Rio Tinto has begun commissioning a major expansion of its AP60 aluminum smelter technology in Quebec, increasing primary aluminum production capacity and supporting North American supply for transportation, construction, electrical, and consumer goods markets. The project centers on aluminum smelting, a high-temperature thermal processing operation that converts alumina into primary aluminum through electrolytic reduction.
The USD$1.5 billion expansion at the Complexe Arvida facility adds 96 new AP60 smelting pots and is expected to be fully operational by the end of 2026. Once complete, the project will increase production capacity by approximately 160,00 metric tons annually, bringing total AP60 output to 220,000 metric tons of primary aluminum per year. The startup process began in March.
The AP60 technology was developed by the company’s research and development teams and, when combined with hydropower used at its Canadian operations, generates one-sixth of the greenhouse gas emissions per ton of aluminum compared with the industry average. The expansion also supports the transition to carbon-free aluminum electrolysis technology being developed through the ELYSIS partnership.
Jérôme Pécresse Chief Executive Rio Tinto Aluminium & Lithium
“For 100 years, Quebec has been at the heart of the aluminum industry, and with AP60, Rio Tinto is now strongly positioned for decades to come,” said Jérôme Pécresse, chief executive of Rio Tinto Aluminium & Lithium. He added that the expanded smelter is expected to reduce carbon emissions by up to 90% in fine particulate matter compared with the older Arvida smelter.
Rio Tinto said the AP60 expansion, together with a planned aluminum recycling center at Arvida, will more than offset production losses associated with the closure of older potrooms at the site. The project supported more than 1,500 jobs during peak construction and is expected to directly support approximately 100 permanent positions.
Press release is available in its original form here. Main image shows Rio Tinto’s AP60 smelter in Saguenay — Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec Canada. Image Credit: Rio Tinto
Solar Atmospheres, a North American commercial heat treating company, has expanded its vacuum heat treating and titanium processing capabilities with the commissioning of a new vacuum furnace designed for hydriding and dehydriding (HDH) of titanium as well as a range of thermal processing applications. The addition is expected to increase capacity for titanium processing and vacuum heat treating operations, including annealing, stress relieving, solution treating, and aging.
The company recently commissioned the a new 12-foot horizontal vacuum furnace at its Eastern Pennsylvania facility. The furnace was designed primarily for HDH processing of titanium but can also perform the vacuum heat treating processed commonly used throughout the company’s client base.
The furnace features a 54″ x 54″ in x 144″ in working zone and is equipped with a 15,000-pound conventional load car arrangement. Additional features include a 300 HP external forced cooling system with variable frequency drive (VFD) control, Solar Manufacturing‘s Polaris control system, and dual mechanical pumping systems.
Michael A. Moyer Vice President of Sales Solar Atmospheres
“This new furnace adds much-needed capacity to support growing HDH demands,” said Mike Moyer, vice president of sales at Solar Atmospheres. “With dual mechanical pumping systems, we are able to more efficiently process larger degas loads and improve our delivery metrics.”
Moyer added that the furnace is also equipped to support the company’s existing vacuum heat treating operations. “From annealing and stress relieving to solution treating and aging, the new furnace adds considerable capacity to meet [clients’] growing demands.”
Press release is available in its original form here.
For 80 years, Cook Induction Heating Co. has been a trusted partner for the aerospace, automotive, defense, mining, and oil tool industries. The company was founded in 1945 to support the induction hardening of citrus cutters in Orange County, California and has evolved over time into the go-to experts for induction heating. With induction heating as their core focus, Cook Induction Heating Co. is well known for providing high-quality engineering solutions tailored for their clients.
Third-generation president Troy Doolittle proudly holding photos of past presidents Keith Doolittle (father) and Forrest Doolittle (grandfather). | Image Credit: Cook Induction Heating Co.
As a family business with decades of legacy, they take pride in their deep industry roots and multigenerational relationships with clients and partners. They are “small enough to care and big enough to deliver” on innovation, problem solving, localized treatment, precision, efficiency — and a phone that’s always answered by a person.
The company services are focused on high-precision components for aerospace, oil and gas, tooling, and defense applications, including surface hardening, tempering, and annealing, all via advanced induction methods. From supporting ventilator development projects during COVID to treating critical components for military helicopters and missile defense, Cook Induction Heating Co. takes pride in their ability to perform under pressure.
Speaking of pressure, how about treating a part for a race? The company once processed a specialized shaft for the Red Bull Racing trophy truck after it had broken during a race in Baja, Mexico. A member of the team hand-carried the broken shaft through international flights to Cook Induction Heating Co. who then worked directly with Italian engineers to process the part immediately upon arrival and returned the part via helicopter to be reinstalled in the field — all within hours. This type of high-pressure, high-impact success story is an example of their dedication and drive.
Speaking of pressure, how about treating a part for a race? The company once processed a specialized shaft for the Red Bull Racing trophy truck after it had broken during a race in Baja, Mexico. A member of the team hand-carried the broken shaft through international flights to Cook Induction Heating Co. who then worked directly with Italian engineers to process the part immediately upon arrival and returned the part via helicopter to be reinstalled in the field — all within hours. This type of high-pressure, high-impact success story is an example of their dedication and drive.
For more information:
Cook Induction Heating Co.
4925 E. Slauson Ave. Maywood, CA 90270
info@cookinduction.com cookinduction.com
Main image: Veteran operator Juan Garcia, with 26 years at Cook Induction, monitors the induction hardening process of a drive shaft.
A carbon emissions estimation tool specifically for heat treat furnaces combined physics-based furnace modeling with life cycle assessment. By revealing where emissions originate — from combustion and atmosphere gases to upstream energy sources — in this Technical Tuesday installment, Lakshmi Srinivasan and Fu Zhao, Ph.D., of Purdue University show how heat treaters can make data-driven decisions on efficiency improvements, electrification, and other decarbonization strategies.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sMay 2026 Sustainable Heat Treat Technologies print edition.
Carbon Accountability in Heat Treatment
Heat treatment is a well-established, performance-critical step in metal component manufacturing. Today, as decarbonization pressures move up the manufacturing supply chain, the heat treat sector’s energy-intensive process heating faces scrutiny in industrial sustainability conversations.
Product carbon footprints, environmental product declarations, and life cycle assessments (LCA) have become more than just niche concerns for sustainability teams. Clients across automotive, renewable energy, and aerospace sectors are increasingly demanding process-specific, component-level emissions data that can be traced, verified, and compared. For heat treaters, that demand carries downstream accountability as carbon performance is becoming visible and increasingly factored into supply chain decisions. The requirement to measure and the pressure to decarbonize are converging.
Energy efficiency improvements, electrification, low-carbon fuel switching, and alternative furnace technologies are the principal pathways to reducing heat treat sector’s environmental footprint. Policy frameworks, client requirements, and voluntary net-zero commitments are pushing operators and OEMs alike to evaluate which of these investments deliver meaningful and cost-effective emission reductions.
Every heat treated part carries a carbon cost. Quantifying these emissions reliably and at the process level is imperative for informed decarbonization decision making.
Purdue’s Carbon Estimation Tool
Conventional carbon emissions accounting for industrial facilities relies on plant-level energy data, such as gas meter readings and utility bills, combined with standard emission factors. For legacy heat treating equipment, most instrumentation focuses on process control rather than energy or emissions measurement. These approaches produce estimates that are too rough to support product-level environmental impact or technology comparisons. Supply chain contributions of fuels, electricity, heat treat atmosphere gas generation, and furnace build need to be captured to characterize total emissions.
Standard LCA databases contain generic datasets for natural gas combustion and electricity generation but lack the data resolution needed to reflect heat treatment operations. Many associated process inputs, such as Endothermic atmosphere gas generation, have no dedicated LCA datasets.
To address these gaps, a Python-based desktop GUI was developed that integrates physics-based furnace energy modeling with cradle-to-gate LCA (Srinivasan and Zhao 2025) (Figure 1). Cradle-to-gate assessment quantifies the environmental impact of a product or process across its entire supply chain, from raw material extraction through manufacturing, and follows the ISO 14040/14044 framework (International Organization for Standardization 2006a, 2006b).
Related: Srinivasan and Zhao previously introduced the broader framework behind carbon quantification in heat treating. Click on the image above to read more.
The furnace energy model performs a detailed thermal analysis of a radiant-tube batch atmosphere furnace, computing heat transfer, combustion efficiency, and energy balance throughout the heat treat cycle. The energy model is solved as a function of furnace geometry, insulation, load size and properties, heat treat temperature, fuel type, and combustion properties. The model considers natural gas-fired radiant tubes with different tube shapes, orientations (vertical/horizontal), and burner configurations, as well as electric heating. Resolved energy sinks include load and fixture heating, insulation thermal storage, insulation conduction losses to surrounding environment, furnace atmospheric gas heating, and electric heating or recuperator-dependent flue-gas losses.
The LCA takes the energy and material flows produced by the furnace model and traces each through the corresponding upstream supply chain, using custom-developed life cycle inventory data.
Tool Capabilities and Applications
The tool is designed to answer these questions: Where do emissions come from in a heat treat cycle? What drives them? What actions will reduce them most effectively?
What the tool computes:
Energy consumption per heat treat cycle, resolved by phase: heat-up, soak, diffusion
Full scope-resolved carbon footprint: Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions per cycle
Life cycle environmental impact metrics: global warming potential, smog formation related to NOx from burners, ecotoxicity, and particulate matter formation
Gas-fired vs. electric furnace emission performance under identical process conditions
Emissions sensitivity to key process and design parameters: operating temperature, furnace size and insulation, load density, preheating, and burner configuration
Where it can be applied:
Establishing a process-level emissions baseline for a specific furnace and recipe
Generating inventory data for product carbon footprints and environmental product declarations
Supporting Scope 1, 2, and 3 disclosures under GHG Protocol and EPA reporting frameworks
Evaluating electrification decisions against regional grid carbon intensity
Benchmarking emissions across competing furnace technologies for equivalent metallurgical outcomes
The sensitivity module enables operators and engineers to identify the dominant drivers of emissions and evaluate decarbonization options systematically. Burner configurations spanning non-recuperative, plug-in recuperative, and self-recuperative designs are evaluated through a combustion model that resolves chemical kinetics, tube temperatures, and emissions.
Heat distribution is computed on a per-surface basis using 3D Monte Carlo-based radiative view factors across the full furnace enclosure. Users can specify insulation material and thickness independently for each furnace wall, choosing from an extensive built-in material library.
Atmospheric gas contributions, such as Endothermic gas generation, nitrogen supply, and life-cycle amortized refractory materials, are included in the inventory.
Current model predictions are validated against instrumented industrial furnace data, with total cycle energy consumption within 5% of measured values from a well-maintained atmospheric furnace.
Emissions from a Carburizing Operation
Gas carburizing is selected to demonstrate tool results as a representative case for high-temperature, extended cycle time operations in preheated atmosphere-controlled industrial furnaces. The process requires a supply of externally generated Endothermic gas, which is an energy-intensive input with its own upstream footprint. What is true of carburizing in carbon accounting terms is broadly true of any thermochemical, atmosphere-controlled furnace process. The tool is built to accommodate the full range of heat treatment operations at various temperatures.
Figure 2. Carburization process flow diagram (data from PHTC)
The carburizing system boundary encompasses the batch atmosphere furnace and all associated energy and material inputs from heat-up, carbon boost, diffuse and equalize phases (Figure 2). Endothermic atmosphere gas generation is included within the boundary, covering both the heat demand of the generator retort and the natural gas consumed as a chemical reactant.
Tracing emissions from a carburizing operation requires a structured accounting framework: the sources are multiple, and each contributes differently to the total footprint.
Scope 1 covers direct emissions from on-site combustion: the natural gas burned in radiant tube burners and the Endothermic gas generator retort, plus spent atmosphere gas vented to the atmosphere at cycle end.
Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased electricity consumed by heating elements, circulation fans, quenching systems, and attached auxiliary equipment.
Scope 3 captures everything upstream of the facility fence: the carbon embedded in the natural gas supply chain before it reaches the burner, the emissions associated with producing the Endothermic atmosphere gas, the embodied emissions in furnace construction and insulation materials, and the upstream footprint of nitrogen supply for purging and idling.
In a representative batch furnace carburizing cycle, direct natural gas combustion constitutes the dominant share of total greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Scope-resolved emission breakdown for a representative carburizing operation in a gas-fired atmospheric furnace | Image Credit: PHTC
However, a significant share of total emissions originates from sources beyond the furnace burner and what the gas meter captures. These fall under two distinct categories.
Endothermic atmosphere gas generation and usage are carbon intensive. This includes the heat demand of the generator retort, the natural gas consumed as a chemical reactant, the upstream Scope 3 emissions from the natural gas supply chain, and the burn-off of spent atmosphere gas at cycle end. That burn-off is a direct Scope 1 release: the principal constituents of Endothermic gas are CO and H2, both combustible. They are oxidized through a flame screen or exhaust stack as the inner chamber and vestibule door open between cycles.
Upstream supply chain emissions for furnace fuels and infrastructure constitute the second category. This includes the carbon embedded in natural gas extraction, processing, and pipeline delivery before it reaches the facility fence, plus the embodied carbon in furnace insulation and refractory materials amortized over the furnace lifetime.
Electric vs. Gas-Fired Carburizing? Depends on Where You Plug In
An electric furnace is modeled as a direct retrofit replacing gas burners with an electric heating setup. Existing tubes are repurposed as resistive heating elements, controlled by an SCR/variable reactance transformer (VRT). Furnace size, insulation, tube geometry, and carburizing operation remain unchanged, enabling a direct, like-for-like comparison between electric and natural gas atmospheric furnaces. The modeled energy analysis shows a reduction of slightly over 25% in total energy consumed to meet the same process heat demand. This is attributable to the elimination of flue gas exhaust losses inherent to combustion-based heating.
Energy efficiency, however, does not translate directly to carbon efficiency. Under current U.S. average grid conditions, the electric furnace produces about 20% more emissions than a natural gas furnace. The electricity carbon intensity is derived from Ecoinvent 3.12 life cycle emissions, which account for upstream contributions across the full electricity supply chain. This includes fuel extraction, power plant construction, transmission infrastructure, and distribution losses, making these the appropriate basis for ISO-compliant LCA.
A direct grid carbon intensity factor, such as eGRID 2023, captures only emissions at the point of generation (Figure 4). On this basis alone, the electric furnace produces approximately 6.5% more emissions per cycle than the gas-fired baseline.
Figure 4. Current eGRID electricity regions and grid mix | Image Credit: eGRID 2023
The carbon performance of an electric furnace is largely determined by the grid that powers it rather than by the heating equipment. In low-carbon grids such as CAMX (California), electrification delivers clear reductions. In coal- and gas-heavy regions such as MRO (Midwest Reliability Corporation) and RFC (Reliability First Corporation), electric furnaces produce emissions that exceed the gas-fired case by a considerable margin. National-average factors applied without regional context can produce directionally incorrect conclusions.
Expanding the Boundary: Furnace Idling and Quenching
Total greenhouse gas emissions increase by an average of 18% on expanding the system boundaries to account for integral quench operations and the nitrogen supply required for furnace purging and idling between cycles. Quenching is not thermally dominant, but the oil quench pump operates continuously, making it an electrically persistent load that accumulates over a production shift.
Nitrogen purging assumes five furnace volumes per cycle, and the associated emissions are highly source dependent. The carbon intensity of nitrogen supply varies significantly by delivery method. Cryogenic and compressed gas delivery systems have comparable and substantially higher upstream footprints than on-site alternatives. Liquefaction, compression, and transportation energy drive emissions from off-site nitrogen production. By contrast, on-site pressure swing adsorption produces nitrogen locally using only compression energy and carries roughly one-third of the emissions intensity of delivered alternatives.
For facilities operating continuous production schedules with frequent purge cycles, nitrogen source selection is a discrete decarbonization lever with a direct, quantifiable impact on total cycle emissions.
Conclusion
This tool provides a reliable, process-level method for the heat treat industry to engage with carbon emissions quantification. A complete LCA reveals that process heating accounts for two-thirds of total carburizing emissions in a natural gas-operated batch furnace. Endothermic gas and upstream supply chain emissions contribute to the rest. Matching furnace size to load is an immediately actionable and directly quantifiable decarbonization lever. The tool evaluates the emissions impact of electrification as a function of regional grid carbon intensity and accommodates a range of flexible batch furnace sizes and temperatures, quantifying each variable’s contribution to the total process carbon footprint.
About the Research: This research was conducted under the sponsorship of the Purdue Heat Treating Consortium. The computational tool and associated findings are available to current consortium members. For more details, please contact the authors.
References
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006a. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006. Geneva, Switzerland.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006b. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044:2006. Geneva, Switzerland.
Srinivasan, L., and F. Zhao. 2025. “Quantifying Carbon Footprint in Industrial Heat Treatment Processes Through Life Cycle Assessment.” Proceedings of the ASME International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC 2025) 89022. https://doi.org/10.1115/MSEC2025-155425.
Wernet, G., C. Bauer, B. Steubing, J. Reinhard, E. Moreno-Ruiz, and B. Weidema. 2016. “The ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I): Overview and Methodology.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21 (9): 1218–1230. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.v
About the Authors:
Lakshmi Srinivasan Ph.D. Candidate in Mechanical Engineering Purdue University
Lakshmi Srinivasan is a Ph.D. candidate in Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University, specializing in life cycle assessment, energy modeling, and decarbonization pathways for industrial and transportation applications.
Fu Zhao, Ph.D. Professor, School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering Purdue University
Fu Zhao, Ph.D., is Professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue University. His research integrates life cycle assessment, techno-economic analysis, recycling and circular economy strategies for critical materials and energy systems.
IperionX has commissioned new powder metallurgy equipment to expand U.S. titanium component manufacturing capacity, supporting the production of near-net-shape parts for defense, aerospace, and industrial applications. The technology forms titanium preforms that can be sintered and forged into finished components, increasing production flexibility and supporting high-volume manufacturing pathways.
The company announced the commissioning of a 300-ton, six-axis SACMI powder metallurgy press at its Titanium Manufacturing Campus in South Boston, Virginia. The press triples IperionX’s existing powder metallurgy capacity and expands the range of titanium components that can be manufactured domestically using its powder metallurgy technologies.
SACMI powder press at IperionX’s titanium manufacturing campus, Virginia, and examples of complex parts that can be produced by powder metallurgy using IperionX titanium metal powder. | Image Credit: IperionX
The SACMI press provides higher compaction force, multi-axis movement, improved repeatability, and enhanced geometry control compared with conventional uniaxial pressing systems. These capabilities are intended to support programs requiring more complex component designs, tighter process control, and higher-volume production.
The press utilizes titanium powder produced through IperionX’s HAMRTM titanium process and forms neat-net-shape titanium preforms that can then be sintered and forged using the company’s HSPTTM process. Components targeted by the manufacturing platform include fasteners, gears, brackets, actuators, and other titanium parts used in defense, aerospace, industrial markets.
Anastasios (Taso) Arima CEO IperionX Source: IperionX
The six-axis press is capable of up to 24 pressing cycles per minute, equivalent to approximately 11 milion single-cavity parts annually under operation assumptions. The system is also designed to integrate with additional HSPT furnace capacity expected to arrive in June to support customer qualification, low-rate initial production, and the continued scale-up of titanium component manufacturing.
“Titanium is a critical material, but its use has often been limited by cost and supply chain challenges. By combining our U.S.-sourced titanium powder, patented HAMRTM process, powder metallurgy pressing, and HSPTTM sintering and forging, IperionX is building a more scalable platform for domestic titanium manufacturing,” said Anastasios (Taso) Arima, CEO of IperionX.
Press release is available in its original form here. For additional context, watch a short video from IperionX discussing the newly commissioned powder metallurgy press and its planned role in scaling titanium component production embedded above.
We’re celebrating getting to the “fringe” of the weekend with a Heat TreatFringe Friday installment: a Q&A between Bethany Leone, managing editor at Heat TreatTodayand Fergal Mackie, founder and CEO of Metacarpal, on the development of a fully mechanical prosthetic hand engineered for demanding real-world environments. This discussion highlights the role of precision machining, material selection, Aluminum 7075, and surface engineering in developing lightweight, durable systems designed to withstand harsh daily use.
While not exactly heat treat, “Fringe Friday” deals with interesting developments in one of our key markets: aerospace, automotive, medical, energy, or general manufacturing.
A Solution to Address Real-World Challenges
Experiences from users working in demanding environments helped shape the development of the GEM, a fully mechanical bionic hand from Metacarpal designed to prioritize durability, maintainability, and adaptive gripping functionality. From construction sites to commercial kitchens, these real-world applications reinforced the need for a prosthetic system capable of withstanding harsh conditions without relying on electronics vulnerable to failure.
The Engineering Behind the Prosthetic
Fergal Mackie Founder & CEO Metacarpal
In the following Q&A, Heat TreatToday managing editor Bethany Leone speaks with Fergal Mackie, founder and CEO of Metacarpal, about the materials, mechanical engineering, manufacturing methods, and surface treatments behind the development of the GEM prosthetic hand.
Bethany Leone: What shortcomings in existing prosthetics did the GEM aim to overcome?
Fergal Mackie: Currently, around half of prosthetic hands are rejected — this reality has plagued upper-limb prosthetics for a long time. The Metacarpal GEM addresses several critical shortcomings that drive prosthetic abandonment rates.
While myoelectric/robotic devices have shown promise, despite 30 years of intensive research, even the most expensive devices are still rejected at a high rate.
For many users, particularly heavy-duty users, electronic systems present problems including battery dependency, sensor failures from sweating, response delays, and high costs. These systems require complex calibration, intensive training periods, and frequent maintenance that disrupts patient care. Many users struggle with inconsistent muscle signals needed for electronic control. I encountered users who described using expensive electronic devices as paperweights or permanently attached to hairdryers because these were the only reliable uses they found. These are devices that often cost upwards of $100k.
Traditional mechanical hooks controlled by body-motion remain the most popular prosthetic hand in the world. This is a design that has not changed in around 150 years. Research shows 74% of military veterans prefer body-powered solutions for their reliability and feedback. They are inherently functional, robust and reliable, however, limited to a single grip and their appearance is often stigmatized, particularly for new amputees.
GEM prosthetic hand | Image Credit: Metacarpal
GEM is the first fully mechanical bionic hand. It bridges the gap between the practicalities of traditional hooks, and expensive electronic hands that offer features but lack reliability. It pairs the most desirable features of the robotic hands, however, for the first time, fully controlled and powered by body motion. This mechanical design brings unparalleled reliability and durability.
Electronic prosthetics typically fail in wet, dusty, or extreme temperature conditions where many users work. Construction workers, mechanics, and others in physically demanding occupations need devices that function reliably in challenging environments without electronic vulnerabilities. One construction worker I met had burned through a dozen robotic hands in fifteen years, eventually returning to using a hook because nothing else could survive a construction site.
The device addresses the estimated 50% of amputees who choose not to use current prosthetic options due to functional limitations, reliability concerns, comfort issues, weight problems, and poor fit that make existing solutions impractical for daily use. According to the Journal of Hand and Microsurgery, upper limb loss affects more than half a million individuals in the United States, with estimates that those numbers may double by the year 2050.
Bethany Leone: What design criteria shaped the development of the GEM?
Fergal Mackie: The Metacarpal GEM design centers on force reduction and mechanical reliability to address the primary reasons users abandon prosthetic hands. I engineered the device to operate below 38 Newtons of force, the research-established threshold that prevents fatigue in both men and women during extended use. This force reduction represents the most critical design constraint I solved.
Our patented Reactive Grasp Technology uses 13 pulleys to achieve five-finger adaptive grasping through purely mechanical means. Each finger moves independently, allowing the hand to conform to object shapes rather than closing simultaneously like conventional devices. This mechanical advantage system reduces operational force while providing immediate proprioceptive feedback through the harness system, functioning like a bike brake where users have direct connection to the grip and can feel the force they’re applying.
The device weighs less than one pound yet supports 110-pound carry loads and 198-pound vertical push forces. I achieved this strength-to-weight ratio through high-quality materials selected for durability, with minimal maintenance required. The waterproof design eliminates electronic vulnerabilities that cause failures in wet, dusty, or extreme temperature conditions.
Users access three distinct grip patterns by rotating the thumb position: lateral grips for flat items like phones or books, power grips for heavy lifting, and pinch grips for detailed tasks. This multi-grip functionality, without electronics, sets the GEM apart from traditional body-powered hands that offer only a single fixed grasp.
The most challenging performance constraint involved creating multi-articulation through mechanical systems alone. While electronic hands achieve multiple grip patterns through motors and sensors, I had to engineer purely mechanical solutions that provide sophisticated functionality without complexity. The pulley system that enables independent finger movement while maintaining force feedback required extensive engineering to balance functionality with reliability. Field serviceability became an unexpected advantage when an early trialist working in an Italian restaurant could disassemble, clean, and restore full functionality after flour contamination without having to ship the device back to the manufacturer.
Bethany Leone: How does the GEM compare to a biological hand in terms of durability and environmental resistance?
Fergal Mackie: The Metacarpal GEM delivers measurable performance that exceeds many biological hand capabilities in specific areas. Each finger can support 22 pounds directly on the tip, and around 90 pounds at the finger base. It does this, without flexing the wrist or any of the natural body impulses that would lower the impact making it much stronger than any natural hand in many respects.
GEM maintains full functionality when exposed to water, dust, extreme temperatures, and chemical spills that would damage electronic systems. Construction workers and mechanics use the device in environments where electronic prosthetics fail completely.
Environmental resistance represents a key performance advantage. The GEM functions in wet conditions where electronic prosthetics typically fail, dusty environments that interfere with sensors, and temperature extremes that affect battery performance. This reliability enables users to maintain consistent performance across work and recreational activities.
The hand is designed with a metal solid skeleton that supports a soft exterior — inspired by the design of a natural hand. Then, using cables, the fingers and thumb are actuated, again, similar to the role of tendons of a hand.
However, when a natural hand is scratched or bruised, it has a unique advantage: it will heal over time. While this is something we have not yet achieved, the fingers and soft covers can be simply replaced in minutes, making good-as-new restoration possible.
Bethany Leone: What materials are used in the prosthetic?
Fergal Mackie: GEM is made primarily from machined Aluminum 7075, or “aircraft aluminum,” from the central chassis to the fingers. This builds a rigid skeleton that is strong yet extremely lightweight. We then use stainless steel parts with bronze bushings for hardwearing, low-friction surfaces. We selected a mixture of aluminum bronze and phosphor bronze throughout the hand, depending on the specific strength requirement of the part.
It then pairs this with a flexible TPU cover. The flexible material allows this part to be made as a single part that physically wraps around the hand. Then, for gripping surfaces, we opt for nitrile rubber that is equally durable and high friction.
Bethany Leone: What manufacturing methods were critical to the device?
Fergal Mackie: The hand is made from custom-machined parts, primarily milling operations, for all major components. Tolerances go as low as 8 microns! This is to aid with critical running surface contacts that ensure the product’s longevity over years of use, preventing any further finger stiction.
The only tooled parts are the finger grips. Because they are common across all fingers, these are compression molded for their uniformity and are less tolerant than sensitive components.
The most complex part to make is actually the cables in the hand. This took years of testing to fully understand and is now a crucial part of Metacarpal’s IP. We are able to manufacture loops of cable made from the world’s longest fibers that are then cyclically pre-stretched within a millimeter of accuracy to the cable’s final length, where adjustment mechanisms accommodate the specific cable lengths.
These parts arrive at our design and manufacturing facility in the National Robotarium in Edinburgh, Scotland. Here, each component is carefully assembled into each hand. First, going through inspection, storage, assembly, burn-in, factory acceptance testing, and then sent for sale.
Bethany Leone: What thermal or surface treatments were important to the design?
Fergal Mackie: Because the GEM is to be used in all environments, surface treatments are very important to prevent corrosion, especially when in contact with different metals. All aluminum parts are anodized, and all exposed parts use type 3 hard anodizing for an incredible rugged finish.
While that is the majority of surface treatments used, we do have an array of parts for a new product, yet unreleased, that will require extensive hardening processes to get the necessary properties.
Bethany Leone: What design decisions challenged industry norms?
Fergal Mackie: The Metacarpal GEM challenges fundamental industry assumptions about prosthetic hand design by achieving multi-articulation through purely mechanical means rather than electronic systems. While the prosthetics industry has moved toward adding sensors, processors, and complex electronics to improve functionality, Metacarpal reimagined the entire approach through mechanical engineering innovation.
The device breaks industry norms by delivering sophisticated grip patterns without batteries, sensors, or electronic components that typically define advanced prosthetic hands. The patented Reactive Grasp Technology uses 13 pulleys to enable five-finger adaptive grasping, providing functionality that rivals electronic systems through mechanical solutions alone.
Force reduction represents another departure from industry standards. The GEM operates below 38 Newtons of force while traditional body-powered hands often exceed this threshold, causing user fatigue and abandonment. This engineering approach prioritizes user comfort over conventional design assumptions about acceptable operational forces.
The immediate fitting philosophy challenges clinical workflows that typically require extensive training periods and complex calibration processes. The device functions immediately upon fitting, reducing the time and complexity prosthetists face with traditional prosthetic solutions.
Environmental durability standards exceed industry norms through waterproof design that functions in conditions where electronic prosthetics fail. Construction workers and mechanics use the device in wet, dusty, and extreme temperature environments that would damage conventional electronic systems.
The design philosophy represents a paradigm shift from the industry assumption that more technological features equal better performance. The GEM demonstrates that breakthrough innovation comes from rethinking fundamental approaches rather than adding complexity.
Bethany Leone: What are Metacarpal’s plans for future innovation, either of this design or an adjacent design?
Fergal Mackie: We’re currently working on creating add-on solutions that expand the functionality of GEM even further, making the product even more valuable. We’re also working on expanding the patient population that can access GEM with optimal solutions by developing a suite of add-ons that optimize the hand for different levels of amputation. Every patient has a unique limb difference and associated difference designs and associated issues and it is crucial that Metacarpal meet these. This includes more sizes, pediatric designs and colors so that each prosthetic is personal.
New strip casting systems for rare-earth magnet manufacturing are expected to support thermal processing operations tied to neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnet production in the U.S., serving industries including energy, electronics, automotive, and defense. The systems are designed for vacuum metallurgy applications involving high-temperature melting and casting processes used in advanced materials manufacturing.
Image Credit: SECO/WARWICK
Strip is a critical upstream step in the production of NdFeB magnets and other high-performance permanent magnets. The process rapidly solidifies molten alloy into thin strips, forming feedstock that is further processed into high-performance magnets used in electric motors, precision actuators, and other advanced technologies. The equipment, intended for strip casting operations used in the production of rare-earth magnetic materials, is being supplied by Retech, a division of SECO/WARWICK Group focused on vacuum metallurgy and metal processing technologies.
In high-performance magnet applications, precise system atmospheric control, casting cooling rate, and thermal control during solidification directly impact downstream magnetic properties. For this reason, Retech strip casters are designed to provide stable, repeating operating conditions over sustained production cycles.
Earl Good President Retech
“Advanced magnet manufacturing depends on precision at every stage of the process,” said Earl Good, president of Retech. “Our strip casting systems are built to provide the rapid cooling rates that achieve the grain structure necessary for producing magnets that maintain superior magnetic properties, even at high temperatures. These systems will support long-term domestic supply growth.”
Retech’s strip casting platforms can be integrated into larger melt and materials handling systems, supporting continuous industrial workflows rather than isolated batch processing. The equipment supplied in this case reflects ongoing investment in domestic magnet production capacity, as manufacturers work to strengthen U.S.-based supply chains for critical materials.
Press release is available in its original form here.
Heat TreatRadio host Heather Falcone and guest Vincent Lelong, Senior Synergy Center Manager and Metallurgist at ECM USA, explore the realities of process qualification and recipe development in modern heat treating. Vincent shares decades of experience developing vacuum carburizing processes for automotive, aerospace, and high-volume manufacturing applications. Together, they discuss how heat treaters can balance metallurgy, fixturing, quench strategy, and production demands to achieve repeatable results. From practical troubleshooting insights to the evolution of vacuum carburizing technology, this conversation offers a grounded look at what it takes to optimize heat treating.
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.
Introduction (00:05)
Heather Falcone: Hi, I’m Heather Falcone, and welcome to Heat TreatRadio. Today, we are asking a metallurgist, and we are talking about the ins and outs of process qualification and recipe development. We are on-site with the sponsor of our episode, ECM USA, in beautiful Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. It’s a real treat to be able to record on site. We hardly ever get that chance. Joining me today is Vincent Lelong, the Senior Synergy Center Manager and Metallurgist. Thanks for joining me today, Vincent.
Vincent Lelong: Thank you, Heather.
Heather Falcone: So you have the luxury, since we are in your beautiful facility, to tell me not just about yourself, but also about ECM. Start off with your background because it is extensive.
Vincent Lelong: I am a metallurgist, I went to college in France, and I started with ECM in 1999. Since then, I’ve been across the world in the U.S. for 20 years. I do presentation and testing for the furnace behind us and our larger furnace. I go on-site. This is our Synergy Center; it’s a nice environment, clean — quiet today because we’re filming.
Heather Falcone: Tell me a little bit about what ECM does.
Vincent Lelong: At ECM, we manufacture and install heat treatment vacuum furnaces. Our main focus is on low-pressure carburizing modular furnaces, large and small. We integrate not just heat treatment itself, but the pre-treatment, like washing, storage, preparation of the load with robots, heat treatment, temper, cryo… Everything is set up together, and that is our main goal: integration of a fully automatic installation.
Heather Falcone: A one-stop shop. You go to one place, and you’re going to make it all work.
Vincent Lelong: There’s a part and everything will be ready in few hours later, sometimes days, depending on the treatment.
Heather Falcone: Hopefully it all works.
ECM Nano vacuum furnace used for client cycle development and qualification.
Vincent Lelong: Well, it always works. It’s a really repeatable modular furnace. In the U.S., we are focusing on vacuum carburizing, but we also manufacture other types of furnaces for crystal growth, silicon heat treatment, melting silicon for solar panel, and others. Within ECM Group, there’s a range of heat treatment processes that we manufacture for. And not just steel; it can be other materials. I’m specialized in steel and very restricted heat treatment with vacuum carburizing, but maybe one day we can do other materials.
Heather Falcone: Steel makes the world run.
Vincent Lelong: With our modular furnace, we can do hardening, gas quench, oil quench, carburizing, gas quench, oil quench, and now we do vacuum carbonitriding and we can do nitriding in the furnace. So you can have one installation for multitask heat treatment. It’s the purpose of the modular furnace, the beauty of it.
Heather Falcone: More flexibility, more capabilities.
Biggest Challenges of Process Qualification and Recipe Development (4:08)
Heather Falcone: That brings us into the first core question that I want to ask, because when you’re evaluating bringing in another piece of equipment or if you’re trying to bring on a new process, it can be a little challenging. What do you see are the biggest pitfalls or what do you see people struggling with most when it comes to process qualification and recipe development?
Vincent Lelong: Most customers say, “I would like a good metallurgy. I would like mechanical properties.”
Heather Falcone: Right, make good parts. That’s number one.
Vincent Lelong: But you need to look at what kind of furnace you would like to use, as well as the size, the type of part, and the process. If you have a small part, do you want a bulk load? Do you want special fixtures because the main target is distortion-free? Everybody would like everything…
Heather Falcone: …distortion-free!
Vincent Lelong: Always. No problem. So, as a metallurgist, you need to think not just about heat treatment because you’ve been asked to heat treat a part. I could heat and quench in oil and say, “You have the metallurgy. My job is done.”
Heather Falcone: Right. It hit hardness.
Vincent Lelong: Exactly. Hardness, good. Vacuum carburizing, no oxidation. Good. How about the distortion? Okay, let’s speak about what we can do to reduce the power of the heat treatment itself. Then, let’s do a gas quench, but let’s work on fixtures also. It’s working with the supplier for fixtures and working with the customer with the machinists.
Sometimes, because we propose gas quench, people say, “Oh, gas quench means no distortion.” Well, the first step is to get the metallurgy right. If you need 20 bar gas quench, you might have some distortion. From experience, we know that the fixtures are also important. So we can work with the customer and supplier to propose the right fixtures and test the fixtures to target the best cooling rate and other properties.
But we also need to work with the machinists. If you have a challenging part, machinists may say, “It’s the fault of the metallurgist.” And the heat treater will say, “No, let’s work together at the table. We’ll sit, and we do the testing.” At the Synergy Center we have also the CMM, so we can measure before heat treatment and after heat treatment. It’s the best feeling when you bring not just the metallurgists together, but also the people who make the part. We work together to have the best of the best. It’s a lot of work, but we have years of experience, so we can reach the target faster than 20 years ago.
Technology has changed. As such, you also need to work with the steel manufacturer, the way the steel is made and the composition. Research has shown that if you improve the steel, you can reduce the quench pressure. If you need oil quench, then you already know that distortion will be potentially higher. If you need 20 bar, it’s one thing. Well, I did a presentation not long ago, and I found that the distortion with 10 bar or 20 bar in a Nano furnace was much better than in a larger load. For one part, that is. This might not be true if it’s other parts. There’s always that phrase in heat treatment, “that depends.” I don’t like this phrase.
Heather Falcone: It always depends.
Vincent Lelong: But it’s true, unfortunately. So, when you have worked all that together, you can bring the best analysis. I’m working before that to sell a furnace.
I need to choose whether it’s better for the customer to have a smaller furnace or a larger installation. That really depends on how many parts, the diversity of parts. If the customer has mostly small parts, the Nano may be the better choice. You have a faster answer because it’s in and out. You don’t need to buy so many fixtures. But if you have a larger part, a larger furnace is better. It’s not whether one furnace is better than the other. You need to choose which one will achieve your production target.
A customer in facility number A may need a larger furnace, but in facility B, there are other types of part, so that facility may need a smaller furnace. That’s how we work with the customer to target what is important.
Heather Falcone: Pick the right atmosphere, pick the right hot zone size, pick the right fixturing, raw material specs. All of those are going to influence how the runs going to go. I bet you have some stories about TCE from fixturing and eutectic and inadvertent bonding.
Vincent Lelong: I certainly have had a few mistakes in testing. I used a higher temperature because with vacuum carburizing we say we can go to a higher temperature. But then I used CFC fixtures at the wrong temperature!
Today however, the mixtures of fixtures can work and reduce the weight. As a metallurgist and a heat treater, I prefer to heat treat the part rather than the fixtures. When I see a customer running a load with almost more fixtures than parts, I’m asking, “What do you heat treat?” Are you losing money on heat treating fixtures more than parts?”
Heather Falcone: There is such a big weight differential between fixturing and the parts. How much lag time on your heat up and cool down are you wasting on having too much fixturing?
Vincent Lelong: It’s true.
Balancing Technical Requirements with Production (11:30)
Heather Falcone: Once you’re in recipe development, how do you balance technical requirements, the repeatability, and the realities of production?
Vincent Lelong: Repeatability is firstly about how you design the load. Then you need to know the quantity of parts. You also may know the surface of your load, but it may always be necessary, I will say. Most of the time we don’t know that and it still runs correctly.
Heather Falcone: Still a black box. It’s an art what we do.
Vincent Lelong: Technically, it’s a good thing because when we put something inside the furnace, it’s coming back, and we don’t see much difference. But the mechanical properties are completely different, so it is kind of like magic.
So you define your load, you define your heating time to get temperature, and when you’re sure you’re at temperature, you start to carburize. I will speak about vacuum carburizing. First, we have software for the carburizing boost and diffusion; you input your parameters and then you have your recipe. You can run it generic, or you can go into detail and improve it. But as built, the software will give you some set parameters and will work.
Heather Falcone: Technology is so cool.
Vincent Lelong: It’s getting better and better. You will also need to select the type of furnace. When you have one part, it’s not the same as when you have 3,000 parts. The density of the load will influence your gas flow and the capacity of your installation.
Most of our larger furnaces have a maximum of acetylene of 4,000 liters. But you can play with the gas and the duration of the boost and diffusion so it goes inside the part; when you have a blind hole or you need 3 millimeters, you carburize. (Acetylene is beautiful, but molecules can go everywhere, sometimes where we don’t want acetylene, which is why we have the stop off.) But you define your load, you define your recipe, your gas flow, and then you run a test and analyze the metallurgy. If it’s good, then you’re done and you don’t move from that.
Heather Falcone: That’s what production wants to hear.
Vincent Lelong: When you are a heat treater, you may receive 10 parts to heat treat. Tomorrow you may receive 20 parts, and maybe you need to run the same recipe. In general, you can run the same recipe for 10 parts or 20 parts. You would use the parameters of the larger load for the smaller, if possible. The result will be mostly the same, but the cost will not be the same.
This is where you can optimize your recipe for different types of load, like half of the load versus a full load. You can change the flow of gas, and then reduce your heating time because why set for two hours when in one hour, it is at temperature. One hour is money.
Heather Falcone: Got to turn and burn.
Vincent Lelong: This is also where you define your database and your repeatability. I once had a customer that had me create a recipe for a specific quantity of parts and a design of load. A few years later, that customer called and said, “It doesn’t work.” With modern heat treating controls, we record everything, so you have a database, the curves, and you can go back and see what was wrong.
Heather Falcone: Right. What changed?
Vincent Lelong: In this case, I discovered the customer was running the double quantity of parts in the same load without changing the recipe at all.
Heather Falcone: Makes sense. Start there.
Vincent Lelong: Heating time was not long enough. Gas flow was not long enough. And they were not working at the right pressure in the furnace, so failure occurred. I said, “Change that.” No news is good news usually. If the customer doesn’t call you, it’s because…
Heather Falcone: …Everything works.
Vincent Lelong: That’s the beauty of this furnace.
With repeatability, you always need to look at the curves. If you have an issue of temperature out of the range, there will be an alarm. So, you can check if the part is good without checking the metallurgy. If you heat treat a big part, usually you won’t cut the part. If you have six parts in a load or 10, you have samples. You have to validate your sample and your real part at the beginning.
Heather Falcone: To make sure it’s representative.
Vincent Lelong: Exactly, or if there are differences because you cannot find exactly the same material, you know the difference, and the difference would be always the same.
Heather Falcone: Right. Make it predictable.
Vincent Lelong: We have some customers that would check one load per day or per shift and not every load. If you have 3,000 parts in a load, you can check a part. When you have six parts, you will likely not cut a part. If the furnace tells you it’s good, why check? When you check repeatability, you still need a lab. Not checking the metallurgy is difficult. You should always check again. Repeatability shouldn’t be left to chance or statistics. Take a part and check. Is it good? Then continue.
Heather Falcone: That’s kind of the target of qualification, right? To get those parameters that you predefined.
Vincent Lelong: In time you need to be sure nothing changes.
Heather Falcone: What does re-qualifying look like?
Vincent Lelong: You want to be sure that nothing changes, material-wise. Sometimes, you run the same material, and you achieve 35 HRC. But at one point in time, you achieved only 25 HRC. This is the same material on the paper, but something has happened. So you need to go back in time and figure out what was originally going on. Is it the heat treatment? Is the installation of something around it?
Heather Falcone: Use all the data that’s available to you.
Vincent Lelong: This is where you check the productivity.
Quench Media (19:20)
Heather Falcone: How about the quench media?
Vincent Lelong: When you develop a recipe, if you do oil quenching you will always do austenitizing. You don’t want a crack. You will carburize, austenitize, and go to oil quench. It’s pretty easy to switch from atmosphere oil quench to vacuum oil quench because technically the recipe is pretty much the same, and we’re going to cover that ground extensively because I know it’s kind of scary to even consider that possibility.
When you go with gas quench, if you don’t know the target or are unsure, you select 20 bar.
Heather Falcone: Sure, 20 bar. That’s the easiest in the world.
Vincent Lelong: Exactly. You do 20 bar and you get what you get. There is an advantage of the gas quench. Many customers will ask, “Do I need to do a direct quench? Do I need to do austenitizing?” Most of the time we say direct quench, and we found that you don’t crack with gas quench. Whatever the pressure, we never really have much cracking. Or a customer may ask, “Will the part break due to the gas quench?” That will never happen. I once asked the competition if they ever saw a crack with gas quenching and they said no. It’s the way the gas quench quenches and cools the part down, then it’s less powerful than the liquid, so you don’t have this potential issue.
But if you don’t know, you stay at 20 bar. If you would like to optimize, you can reduce, but you need to achieve the target metallurgy.
Heather Falcone: Right. You’ve got to get your core hardness.
Vincent Lelong: Your limit is when your metallurgy is not right. When you reduce, you reduce the cost. If you reduce the pressure and the speed, you will reduce the distortion potential.
Heather Falcone: Which is always a good thing.
Vincent Lelong: If you have a shaft, you should not place it horizontal, because whenever you quench that, it will not be straight.
Heather Falcone: We’ve potato chipped a few parts over the years, yes.
Vincent Lelong: Me too. I have tried horizontal in some cases. It’s interesting, but you need more support. I think it’s possible, but nobody wants to try it.
Heather Falcone: Why bother?
Vincent Lelong: Vertical is easier.
Heather Falcone: If you’re qualifying, just make the fixture that’s going to support it.
Vincent Lelong: Yes. Why should I change? It’s always a big question; we just quench it vertically this way. We do it this way. Now for gears, in heat treat sites I see a lot of vertical positions for gears strung on a rod. As an operator, I don’t like that.
Heather Falcone: Tell me why.
Vincent Lelong: Because it’s heavy. We already have difficulty finding operators in heat treatment. If it’s heavy, nobody wants to do it.
From a robotic point of view, it’s more difficult, too. Today, with most vacuum carburized and gas quenched gears are heat treated horizontally on fixtures and most of the time with offset position. That will give you the best metallurgy, but also the least distortion overall. Vertically for machinists, it’s very difficult to re-machine something round to oval. When you place it horizontally, you can do potato chips but machinists can grind and reshape the part easily, if it’s possible.
Heather Falcone: If you’re already near net, it’s going to be a different story.
Vincent Lelong: Exactly. That’s where when you check your distortion and repeatability of process — it’s the fixtures.
Heather Falcone: I would think working with the customer as much as you can to see if material can be left on the part too, if we do need to have grinding, if we do need to have repair or recovery for any possible distortion.
Vincent Lelong: So, let’s say we are working on a six-speed. For the six-speed, everybody wants to vacuum carburizing gas quench. The objective: zero distortion, heat treat, and assemble.
Heather Falcone: In theory.
Vincent Lelong: No, in truth.
Heather Falcone: Really? Okay.
Vincent Lelong: That was the target.
Heather Falcone: Ambitious, I like it.
Vincent Lelong: Yes, but when you have a new product, you can use new technology, you can work on the fixtures, you can work on everything. We worked a lot with car manufacturers to do the best heat treatment, the best fixtures, the maximum of parts, of course, and repeatability. This furnace is running millions of parts.
That is why we know vacuum carburizing works and it’s repeatable. For this high volume, we had to work on zero distortion. But the specification then didn’t change, metallurgically speaking. Most of the time it was 0.3 to 0.7 millimeters. It’s a large gap. No problem. Then we went to the 10-speed for most of the automotive, and then the distortion was the target because of the experience we gained with the six-speed, which was the noise. People don’t want the noise. Today, with the 10-speed, we start to grind at 0.1 millimeter.
You have to compensate for your carburizing process so that it is longer and deeper, but also most customers will reduce the metallurgical requirements. From 0.3 to 0.7, they want 0.5 plus or minus 0.05, which is much thinner. With electrical applications today, you want zero noise, because you can hear everything. There’s a lot of grinding, and when I say a lot, I mean exact, 0.2 millimeter.
Heather Falcone: That is a lot of post-process work.
Vincent Lelong: You have the perfect teeth. You need to anticipate longer carburizing, and it’s great! Also, what I see with metallurgy, it’s not that you don’t have a general metallurgical specification, but each area of a part will have its own metallurgy. That means you have the pitch of the gear, the roots, a minimum, but sometimes you have a specification of the tip.
A customer may specify, “I don’t want more than 0.8.”
Heather Falcone: Just for that area.
Vincent Lelong: Yes. As the parts get more and more complex, they have more than just one application or function. You have the spline. You have double teeth. Each one will have its own requirement. With an atmospheric furnace, to get that, it doesn’t work very well. But with vacuum carburizing, you can achieve very precise requirements.
Switching from Atmospheric to Vacuum Carburizing (28:11)
Heather Falcone: To that point, is that one of the things that stops people from considering the change from atmospheric to vacuum carburizing, or is it part complexity?
Considering the switch? See how different carburizing technologies and furnace features stack up when you click on the image above.
Vincent Lelong: The larger companies do not seem to be afraid, because they know what they want and they already have experience. For the heat treaters, the smaller companies, it’s very difficult to switch with the requirements today. When you see the requirement on the drawing, it’s funny because before there was just heat treatment.
Heather Falcone: Yeah, it’s on this process sheet.
Vincent Lelong: One line. Surface condition, effective case depth, core hardness.
Heather Falcone: Right.
Vincent Lelong: Today there are different requirements, and there are several requirements: before heat treatment, after, and final. You know how much you need to take off, and not every area you take off. You said keep more material. The advantage of that is more material, less distortion. But you will have to carburize more.
Heather Falcone: Ultimately it may be more expensive for everybody.
Vincent Lelong: Exactly. The machining behind the grinding is also costly. When we develop a recipe, we have the customer machine to the final dimension, do the heat treatment, and then we will see where we are in terms of metallurgy and distortion. If we are not where we need to be, don’t take off too much. Then you adjust.
One other story is about a thread.
Heather Falcone: Oh, God, threads. The bane of every heat treater’s existence, threads.
Vincent Lelong: I get a lot of questions about threads. Do I need to make them before heat treatment? Do I need to put a mask on, paint, or make the fixture?
Vincent Lelong: Or to not do them and do them after?
Heather Falcone: That is also expensive.
Vincent Lelong: Yes, also expensive; but I think it could be a robotic application.
Heather Falcone: Oh true. Very good point.
Vincent Lelong: It’s the way I would go.
Heather Falcone: How interesting.
Vincent Lelong: To not do the thread before.
Heather Falcone: Lower risk.
Vincent Lelong: First, when you carburize, you can create a brittleness of the thread. But also operator movement of the thread from crate to the fixtures can cause damage to the thread. What do you do? Can you save the thread after heat treatment? Not always. Then that is garbage. You had to manufacture the part, heat treat the part, just to put in the garbage, which is a cost.
Heather Falcone: Probably 80 or 90% of your whole cost, gone in an instant.
Vincent Lelong: In my opinion, you could have a robot preparing the load. You would have a robot take off, and every time it’s the same movement. Then, thread or not, it’s easier.
Heather Falcone: More predictable.
Vincent Lelong: Then the robot, if you don’t do the thread, can put the shaft, usually it’s a shaft with a right connection on the thread on the end, put to a little induction machine, reheat, and then put in a crate and go back to machining. Then it’s all done.
In that instance, I think it’s my preference not to do the thread first. I have customers who ask me for paint or for a mask. Paint is not, I would say, 100% safe. You need a specialist to put on the paint. There are some tricks, as I know heat treaters know. They have been doing this for years and they know their stuff.
Heather Falcone: That’s their secret.
Vincent Lelong: I think heat treaters have more secrets about painting and protection of the part than the big companies do. They know it better.
Heather Falcone: Their lives are on the line. That’s all they do, so they have to make it perfect.
Vincent Lelong: You can learn a lot from heat treaters. They know their work.
Heather Falcone: That’s what I always recommend to the captives. Get out to as many heat treat shops as you can, because it’s going to make your in-house heat treat better.
Vincent Lelong: They have years of experience to learn from. Heat treatment is tricks after tricks. Some customers are afraid to go to in-house heat treatment. These heat treaters hold a variety of information that is helpful for these customers.
Heather Falcone: It’s an interesting point that you brought up about being afraid, because vacuum carburizing has gotten that reputation over the years that it’s difficult. It’s tough to figure out.
Vincent Lelong: Because we did a good job. We did a good job to say you can optimize. In reality, if you understand what you want to heat treat, the carburizing process is all made by software. Every company has their own software. So it is pretty simple, and though it can still be scary for the heat treater.
Heather Falcone: Process change is scary.
Vincent Lelong: There are some companies that develop vacuum carburizing software where you need to know everything about the steel, the chemistry, all the parameters. We work with carbon. For our software, you enter the carbon content originally, roughly the temperature you would like to heat treat, and what you would like on the final. The software will give you something, and it will be 95% of what you’re looking for.
Now you need to quench. Like I said, with oil quenching, it’s no problem. Gas quenching, 20 bar, no problem, very easy and straightforward. Optimization can be where it’s trickier. But it’s just like an atmospheric furnace. I work with atmospheric furnaces, and they all have their cheat sheets.
You need carbon potential, temperature, time, and in vacuum carburizing, it’s the same thing. The temperature, your carbon potential, or what you expect for carbon, the time, the case depth you would like to achieve, and here is your process.
Heather Falcone: Then you don’t need the cheat sheet. It’s gone. Then it’s documented and repeatable.
Vincent Lelong: Right, then you have to heat up and quench. So, straight heat treatment: heat it up to be sure you’re at temperature, then carburize, and you quench.
Heather Falcone: One test?
Vincent Lelong: Yes, I often do just one test.
Customers may ask me to do a test for a Flex system, a larger system. I do it here at the Synergy Center first because it’s cheaper for me because it just value add and it’s here. I can mix a different part, different design, and run. “Oh, it’s a 8620? No problem.” Usually, it’s good.
For a Nano load, it’s like a one-fifth or it’s a one fixture and the bigger load, it’s like two column of fixtures, then you stack. So, it’s not much different. You start on a smaller scale and you go bigger, and you just add a little heat up time.
And if you ask me, “What do you need?” Put everything to the maximum!! (We are here to sell you a spare part, so, you know.) But really, if you put everything to the maximum you will be good. Maybe too good, and you might have a more maintenance, but we’d be able to provide a quote to reduce the maintenance. (*joking laughter*)
Closing Thoughts (37:36)
Heather Falcone: As we finish up, if there’s one thing that you’d want our listeners to take away, rethinking about their approach to process qualification and recipe development, what do you want them to know?
Vincent Lelong: It’s not difficult. It’s like every other heat treatment; you have to test it and you will quickly see that it’s easy. At ECM USA, we provide training and testing to show you what can be achieved and answer your questions. If you’re worried, we will show you how easy it is, how clean it is. There’s no flame. If you have oil quench, there’s no flame because everything is protected. So it’s not difficult, it’s just one step. Do not be afraid.
Heather Falcone: Take that first step, and explore the process.
Vincent Lelong: I think there’s enough research and evidence in the last 25 years in the U.S., especially with large automotive and aerospace companies to know that it’s not a big deal. Most people — in heat treating or not — don’t like change.
Heather Falcone: But they can partner with you, Vincent, who has decades of experience. Reach out to ECM. Get in touch. Start exploring.
Vincent Lelong: The funny thing is, with decades of experience, what we are capable of heat treating 20 years ago we can do way better now. The technology is better. Gas quenching is made to quench, not to cool. It’s quenching. It’s hard. It’s almost as hard of a quench as an oil quench. You can do bulk load carburizing. I did carbonitriding in bulk load not that long ago. If you had asked me to do that 20 years ago, I would say, “No way that works.” But today that works. Just contact us.
Heather Falcone: Start the conversation, right?
Vincent Lelong: And I would be happy to show you. I like my job.
Heather Falcone: You love your job. I’m going to say it. You’re very passionate.
Vincent Lelong: I like testing because it’s a challenge every day. It’s pushing the limit. It’s like a movie. Is it possible? If you follow the book or internet, they will say no. I would say, “Let’s try.” I’m testing on materials other than steel as well that I would not have expected to work. Modular furnaces can be a very versatile.
Heather Falcone: Well it sounds like production is getting ready to get things done. Thanks so much, Vincent. It was great spending time with you.
About the Guest
Vincent Lelong Synergy Center Manager / Sr. Metallurgist ECM USA, INC.
Vincent Lelong, ECM USA Synergy Center Manager, transferred to ECM USA in 2005 to manage the North American Testing Program in Wisconsin after 6 years’ experience with production/testing furnaces at ECM Technologies headquarters in Grenoble, France. Vincent has degrees in Chemistry & Physics from the University of Reims, and Treatment of Materials (specializing in Heat Treatment) from BTS Roosevelt, also located in Reims, France. He began his career as a production and laboratory technician for a commercial heat treater, and joined the ECM Group in 1999 as an ECM Technician running LPC testing/metallurgical analysis within ECM vacuum furnace systems.
ITP Co. Ltd. has installed a new hot isostatic pressing (HIP) system to strengthen production capabilities for precious metal equipment used in glass manufacturing, supporting improved densification, product consistency, and manufacturing efficiency for precious metals.
Global high pressure technology company with North American ties Quintus Technologies supplied the QIH 286 URC® hot isostatic press for installation at ITP’s facility in Wuxi, China. Installed in March 2026, the system is intended to strengthen the company’s production capabilities for precious metal equipment used in electronic glass and fiberglass production.
Equipped with Quintus patented uniform rapid cooling technology, the QIH 286 URC® press for ITP integrates key processes to fully steer and control the heating, cooling, and pressure parameters directly inside the HIP vessel, improving material performance and production efficiency. | Image Credit: Quintus Technologies
The HIP system features a work zone measuring 1600 mm (63 in) in diameter and 2,500 mm (98 in) in height, enabling densification of large batches at pressures of up to 2,000 bar (29,000 psi). Operating at temperatures of up to 1400°C (2552°F), the press incorporates Quintus’ uniform rapid cooling (URC) technology to control heating, cooling, and pressure parameters inside the HIP vessel.
Johan Hjärne CEO Quintus Technologies
The system is expected to improve material performance, process consistency, and production efficiency while reducing overall cycle time. ITP cited process stability and productivity as important factors in selecting the equipment due to the sensitivity and cost associated with precious metal products. The installation also includes participation in an eight-year service and maintenance program covering application support, spare parts availability, technical support, inspections, and personnel training.
“Our collaboration with ITP confirmed that the Quintus mega-HIP would enable them to upgrade the performance, specifications, and reliability of their platinum, palladium, and other precious metal products, supporting expansion into high-end markets,” notes Johan Hjärne, CEO of Quintus Technologies.
Press release is available in its original form here.
As manufacturers push toward ambitious sustainability targets, heat treatment remains both essential and energy intensive, making efficiency gains critical. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Myles McCarthy, a senior sustainability and climate leader at Bodycote, highlights utilization as a powerful, often overlooked lever, showing how maximizing furnace loading and focusing on energy per component can significantly reduce emissions and improve overall process performance.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sMay 2026 Sustainable Heat Treat Technologies print edition.
The drive toward more sustainable manufacturing continues to gather momentum across sectors like aerospace, automotive, and advanced engineering. While political priorities may fluctuate, the direction is clear: manufacturers are under increasing pressure to reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, and demonstrate measurable progress against ambitious environmental targets. For many organizations, thermal processing sits at the center of this challenge.
Heat treatment, hot isostatic pressing (HIP), and specialist surface technologies are essential to the performance, safety, and longevity of critical components. Without them, components would not perform as designed, leading to higher raw material consumption, increased emissions, and excessive waste. Yet, thermal processing is also one of the most energy-intensive stages of manufacturing. In some industries, thermal processing can account for 25–35% of a component’s carbon footprint.
As a result, attention is increasingly drawn not just to what processes are used, but how efficiently they are delivered.
Beyond Furnace Efficiency
Much of the conversation around sustainable heat treatment has focused on equipment: furnace design, insulation, electrification, and the transition to renewable energy sources. These are all important developments, and they continue to play a key role in reducing emissions.
However, an equally important and often overlooked factor is utilization. The energy consumed during a heat treatment cycle is largely fixed, regardless of whether a furnace is fully loaded or only partially utilized. As a result, the true energy intensity of heat treatment is not simply a function of furnace efficiency, but of energy consumed per component processed.
In practice, this means that two identical furnaces operating under different loading conditions can produce significantly different carbon outcomes.
The Impact of Underutilization
In many in-house environments, heat treatment is one step within a broader manufacturing process. Production variability, batch sizes, scheduling constraints, and part mix can all lead to suboptimal furnace loading. Partial loads, idle time between cycles, and non-continuous operation are common realities.
From an operational perspective, these challenges are often unavoidable. From a sustainability perspective, however, they have a direct impact, increasing energy consumption per component, raising associated carbon emissions and reducing overall process efficiency.
In this context, even highly efficient equipment may not deliver optimal environmental performance if it is not consistently utilized to capacity.
Utilization as a Sustainability Lever
True energy intensity needs to measure the energy consumed per component heat treated. | Image Credit: Bodycote
This raises an important question for manufacturing leaders and heat treatment engineers: What is the true energy cost per treated component, and how much of that is driven by utilization rather than technology?
Increasingly, improving sustainability outcomes is less about incremental gains in furnace design and more about maximizing throughput efficiency. Higher and more consistent utilization levels enable lower energy consumption per unit processed, improved process stability and repeatability, and reduced waste associated with inefficient batch cycles. In some cases, higher utilization has been shown to reduce carbon per component by up to 60%. In simple terms, a well-utilized process is often a more sustainable process.
Rethinking Traditional Boundaries
Achieving consistently high utilization is not always straightforward within a single manufacturing site. Demand variability, product diversity, and production scheduling can all limit the ability to fully optimize furnace loading.
As sustainability targets become more demanding, some organizations are beginning to explore how these constraints can be addressed more strategically. In particular, there is growing recognition that where heat treatment takes place can influence overall efficiency outcomes, especially when greater consistency of loading and throughput can be achieved.
In environments where demand from multiple sources can be aggregated, including across organizational boundaries, it becomes possible to operate equipment closer to optimal utilization levels on a sustained basis. This can improve energy efficiency per component while maintaining process control and quality standards.
At the same time, continued advances in process technology, such as vacuum processing and low-pressure carburizing, are enabling more efficient and repeatable outcomes, particularly when combined with modern, well-utilized infrastructure.
The Role of Data in Decision Making
As expectations around sustainability reporting increase, decisions related to thermal processing are also becoming more data driven. Manufacturers are increasingly required to understand and report the carbon footprint of individual components, not just emissions at site level. This shift is placing greater emphasis on measuring energy consumption and emissions at process level, including the impact of utilization.
Tools and methodologies aligned with recognized standards are enabling more accurate modeling of energy consumption per cycle and per component, emissions associated with different processing routes, and the comparative impact of alternative operating models. This data allows engineers and decision makers to move beyond assumptions and evaluate thermal processing strategies based on measurable environmental performance.
Balancing Control, Efficiency, and Sustainability
For decades, the benchmark of a well-run heat treatment operation was control, over equipment, processes, and supply. That principle remains important. However, the definition of control is evolving. Today, control increasingly includes visibility of process performance, confidence in quality and repeatability, and the ability to meet sustainability targets alongside production requirements. In this context, improving utilization is emerging as a key consideration. It offers a practical and measurable way to reduce energy intensity without compromising technical outcomes.
A Shift in Perspective
Sustainability in thermal processing is often framed in terms of new technologies or alternative energy sources. While these remain critical, utilization highlights a broader point. Efficiency is not just designed into equipment; it is achieved through how that equipment is used.
As manufacturers continue to navigate the complexities of decarbonization, focusing on energy per component rather than energy per cycle provides a more complete picture of performance. This shift in perspective does not prescribe a single solution. Instead, it encourages a more holistic evaluation of thermal processing, one that considers utilization, technology, data, and operational context together.
Successful Examples of High Utilization, Advanced Heat Treatment
Future heat treatment facilities must deliver the reliability, quality, and flexibility demanded by leading OEMs and their suppliers, while meeting efficiency and sustainability challenges in global markets, such as aerospace and automotive. An outsourced approach, supported by local and dedicated specialist capacity, can meet these needs.
Bodycote’s heat treatment plants in Derby and Rotherham — combining advanced heat treatment and densification services — are examples of a co-located outsourced model. The aerospace partnership behind these plants demonstrates three decades of reliable, dedicated, and flexible capacity, aligned to core customer requirements.
A key advantage is utilization. By complementing core aerospace demand with additional volumes from other clients and markets, these facilities maximize utilization, driving higher efficiency, lower cost per part, and improved sustainability performance.
Both sites operate highly utilized, fully electric furnaces powered by 100% renewable electricity, enabling zero-emission thermal processing. Alongside electrification, ongoing investment in energy efficiency continues to reduce consumption. The Derby site (opened in 1999) recently installed a closed-circuit adiabatic cooling system, replacing evaporative towers and delivering electricity savings of 73%, reducing peak load and associated emissions, and cutting water use by over 85%, while eliminating chemical dosing and cleaning.
These examples demonstrate how specialist providers can deliver both advanced technical capability and low-carbon infrastructure for modern aerospace manufacturing.
Similar approaches are emerging across the aerospace industry, as manufacturers replace legacy fossil-fuel-based heat treatment with more efficient outsourced solutions. These partnerships support ambitious Scope 1 and 2 emissions reductions while ensuring long-term access to modern, lower-carbon processing capacity operated at consistently high utilization.
From Energy Per Cycle to Energy Per Component
Thermal processing will remain an essential part of advanced manufacturing. Its energy intensity makes it a natural focus for sustainability efforts, but also a significant opportunity for improvement.
Focusing on utilization shifts the conversation from how much energy a furnace consumes to how effectively that energy is used. This highlights a more meaningful measure of performance: not energy per cycle, but energy per component.
As sustainability expectations continue to rise, engineers and manufacturing leaders are being asked not only to ensure process integrity, but to demonstrate measurable efficiency and carbon performance.
In that context, the most effective improvements may not come from new equipment alone, but from rethinking how processes are operated, optimized, and where appropriate, configured.
Because ultimately, sustainable heat treatment is not just about using less energy — it is about using energy more effectively.
About The Author:
Myles McCarthy VP, Group Sustainability Bodycote plc
Myles McCarthy is a senior sustainability and climate leader within Bodycote’s sustainability team, focused on driving and delivering corporate strategies that support the transition to more sustainable businesses. He has 25 years of experience working with boards and senior management of global businesses, both as an external climate advisor and as an in-house sustainability lead.
