heating System

Based on an energy balance that considers total energy losses, and preferably also temperature levels, it can be seen that the heating system plays a significant role. In addition to the obvious flue gas loss in the case of a gas-fired thermal processing furnace, the actual carbon footprint must be critically examined.

In the case of natural gas, the upstream process chain is often neglected in terms of CO2 emissions, but the differences in gas processing (which are directly linked to the reservoirs) and in gas transportation can be a significant factor.3 However, the analysis of energy resources in the case of electric heating systems is much more important. This results in specific CO2 emissions between 30–60 gCO2/kWh (renewable-based electricity mix) and 500–700 gCO2/kWh (coal-based electricity mix). Therefore, a general comparison between natural gas heating and electric heating systems in terms of carbon footprint is often misleading.

Figure 3. Comparison of specific CO2 emissions Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

Nevertheless, in the case of gas heating, the aspect of combustion air preheating should be emphasized, as it has a significant influence on combustion efficiency. The technical possibilities in this area are well known and include both systems with central air preheating and decentralized concepts, where the individual burner and the heat exchanger form a single unit. Recuperator burners are often used in combination with radiant heating tubes (indirect heating) in the field of thermochemical heat treatment. With respect to oxy-fuel burners, it should also be noted that the formation of thermal NOx increases with increasing combustion temperature and temperature peaks. To avoid exceeding NOx emissions, staged combustion and so-called “flameless combustion” — characterized by special internal recirculation — and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can be used. The latter secondary measure, together with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), has been state-of-the-art in power plant design for decades and has become widely known because of its use in the automotive sector. This system can also be adapted to single burners (Figure 2). In this way, NOx emissions can be reduced to 30 mg/Nm3 (5% reference oxygen), depending on the injection of aqueous urea solution, as long as the exhaust gas temperature is in the range of 392/482°F (200/250°C) to 752/842°F (400/450°C).4

Whether electric heating is a viable alternative depends on both the local electricity mix and the design of the heat treatment plant, which may limit the space available for the required heating capacity. In addition to these technical aspects, the security of supply and the energy cost trends must also be considered. Both of these factors are significantly influenced by the political environment. Figure 3 shows an example of the specific carbon footprint per kg of heat treated material with the significant losses based on the example of an integral quench furnace concept in the double-chamber and single-chamber variants electrically heated (E) and gas heated (G). The electric heating is based on a fossil fuel mix of 485 gCO2/kWh. Once again, it is clear that a general statement regarding CO2 emissions is not possible; rather, the boundary conditions must be critically examined.

Waste Heat Recovery — Strengths and Weaknesses of the System

Although improvements in the energy efficiency of heat treatment processes, equipment designs, and components are the basis for rational energy use, from an environmental perspective it is important to consider the total carbon footprint. An energy flow analysis of the heat treatment plant, including all auxiliary equipment, shows the total energy consumption and thus the potential savings. Quite often the temperature levels and time dependencies involved preclude direct heat recovery within the furnace system at an economically justifiable investment cost. In this case, cross-plant solutions should be sought, which require interdepartmental action but offer bigger potential.

In addition to the classic methods of direct waste heat utilization using heat exchangers, also in combination with heat accumulators, indirect heat utilization can lower or raise the temperature level of the waste heat by using additional energy (chiller or heat pump) or convert the waste heat into electricity. The overview in Table 2 provides reference values in terms of performance class and temperature level for the alternative technologies listed.

Process Gas for Case Hardening

Case hardening — a thermochemical process consisting of carburizing and subsequent hardening — gives workpieces different microstructures across the cross-section, the key factor being high hardness/strength in the edge region. A distinction can be made between low pressure carburizing in vacuum systems and atmospheric carburizing at normal pressure. Both processes have different advantages and disadvantages, with atmospheric heat treatment being the dominant process.

Table 2. Overview of alternative waste heat applications5, 6
Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

In terms of carbon footprint, atmospheric heat treatment has a weakness due to process gas consumption. To counteract this, the following aspects have to be considered: thermal utilization of the process gas — indirectly by means of heat exchangers or directly by lean gas combustion (downcycling); reprocessing of the process gas (recycling); reduction of the process gas consumption by optimized process control; and use of CO2-neutral media (avoidance). This article focuses on avoidance by optimizing process gas consumption and using of CO2-neutral media.

Typically, heat treatment operations are still run with constant process gas quantities based on the most unfavorable conditions. Based on the studies of Wyss, however, process control systems offer the possibility to adapt the actual process gas savings to the actual demand.7 In a study of an industrial chamber furnace, a 40% process gas savings was demonstrated for a selected carburizing process. In this heat treatment process with a case hardness depth of 2 mm, the previously used constant gas flow rate of 18 m3/h was reduced to 16 m3/h for the first process phase and further reduced to 8 m3/h after 3 hours. Figure 4 shows the analysis of the gas atmosphere, where an increase in the H2 concentration could be detected due to the reduction of the gas quantities. With respect to the heat treatment result, no significant difference in the carburizing result was observed despite this significant reduction in process gas volume (and the associated reduction in CO2 emissions). The differences in the carbon profiles are within the expected measurement uncertainty.

Figure 4. CO and H2/CO concentration at various process gas volumes Source: AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

The carbon footprint of the process gas, however, must be fundamentally questioned. In the field of atmospheric gas carburizing, process gases based on Endothermic gas (which is produced by the catalytic reaction of natural gas or propane with air at 1832–1922°F/1000–1050°C) and nitrogen/methanol and methanol only systems have established themselves on a large scale. Methanol production is still mostly based on fossil fuels (natural gas or coal), the latter being used mainly in China. Although alternative CO2-neutral processes for partial substitution of natural gas — keywords being “power to gas” (P2G) or “synthetic natural gas” (SNG) — have already been successfully demonstrated in pilot plants, there are no signs of industrial penetration. Nevertheless, there is a definite industrial scale in the area of bio-methanol synthesis, though so far, purely economic considerations speak against it, as CO2 emissions are still not taken into account.

The question of the use of bio-methanol in atmospheric gas carburizing has been investigated in tests on an integral quench furnace system. A standard load of component parts with a CHD of 0.4 mm was used as a reference. Subsequently, the heat treatment process was repeated with identical process parameters using bio-methanol instead of the usual methanol based on fossil fuels. Both the laboratory analyses of the methanol samples and the measurements of the process gas atmosphere during the heat treatment process, as well as the evaluation of the sample parts with regard to the carbon profile during the carburizing process, showed no significant difference between the different types of methanol. Although this does not represent long-term experience, these results underscore the fundamental possibility of media substitution and the use of CO2-neutral methanol.

Conclusion

Facing the challenges of global warming — intensified by the economic pressure of rising energy costs — this article demonstrates the energy-saving potential in the field of heat treatment. In addition to already established solutions, the possibilities of the smart factory concept must also be integrated in this industrial sector. Thus, heat treatment comes a significant step closer to the goal of a CO2-neutral process in terms of Scopes 1, 2, and 3 regarding emissions under the given boundary conditions.

References

[1] Karl-Wilhelm Wegner, “Werkstoffentwicklung für Schmiedeteile im Automobilbau,” ATZ Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 100, (1998): 918–927, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03223434.
[2] Wolfgang Bleck and Elvira Moeller, Steel Handbook (Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, 2018).
[3] Wolfgang Köppel, Charlotte Degünther, and Jakob Wachsmuth, “Assessment of upstream emissions from natural gas production in Germany,” Federal Environment Agency (January 2018): https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/bewertung-der-vorkettenemissionen-beider.
[4] Klaus Buchner and Johanes Uhlig, “Discussion on Energy Saving and Emission Reduction Technology of Heat Treatment Equipment,” Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh 168 (2021): 109–113, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-023-01328-5.
[5] Technologie der Abwärmenutzung. Sächsische Energieagentur – SAENA GmbH, 2. Auflage, 2016.
[6] Brandstätter, R.: Industrielle Abwärmenutzung. Amt der OÖ Landesregierung, 1. Auflage, 109–113, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501 02301328-5.
[7] U. Wyss, “Verbrauch an Trägergas bei der Gasaufkohlung,” HTM Journal of Heat Treatment Materials 38, no. 1 (1983): 4-9, https://doi.org/10.1515/htm-1983-380102.

About the Author

Dr. Klaus Buchner Head of Research and Development AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH

Klaus Buchner holds a doctorate and is the head of research and development at AICHELIN HOLDING GmbH. This article is based on Klaus Buchner’s article, “Reduktion des CO2-Fußabdrucks in der Wärmebehandlung” in Prozesswärme 01-2023 (pp. 42-45).

For more information: Klaus at klaus.buchner@aichelin.com.

This article content is used with the permission of heat processing, which published this article in 2023.

Find Heat Treating Products And Services When You Search On Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

How To Reduce Carbon Footprint During Heat Treatment Read More »

All About the Quench and Keeping Cool: Thru-process Temp Monitoring and Gas Carburizing

/ ATMOSPHERE AIR FURNACES TECHNICAL CONTENT, AUTOMOTIVE HEAT TREAT TECHNICAL CONTENT, CARBURIZING, CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, CONTROLS, CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTENT, FEATURED NEWS, QUENCHING TECHNICAL CONTENT

The future of heat treating requires new manufacturing solutions like robotics that can work with modular design. Yet so also does temperature monitoring need to be seamless to know how effectively your components are being heat treated — especially through being quenched. In this Technical Tuesday, learn more about temperature monitoring through the quench process.

Gas Carburization

Contact us with your Reader Feedback!

Carburizing has rapidly become one of the most critical heat treatment processes employed in the manufacture of automotive components. Also referred to as case hardening, it provides necessary surface resistance to wear, while maintaining toughness and core strength essential for hardworking automotive parts.

Figure 1. Typical carburizing heat treat temperature profile showing the critical temperature/time steps: (i) carburization, (ii) quench, and (iii) temper. (Source: PhoenixTM)

The carburizing process is achieved by heat treating the product in a carbon rich environment (Figure 1), typically at a temperature of 1562°F–1922°F (850°C–1050°C). The temperature and process time significantly influence the depth of carbon diffusion and other related surface characteristics. Critical to the process is a rapid quenching of the product following the diffusion in which the temperature is rapidly decreased to generate the microstructure, giving the enhanced surface hardness while maintaining a soft and tough product core.

The outer surface becomes hard via the transformation from austenite to martensite while the core remains soft and tough as a ferritic and/or pearlitic microstructure. Normally, carburized microstructures following quench are further tempered at temperatures of about 356°F (180°C) to transform some of the brittle martensite into tempered martensite to enhance ductility and grindability.

Critical Process Temperature Control

As discussed, the success of carburization is dependent on accurate, repeatable control of the product temperature and time at that temperature through the complete heat treatment process. Important to the whole operation is the quench, in which the rate of cooling (product temperature change) is critical to achieve the desired changes in microstructure, creating the surface hardness. It is interesting that the success of the whole heat treat process can rest on a process step which is so short (minutes), in terms of the complete heat teat process (hours). Getting the quench correct is not only essential to achieve the desired metal microstructure, but also to ensure that the physical dimensions and shape of the product are maintained (no distortion/warping) and issues such as quench cracking are eliminated.

Obviously, as the quench is so critical to the whole heat treat process, the correct quench selection needs to be made to achieve the optimum properties with acceptable levels of dimensional change. Many different quenchants can be applied with differing quenching performances. The rate of heat transfer (quench rate) of quench media in general follows this order from slowest to quickest: air, salt, polymer, oil, caustic, and water.

Technology Challenges for Temperature Monitoring

When considering carburization from an industry standpoint, furnace heat treat technology generally falls into one of two camps, embracing either air quench (low pressure carburization) or oil quench (sealed gas carburization/LPC with integral or vacuum oil quench). Although each achieves the same end goal, the heat treat mechanisms and technologies employed are very different, as are the temperature monitoring challenges.

To achieve the desired carburized product, it is necessary to control and hence monitor the product temperature through the three phases of the heat treat process. Conventionally, product temperature monitoring would be attempted using the traditional trailing thermocouple method. For many modern heat treat processes including carburization, the trailing thermocouple method is difficult and often practically impossible.1 The movement of the product or product basket from stage to stage, often from one independent sealed chamber to another (lateral or vertical movement), makes the monitoring of the complete process a significant challenge.

With the industry driving toward fully automated manufacturing, furnace manufacturers are now offering the complete package with full robotic product loading that includes shuttle transfer systems and modular heat treat phases to process both complete product baskets and single piece operations. Although trailing thermocouples may allow individual stages in the process to be measured, they cannot provide monitoring of the complete heat treat journey. Testing is therefore not under true normal production conditions, and therefore is not an accurate record of what happens in normal day to day operation.

Figure 2 shows schematic diagrams of two typical carburizing furnace configurations that would not be possible to monitor using trailing thermocouples. The first shows a modular batch furnace system where the product basket is transferred between each static heat treat operation (preheat, carburizing furnace, cooling station, quench, quench wash, temper furnace) via a charge transfer cart. The second shows the same heat treat operation but performed in a continuous indexed pusher furnace configuration where the product basket moves sequentially through each heat treat operation in a semi-continuous flow.

Figure 2.1. Modular batch furnace system (Source: PhoenixTM)
Figure 2.2. Continuous pusher furnace schematic (Source: PhoenixTM)

Thru-process temperature monitoring as a technique overcomes such technical restrictions. The data logger is protected by a specially designed thermal barrier, therefore, can travel with the product through each stage of the process measuring the product/process temperature with short, localized thermocouples that will not hinder travel. The careful design and construction of the monitoring system is important to address the specific challenges that different heat treat technology brings including modular batch and continuous pusher furnace designs (Figure 2).2

The following section will focus specifically on monitoring challenges of the sealed gas carburizing process with integral oil quench. Technical challenges of the alternative low pressure carburizing technology with high pressure gas quench have previously been discussed in an earlier publication.3

Monitoring Challenges of Sealed Gas Carburization — Oil Quench

Figure 3. “Thru-process” temperature monitoring system for use in a sealed carburizing furnace with integral oil quench — (3.1) Monitoring system entering furnace with thermocouple fixed to automotive gears, product test pieces (3.2) System exiting oil quench tank (3.3) System inserted into wash tank with product basket (Source: PhoenixTM)

Presently, the most common traditional method of gas carburizing for automotive steels is often referred to as sealed gas carburizing. In this method, the parts are surrounded by an endothermic gas atmosphere. Carbon is generated by the Boudouard reaction during the carburization process, typically at 1562°F–1832°F (850°C –1000°C). Despite the dramatic appearance of a sealed gas carburizing furnace, with its characteristic belching flames (Figure 3), from a monitoring perspective, the most challenging aspect of the process is not the heating, but the oil quench cooling. For such furnace technology, the historic limitation of “thru-process” temperature profiling has been the need to bypass the oil quench and wash stations, missing a critical process step from the monitoring operation. Obviously, passing a conventional hot barrier through an oil quench creates potential risk of both system damage from oil ingress and barrier distortion, as well as general process safety. However, the need to bypass the quench in certain furnace configurations by removing the hot system from the confined furnace space could create significant operational challenges, from an access and safety perspective.

Monitoring of the quench is important as ageing of the oil results in decomposition (thermal cracking), oxidation, and contamination (e.g. water) of the oil, all of which degrade the viscosity, heat transfer characteristics, and quench efficiency. Control of physical oil temperature and agitation rates is also key to oil quench performance. Quench monitoring allows economic oil replacement schedules to be set, without risk to process performance and product quality.

Figure 4. “Thru-process” temperature monitoring system oil quench compatible thermal barrier design: (1) Robust outer structural frame keeping insulation and inner barrier secure; (2) Internal thermal barrier — completely sealed with integral microporous insulation protecting data logger; (3) Mineral insulated thermocouples sealed in internal thermal barrier with oil tight compression fitting; (4) Multi-channel high temperature data logger; and (5) Sacrificial insulation blocks replaced after each run. (Source: PhoenixTM)

To address the process challenges, a unique thermal barrier design has been developed that both protects the data logger in the furnace (typically three hours at 1697°F/925°C) and also protects during transfer through the oil quench (typically 15 mins) and final wash station (Figure 3). The key to the barrier design is the encasement of a sealed inner barrier with its own thermal protection with blocks of high-grade sacrificial insulation contained in a robust outer structural frame (Figure 4).

Quench Cooling Phases

Monitoring the oil quench in carburization gives the operator a unique insight into the product’s specific cooling characteristics, which can be critical to allow optimal product loading and process understanding and optimization. From a scientific perspective, the quench temperature profile trace, although only a couple of minutes in duration, is complex and unique. From a zoomed in quench trace (Figure 5) taken from a complete carburizing profile run, the three unique heat transfer phases making up the oil quench cool curve can be clearly identified:

Figure 5. Oil quench temperature profile for different locations on an automotive gear test piece shows the three distinct heat transfer phases: (1) film boiling “vapor blanket”, (2) nucleate boiling, and (3) convective heat transfer. (Source: PhoenixTM)
  1. Film boiling “vapor Blanket”: The oil quenchant creates a layer of vapor (Leidenfrost phenomenon) covering the metal surface. Cooling in this stage is a function of conduction through the vapor envelope. Slow cool rate since the vapor blanket acts as an insulator.
  2. Nucleate boiling: As the part cools, the vapor blanket collapses and nucleate boiling results. Heat transfer is fastest during this phase, typically two orders of magnitude higher than in film boiling.
  3. Convective heat transfer: When the part temperature drops below the oil boiling point. the cooling rate slows significantly. The cooling rate is exponentially dependent on the oil’s viscosity.

From a heat treat perspective, the quench step relative to the whole process (hours) is quick (seconds), but it is probably the most critical to the performance of the metallurgical phase transitions and achieving the desired core microstructure of the product without risk of distortion. By being able to monitor the quench step, the process can be validated for different products with differing size, form, and thermal mass. As shown in Figure 6, the quench curve profile over the three heat transfer phases is very different for two different automotive gear sizes.

Figure 6. Oil quench temperature profile for different automotive gear sizes (20MnCr5 case hardening steel) with different thermal masses: Passenger Car Gear (2.2 lbs) and Commercial Vehicle Gear (17.6 lbs) (Source: PhoenixTM)

Summary

As discussed in this article, one of the key process performance factors associated with gas carburization is the control and monitoring of the product quench step. Employing an oil quench, the measurement of such operation is now very feasible as part of heat treat monitoring. Innovations in thru-process temperature profiling technology offer specific system designs to meet the respective application challenges.

References

[1] Dr. Steve Offley, “The light at the end of the tunnel – Monitoring Mesh Belt Furnaces,” Heat Treat Today, February 2022, https://www.heattreattoday.com/processes/brazing/brazing-technical-content/the-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel-monitoring-mesh-belt-furnaces/.

[2] Michael Mouilleseaux, “Heat Treat Radio #102: Lunch & Learn, Batch IQ Vs. Continuous Pusher, Part 1,” interviewed by Doug Glenn, Heat Treat Radio, October 26, 2023, audio, https://www.heattreattoday.com/media-category/heat-treat-radio/heat-treat-radio-102-102-lunch-learn-batch-iq-vs-continuous-pusher-part-1/.

[3] Dr. Steve Offley, “Discover the DNA of Automotive Heat Treat: Thru-process Temperature Monitoring,” Heat Treat Today, August 2023, https://www.heattreattoday.com/discover-the-dna-of-automotive-heat-treat-thru-process-temperature-monitoring/.

About the Author

Dr Steve Offley (“Dr O”), Product Marketing Manager, PhoenixTM

Dr. Steve Offley, “Dr. O,” has been the product marketing manager at PhoenixTM for the last five years after a career of over 25 years in temperature monitoring focusing on the heat treatment, paint, and general manufacturing industries. A key aspect of his role is the product management of the innovative PhoenixTM range of thru-process temperature and optical profiling and TUS monitoring system solutions.

For more information: Contact Steve at Steve.Offley@phoenixtm.com.

Find Heat Treating Products And Services When You Search On Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

All About the Quench and Keeping Cool: Thru-process Temp Monitoring and Gas Carburizing Read More »

Heat Treat Radio #107: Stop-Off Coatings 101, with Mark Ratliff

/ CARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT, HARDENING TECHNICAL CONTENT, HEAT TREAT RADIO, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT, NITROCARBURIZING TECHNICAL CONTENT

Needing to learn more about the fundamentals and latest developments of stop off coatings? Mark Ratliff, president of AVION Manufacturing Company, Inc., applies his background in chemical engineering to understand and create what makes the best stop-off coatings/paints for carburizing and other heat treat processes. In this episode, Mark and Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, uncover the varieties of coatings, their uses, and the future of coating 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.

Chemistry in Coatings: Mark Ratliff’s Start in the Industry (00:22)

Contact us with your Reader Feedback!

Doug Glenn: I have the really great honor today of talking with Mark Ratliff from AVION Manufacturing. We’re going to do a “painting class” . . . kind of, but not really. Industrial paint — we’re going to talk about stop-off paints and things of that sort.

Mark has been working at AVION, currently located in Medina, Ohio, since 1994. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering from the University of Cincinnati. Prior to that — I did not know this about you, Mark — he worked at Shore Metal Treating with your father, huh?

Mark Ratliff: That’s correct, yes.

Doug Glenn: How long was he there?

Mark Ratliff: Well, he started the company. I went working there and was loading baskets of parts since I was about 8 years old. He would pay me $5.00 for a basket, “under the table,” and that was a lot of money back then. I was really rich, at the time!

Mark Ratliff, President, Avion Manufacturing (Source: AVION Manufacturing)

Doug Glenn: That’s pretty cool. It is very interesting to see people’s backgrounds and how they got involved in the industry. A lot of people start young, you know? You may win the record though — 8 years old! The labor board may be calling about your childhood.

Why Use Stop-Off Paints? (01:54)

Let’s talk today. Technically, we want to talk about something that not everybody may know about, and I think you and your company are kind of experts on these things, and that’s stop-off paints. Just from a 30,000-foot view — and you don’t have to go into a lot of detail here, Mark — what are stop-off paints and why do we use them?

Mark Ratliff: Stop-off paints are protective barrier-type coatings. What they do is prevent either carburization or the nitriding process from entering into the steel. They were created probably well over 50 years ago as a replacement for copperplating these parts. In the past, a long time ago, they would copperplate the part that they did not want carburized or nitrided. That’s a time-consuming process as well as being very expensive. The stop-off coatings were developed as an economical alternative to copperplating.

AVION Line of Stop-Offs (Source: AVION Manufacturing)

Doug Glenn: When you say “copperplating,” does that mean it was actual thin sheets of copper metal?

Mark Ratliff: That’s correct, yes.

Doug Glenn: And you actually had to wrap whatever you did not want nitrided or carburized in this copper and that would keep it from nitriding?

Mark Ratliff: That’s correct, yes.

Doug Glenn: Just in case people don’t know — but I would imagine that most people that are listening to this do know — nitriding and carburizing are both surface hardening technologies in which either nitrogen (in the case of nitriding) or carbon (in the case of carburizing) are infused into the surface. That, of course, gives improved wear properties, typically corrosion properties to those areas that receive the infusion of the metal.

Why do people not want the nitrogen or carbon to be infused to certain areas of the part?

Mark Ratliff: When you harden a part, as with carburization or nitriding, a lot of times hardness equates to brittleness. So you may induce certain stress in various parts, in various areas.

Also, if you want to do a post-heat treatment machining on the part, it would be virtually impossible if that part were carburized or nitrided because the surface is so hard that the tool can’t cut through it to do further machining on the part.

“If you want to do a post-heat treatment machining on the part, it would
be virtually impossible if that part were carburized or nitrided because the surface is so hard that the tool can’t cut through it to do further machining on the part.”

— Mark Ratliff, AVION Manufacturing

Doug Glenn: Gotcha.

Can you give a couple examples of parts, and if you can do a description of where on those parts you might apply a stop-off coating?

Mark Ratliff: Well, a lot of times the end user (the customer) is painting an end of a shaft where he’ll heat treat the shaft and make the shaft harder, but he wants to spin a thread on the end of that shaft. That’s a prime example of why you would use a stop-off coating.

A lot of times, the parts are made with the threads already on, but you don’t want those threads to be hardened because, again, hardness equals brittleness, and those threads would crack off after heat treatment. That would be an area where you would apply a stop-off coating.

Physical Properties of Stop-Offs (05:27)

Doug Glenn: Tell us a little bit about the actual physical “properties" of these stop-off coatings. We also call them “stop-off paints.” I’m assuming a lot of times these are just painted on — it’s a liquid format.

Mark Ratliff: They are all supplied in liquid form with the viscosity ranging right around 3500–8500 centipoise (cP). For the carburizing stop-off, we have two different kinds. (This is not new in the industry; most people know the formulations of the stop-offs.)

We have boric acid-based stop-offs; we have two different kinds of that — a waterborne and a solvent borne. The idea behind the boric acid-based stop-offs is that as the boric acid thermally decomposes, it creates a boron oxide glass. This glass is actually the diffusion barrier of the carbon. What’s nice about the boric acid-based stop-offs is that they’re water washable after the heat treatment process; the coating and the residue can get washed off.

Another type of stop-off coating that we have is based on silicate chemistry. A silicate chemistry is basically like putting a glass on the part. It’s more of a ceramic-based coating. It works very, very well, but the drawback of the silicate-based stop-offs is that you have to bead-blast the parts after heat treatment; it does not wash off in water.

Doug Glenn and Mark Ratliff

Doug Glenn: So, you’ve got to brush it off.

Mark Ratliff: You’ve got to brush it off, mechanically, correct.

Doug Glenn: That’s interesting.

When I think of painting something on and then putting it into a furnace, the first thing I think of is that paint is going to get completely obliterated in the furnace. But you just kind of answered that question. Those things will either transform into a glass or a ceramic of some sort after they’ve been in high heat for a while, and that’s what creates the barrier.

Mark Ratliff: That’s correct.

You have the active ingredient in the stop-offs  — you either have the silicate or you have the boric acid. Those are the active ingredients. The vehicle that the paint itself  — be it the water-based latex or the solvent-borne bead — those do, indeed, get charred off. They get burned off, leaving the active ingredient behind.

Doug Glenn: Are you able to use either of those — the water-based or the solvent-based — in vacuum furnaces? Do you have any trouble with off-gassing and things of that sort?

Mark Ratliff: Yes, a little bit. We’ve got to be careful in the vacuum furnace market because you do have the off-gassing. The combination of the vacuum and the heat at once can cause the coating to boil and blister. We do recommend pre-heat treatments when doing a vacuum operation.

Doug Glenn: And the pre-heat just kind of helps it adhere to the part without the blistering, I guess?

Mark Ratliff: That’s correct. And it drives off a lot of the residual water or solvent that might be left in the coating.

Different Chemistry, Different Technology: Plasma Nitriding Stop-Off Coatings (08:32)

Doug Glenn: Okay, good.

Now I understand that there is a new product coming out on the nitriding end of things. Can you tell us a little bit about that and why you’re developing it?

Mark Ratliff: We’ve been making a nitriding stop-off coating since 1989 when we came out with our water-based version. We actually had it patented. We were the first on the market with a water-based nitriding stop-off. This particular stop-off has been used in the industry for 45 years now.

We got called by a current customer asking, “Hey, do you have a plasma or an ion-nitriding stop-off?” At the time, we did not. So, we developed a new plasma — aka, ion-nitriding — stop-off, and that’s a different chemistry, different technology. It is going to be available in the market very soon.

Doug Glenn: Interesting.

I’m curious about this: Are stop-off paints used more in carburizing or nitriding?

Mark Ratliff: By far, carburizing — it’s probably 10 to 1 carburizing to nitriding, for sure.

Doug Glenn: Okay, gotcha.

This episode of Heat Treat Radio is sponsored by AVION.

So, you’ve been doing this for 30 or some years, right?

Mark Ratliff: It will be my 30th anniversary in the month of April.

Doug Glenn: Very nice! Well, congratulations.

Mark Ratliff: I did work for my father prior to that, when he ran AVION for many years before that.

Doug Glenn: Well, congratulations, first off — that’s good. It shows longevity, which is good.

Memorable Moment of Innovation (11:11)

Doug Glenn: Has there been a memorable challenge that you had to deal with, with these stop-off paints?

Mark Ratliff: One thing I’m particularly proud of, Doug, is we always had the water-based carburizing stop-off coating — both varieties — the boric acid-based and the silicate-based. I had a few customers reach out to me and say, “Hey, we’re doing heat treatment for the aerospace industry or for the automotive industry, and they don’t like water-based coatings on their parts,” because you run into corrosion, you run into rust, and so forth and so on. So, these customers asked me to create the solvent-borne, which we did about seven or eight years ago.

One thing I’m particularly proud of is, I got called by the Fiat Chrysler plant in Michigan (they’re going by Stellantis, now), and unbeknownst to them, their current stop-off provider, at the time, changed the formulation. (That was due to the REACH regulations in Europe.) Since they changed the formulation, Stellantis started seeing all these problems. So, they reached out to me and asked, “Do you have an equivalent? We’d like a solvent-borne stop-off.” I was quick to respond, “Oh, by the way, yes, we do. And yes, our product is better,” because even though it’s solvent-borne, we created a nonflammable stop-off coating. In addition to being nonflammable, the solvent that we used in the coating is VOC exempt — VOC meaning volatile organic compounds — which are basically air pollutants that people want to avoid when using these stop-off coatings.

AVION Green Label pail (Source: AVION Manufacturing)

Doug Glenn: Okay, very interesting. I was going to ask you — because I saw on your website — about your green label, which you kind of hit on with the VOC part, but can you tell us a little bit about the green label products that you have and why you’re calling them “green label”?

Mark Ratliff: We called it “green label” a long time ago — that was our original stop-off which kicked off our business 50+ years ago. But I think you’re referring to our eco green label which we created about two years ago.

We’ve been getting a lot of pressure to remove VOCs from our coatings. Clients like John Deere and Caterpillar said, “Hey, we love your coating, but if you could do anything to get the VOCs out of it, we’d really appreciate it.” So, that was one of the biggest goals and one of the biggest accomplishments — to create a coating that didn’t have any of these VOC or HAP (hazardous air pollutants)-type solvents in the coating, and we have successfully done that.

Doug Glenn: That’s good. Especially in the ‘green movement’ that’s going on today, that’s obviously very important.

What coating solution should heat treaters be looking at, in the near future? Is it just VOC stuff, the lack of VOC, or what?

Mark Ratliff: Well, yes, of course. I mean, we’re proud to say that all of our coatings are virtually VOC-free. We are still making the original green label because some customers are not happy to change, so we still offer that. But every single one of our coatings right now have a less than 10 gram/liter VOC threshold, and we’re really quite proud of that.

But, you know, as you’re talking about new coatings coming to the market, we’re coming out with the plasma nitriding stop-off. But we’re also looking into a stop-off for salt bath carburizing. We’ve had a couple people reach out to us, just recently, asking, “Do you have a coating that we can use to paint on the parts that go into a salt bath carburizing operation?”

Doug Glenn: That would be interesting because there is a bit of abrasion going on there, yes?

Mark Ratliff: There is, correct.

Final Questions: Supply Chain, Technical Assistance, and Target Markets (14:51)

Doug Glenn: Now, that’s interesting.

I have two additional questions for you. One has to deal with supply chain issues. Have you guys had any issues with being able to deliver quickly or anything of that sort, ala Covid?

Mark Ratliff: Sure. Right after Covid, we had trouble getting the main ingredient for the carburizing stop-off coating which is boric acid. Currently, I have three suppliers that supply that to me, and there was a point in time where none of them could get the material because the manufacturer of this product was not delivering east of the Mississippi. So, I had to do several days of researching and scrounging around, and I found a distributor in California that said, “Yes, we can get it to you, but you have to buy a whole truckload, which we were very happy to do.”

Doug Glenn: Yes, you take what you can get, at that point.

But no issues now?

Mark Ratliff: No, everything is pretty much back to normal. I mean, gone are the days where you could pick up the phone and get material delivered to you in three days, but most of our raw materials get delivered in under two weeks, and we keep a pretty adequate inventory of all of our raw materials so that we don’t run out of anything.

Doug Glenn: So, you get the raw materials. Do you do your own formulations there? I mean, do you actually do the mixing and all that stuff?

Mark Ratliff: We do. Everything is all done here, in-house, correct.

Doug Glenn: Finally, technical assistance and competency on your guys’ part: Do you have people on your staff — yourself or others — that if a customer calls in with an issue, you can help talk them through it?

“[Look] at the copperplating method: It’s, number one, very expensive, and number two, from what I’ve been told, it’s not very environmentally friendly — you’re working with a lot of hazardous ingredients, hazardous waste."

— Mark Ratliff, AVION Manufacturing

Mark Ratliff: Absolutely. So, I’m the “go to guy” here at AVION. If anyone has any technical questions, I’m the one that’s going to be answering them. And if it’s something where I need to come out to the plant, I’ll get in my car or get on a plane and visit that customer, if the quantity of it dictates that.

Doug Glenn: Yes, sure; it’s got to be a good business opportunity, obviously. But I’m sure you can use the phone to answer questions too.

Mark Ratliff: Yes, most of the time it’s by phone.

Doug Glenn: So, Mark, in the marketplace, is there an ideal client, someone who maybe should be considering stop-off paints that isn’t currently using it? Is there someone out there that you would say, “Hey, you know, if you’re doing this, maybe you ought to think about stop-off paints, if you’re not already doing them.”

Mark Ratliff: Well, I would certainly still target those that are copperplating. Look at the copperplating method: It’s, number one, very expensive, and number two, from what I’ve been told, it’s not very environmentally friendly — you’re working with a lot of hazardous ingredients, hazardous waste. So, those are the types of people that I will continue to target for stop-off coatings.

Doug Glenn: Well, Mark, listen, that’s great. Hopefully, this has been a good primer for people who didn’t know what stop-off paints/coatings were, and hopefully they can get ahold of you if they need something. I appreciate you being with us.

Mark Ratliff: Okay, thank you very much, Doug. I appreciate it myself.

About the Expert

Mark Ratliff started at Avion Manufacturing in 1994 after earning his bachelor’s of science degree in Chemical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. Prior to getting his degree, Mark spent many of his summer breaks working for his father at Shore Metal Treating where he gained a good deal of knowledge about the heat treating industry.

Contact the expert at mark@avionmfg.com or www.avionmfg.com

Search Heat Treat Equipment And Service Providers On Heat Treat Buyers Guide.Com

Heat Treat Radio #107: Stop-Off Coatings 101, with Mark Ratliff Read More »

Skip to content