Jim Roberts of U.S. Ignition engages readers in a Combustion Corner editorial about the double-edged sword of heat recovery technology —explaining how efforts to reduce fuel consumption inadvertently drove up NOx emissions, and how flue gas recirculation (FGR) emerged as the design solution capable of cutting both fuel use and emissions by up to 50%.
This editorial was first released inHeat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
A furnace guy walks into the heat treating plant and says to the operators standing nearby, “This exhaust system and these burners all have a negative attitude.” The other furnace guys say, “They better be negative, or they would not work well!” As if we don’t have enough negativity swirling around in our world as it is, now we are happy about it?
In the Annual People of Heat Treat (September 2025) we talked about the types of burners that were developed as heat treating and furnace sciences and combustion designs evolved. We also chatted about how the advent of new fuels and government regulations was going to take a chunk of our attention in the coming years — for example, pollution laws coming to the forefront of our industry in the late ‘70s and onwards. Interesting new burner designs sprung up, primarily, as you recall, to address the usage of gas. In other words, how can we reduce fuel usage?
But First, NOx
The cost of gas skyrocketed for a stretch and it led us first to energy reduction plans. But with heat recovery sciences came the phenomenon of higher flame temperatures. When you get higher flame temperatures, you can sometimes (okay… all the time) generate NOx. One of the primary constituents of atmospheric pollution is NOx, and it became a prime target for reduction by the EPA and other governing air quality folks. As it should be.
Just a quick step back to the “remind me again, Jim” world. What do we breathe? Air, right? We have to have oxygen. But what we tend to forget is that air is roughly 79% nitrogen. So, what we breathe is actually nitrogen spiked with oxygen, and the fuel that we generally burn, natural gas, has some nitrogen in it too.
Natural gas can have as much as 5% nitrogen in it, although membrane filtering usually controls pipeline gas content at around 1%. The point is that nitrogen is the dominant gas in our combustible portfolio, and when we make it really hot, it makes NOx. And that is considered bad for all of us. So, NOx from fuel-borne nitrogen can be released at temperatures as low as 1400°F. Sometimes that is referred to as “sudden NOx” because it releases quickly. All of us Furnace Guys know that 1400°F ain’t nothing in our world.
The second form of NOx is referred to as “thermal NOx” and that is the major source of NOx in our world. That is when we heat the air we are combusting in a burner, burning off most of the 21% oxygen. Then, flame temperature climbs, and continues to now superheat and try to burn that remaining 79% of nitrogen. As temperatures approach 2300°F, the magic happens.
Thermal NOx forms significantly at high combustion temperatures, typically starting above 1300°C (2372°F), with formation increasing exponentially as temperatures rise, especially above 2800°F (1538°C), due to atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen reacting at peak flame temperatures. Does anybody remember what happens to flame temperatures when we preheat the combustion air (recuperation, recirculation, etc.)? Flame temp and heat transfer increase and we go up to theoretical flame temperatures of 3200°F without even working at it.
Solving Energy Efficiency Through Design
So, let’s return to the original question: What happened when we tried to only save gas with heat recovery? Answer: We installed energy efficient burners but increased the emissions footprint in doing so. We cut down on energy expenditure but made exhaust an issue with the higher temps.
For most industrial and commercial applications, the optimal range for flue gas recirculation (FGR) is between 10% and 25% as this range offers significant NOx reduction without compromising combustion stability or efficiency. By adjusting the pressures coming into the burner and then balancing the exhaust outlet pressures over the heat exchanger body, normally with an extraction device called an “eductor,” we can dial in the percentage of recirculation the burners are operating under.
Figure 1. Flow diagrams depicting the basic design for both direct fired and radiant tube style burners | Image Credit: Honeywell
With this design, I have seen fuel and emission reductions of 50% when compared to the existing conventional combustion systems. It really is a testament to what design and research can produce for us (Figure 1).
We’ll look more closely at these designs next time.
About The Author:
Jim Roberts President US Ignition
Jim Roberts president at U.S. Ignition, began his 45-year career in the burner and heat recovery industry focused on heat treating specifically in 1979. He worked for and helped start up WB Combustion in Hales Corners, Wisconsin. In 1985 he joined Eclipse Engineering in Rockford, IL, specializing in heat treating-related combustion equipment/burners. Inducted into the American Gas Association’s Hall of Flame for service in training gas company field managers, Jim is a former president of MTI and has contributed to countless seminars on fuel reduction and combustion-related practices.
Heat Treat Today publishes twelve print magazines annually and included in each is a letter from the publisher, Doug Glenn. This letter from the January 2026 Annual Technologies To Watch print edition emphasizes the importance of planning ahead and securing a spot at THERMPROCESS 2027 in Düsseldorf, Germany, before the May 2026 application deadline.
Heat TreatToday is coordinating and hosting Heat TreatToday’s North American Pavilion at THERMPROCESS 2027, scheduled for June 21–25, 2027 in Düsseldorf, Germany. You may have noticed on the cover of this month’s hard copy print magazine a thin banner at the very top referencing the Pavilion. You can find out more by going to www.heattreattoday.com/pavilion.
THERMPROCESS is the largest and most important heat treating and thermal processing event in the Western hemisphere. It happens only once every four years and draws exhibitors and attendees from around the globe. Both ASM Heat Treat and MTI’s Furnaces North America (FNA), the largest two heat treating and thermal processing events in North America, pale in size compared to THERMPROCESS. Granted, there are very few technical presentations at THERMPROCESS compared to ASM Heat Treat and FNA, but the number of exhibitors and attendees is easily double or triple (maybe more) what you will see at either of these North American events.
During my 20-year tenure at Industrial Heating (now out of business), I attended EVERY THERMPROCESS event starting in 1999 except for perhaps one. Attending was never disappointing.
Why Apply NOW for a Booth
Unlike here in North America, you cannot register the week before the show and expect to be accepted. In Germany, the one country in the world that really knows how to do trade shows, the exhibit application processes closes one full year in advance of the show. In the case of THERMPROCESS, exhibit applications are due no later than May 31st of this year (2026). Once you attend the show and see the extent of what is done, you will understand why it is necessary to have applications in so early.
Why Exhibit in Heat Treat Today’s North American Pavilion
Of course, you do not need to exhibit in Heat TreatToday’s North American Pavilion. You are more than welcome to apply for your own company booth outside the Pavilion. To do so, simply go to www.thermprocess-online.com and follow the instructions. But being a part of the North American Pavilion will save you time, money, and stress. As you can see from the conceptual sketch of the Pavilion on this page, being in the Pavilion gives you access to a common lounge area, private meeting rooms, complimentary refreshments, and a host/hostess and/or interpreter. All of these things would cost extra if you go in on your own. One caveat for any company that has exhibited in the 2023 or 2019 THERMPROCESS events: apply directly with THERMPROCESS’ North American representatives in Chicago, Messe Dusseldorf North America, specifically Ryan Klemm (rklemm@mdna.com).
Register Your Interest NOW
As of this writing (mid-December), the booth package pricing for the Pavilion had not yet been established. However, by the time you read this, those prices will most likely be established. Please go to www.heattreattoday.com/pavilion to learn more register your interest in exhibiting (or just attending) THERMPROCESS 2027. Please call or email me directly with any questions: 724-923-8089 | doug@heattreattoday.com.
Doug Glenn Publisher Heat TreatToday For more information: Contact Doug at doug@heattreattoday.com
Selecting the right furnace is critical to achieving consistent results in normalizing and isothermal annealing of forged steel components. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Arturo Archavaleta of NUTEC Bickley, examines the thermal principles behind each process and evaluates common continuous furnace types to help heat treaters select the best solution for their specific applications and production goals.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
Introduction
Industrial furnace manufacturers support a wide range of thermal processes across the ferrous and non-ferrous metals industries, including forging, heat treatment, and low-temperature curing and drying applications. Within these areas, furnace design and process selection play a critical role in achieving consistent metallurgical results and efficient production.
This article focuses on continuous furnace systems used for the normalizing and isothermal annealing of forged steel parts, examining how different furnace configurations support the thermal and metallurgical requirements of these heat treatment processes.
Normalizing
From a thermal point of view, normalizing is an austenitizing process followed by slow air cooling. Normalizing steel is carried out by heating it to approximately 30°C–50°C (54°F–70°F) above the critical Ac3 temperature — the temperature at which the transformation to a homogeneous austenitic structure is complete — and then cooling with air to room temperature.
Figure 1. Partial iron-iron carbide phase diagram showing the typical normalizing temperature range for plain carbon steel. (ASM Handbook 1991, p. 35)Figure 2. Normalizing temperature curve | Image Credit: NUTEC Bickley
Figure 3. Example of a continuous furnace for normalizing forged parts | Image Credit: NUTEC Bickley
Why Normalize?
Reduces internal stresses after forging
Improves dimensional stability
Produces a homogeneous microstructure
Ensures a consistent structure across batches of forged parts
Helps better control potential problems in subsequent hardening or surface heat treatment processes
Isothermal Annealing
Isothermal annealing is a heat treatment applied to steels to soften their structure, improve machinability, and standardize their mechanical properties. It consists of heating the steel to the austenitizing zone — above Ac3 for hypoeutectoid steels (<0.8% carbon) and above Ac1 for eutectoid steels (≥0.8% carbon) — holding it until the desired austenite is achieved. The parts are then rapidly cooled to an isothermal temperature (usually 550°C–650°C/1020°F–1200°F) and held there until the transformation of the austenite to a fine pearlite is complete. Finally, parts are cooled in air.
It is essential to understand the isothermal transformation (IT) diagrams of the steels treated by these processes, as the ITs predict the desired microstructure after transformation, the transformation temperature, and the time required for this to occur.
Figure 5. Example of an isothermal annealing furnace for forged parts | Image Credit: NUTEC Bickley
Main Objectives of Isothermal Annealing
The principal aim is to achieve a more homogeneous and softer structure than that obtained with conventional annealing. This helps:
To reduce internal stresses
To improve machinability and ductility
To achieve reproducible properties (by eliminating variability in the cooling rate during furnace annealing)
Table A. Comparative Summary — Normalizing v. Isothermal Annealing
Types of Furnace
The most typical continuous furnaces used for normalizing and isothermal annealing are as follows:
Pusher tray system
Roller hearth conveyor
Cast-link belt conveyor
Rotary hearth system
Let’s look at each one in turn and consider the advantages and disadvantages.
Pusher tray furnaces (Figure 6) offer many advantages, including a lower initial investment cost than other options. They have fewer mechanical components exposed to high temperatures requiring extensive maintenance, and the main equipment (tray pusher and puller) requires less maintenance. Short trays can be used in the direction of movement with good stability, and parts can also be loaded hung on the trays. Because the trays are closer together, the length of the furnace is shorter.
There are, however, some drawbacks. Most pusher tray furnaces only have burners firing above the load, which can affect temperature uniformity. Because of this, heating times can increase and there is less space for burners in areas of high heat demand. While main equipment maintenance is low, the trays tend to warp, resulting in additional costs. Finally, loading can be difficult and is not easily automated.
Unlike pusher tray furnaces, roller hearth furnaces (Figure 7) have burners that fire both above and below the load, making it easier to achieve uniform temperature. There is also more space for burners in areas of high heat demand. As with pusher tray furnaces, parts can also be loaded hung on trays.
In contrast, the initial investment for roller hearth furnaces is higher. There is additional maintenance due to the roller conveyor, including lubrication of bearings, chains, and roller replacement costs based on lifespan. Longer trays are also needed for good stability, increasing the furnace length.
Cast-link Belt Furnaces
Figure 8. Cast-link belt furnace | Image Credit: NUTEC Bickley
Cast-link belt roller hearth furnaces (Figure 8) offer a simplified loading system using automation to place parts directly on the conveyor belt (with parts lying flat only) or even in bulk. The configuration also allows for shorter furnaces, distributing more load width-wise.
Conversely, there are several disadvantages, including a very high initial investment cost due to the alloy belt, along with costs associated with belt replacement. These furnaces require more energy because the belt must be reheated as it cools down on its return. They also require maintenance for the roller conveyor, bearings, chains, and the belt traction system. Like pusher tray furnaces, they only have burners firing above the load, making temperature uniformity more difficult to obtain.
Rotary hearth furnaces (Figure 9) have a moderate initial investment and carry many advantages. They allow for manual or automatic loading since parts are placed directly on the hearth (flat or in bulk), or can be loaded hung on trays using automatic loaders or robots. They occupy less floor space and have better thermal efficiency, since all the heat is directed to the product.
As with pusher tray and cast-link belt furnaces, most rotary hearth furnaces only have burners firing above the load, which can affect temperature uniformity. They typically require robots or loaders for high-volume, continuous production. While they occupy less floor space, the layout is unconventional because loading and unloading occur from the same side.
In Summary
Selecting the appropriate furnace for normalizing or isothermal annealing ultimately depends on the desired material properties, production volume, parts, and operational priorities. Each furnace type offers distinct advantages and trade-offs in terms of temperature uniformity, flexibility, maintenance, and cost, making it essential to evaluate both metallurgical requirements and practical plant constraints (Table B).
Table B. Comparative Summary
By understanding how heat treatment objectives align with furnace design — and partnering with a supplier who understands as well — you can make informed decisions to select and customize the most suitable furnace for your specific applications.
About The Author:
Arturo Arechavaleta Vice President, Metal Furnaces NUTEC Bickley
Arturo Arechavaleta, VP of Metal Furnaces at NUTEC Bickley, is a mechanical and electrical engineer (AA) and holds an MBA. He has 35 years of experience in the furnace industry, including the field of engineering, working on challenging projects, leading multidisciplinary teams, and managing business units.
Pratt & Whitney, an RTX business, is investing $200 million to expand manufacturing at its Columbus, Georgia, site with the addition of a seventh isothermal forging press. The equipment, which will support production of rotating compressor and turbine disks for commercial and military jet engines, is expected to be operational in 2028 and is projected to increase output of these critical components by about 30 percent.
The funding will expand operations at the Columbus Forge facility, where compressor airfoils and high-strength disk components are manufactured for the company’s commercial and military engine platforms. The site is part of the broader Columbus campus that also includes the Columbus Engine Center, where maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work is performed on engines like the PW1100G-JM, V2500, PW2000, F117, and F100.
Shane Eddy President Pratt & Whitney
The latest investment at the Columbus Forge facility follows an 81,000-square-foot GTF MRO expansion at Pratt & Whitney’s Columbus Engine Center, located on the same campus. This expansion added advanced equipment and machinery that aligned with the company’s Industry 4.0 strategy. The facility’s annual capacity increased by more than 25%, adding critical overhaul volume to the GTF MRO network in support of the growing fleet.
The Columbus complex has grown from a small manufacturing facility to a manufacturing and overhaul center that now employs 2,600 people. “Since 2008, we have invested more than $1 billion to continue expanding the footprint and capabilities of our Columbus facility. This latest investment will increase output of critical parts for our growing military and commercial engine programs and underscores our ongoing commitment to ramp industrial capacity to support our [clients],” said Shane Eddy, president of Pratt & Whitney.
Press release is available in its original form here. Main image shows Pratt & Whitney President Shane Eddy joined with Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and other company, state, and local leaders to celebrate two major expansions of Pratt & Whitney’s Columbus, Georgia facility on February 24, 2026.
What’s the real price of a leak test system? According to Norbert Palenstijn of Nolek, it’s not the number on the invoice. In this guest column, he walks through why total cost of ownership — spanning calibration, consumables, throughput, and quality impact — should drive purchasing decisions more than CapEx alone.
When a factory considers new capital equipment, the first question almost always sounds the same: “What’s the CapEx?”
It is an understandable starting point. Capital expenditure is big, visible, and easy to compare. Numbers sit neatly in a column, budgets are allocated, and decisions get made. But if we stop there, especially when it comes to leak testing equipment, we risk seeing only half the picture.
Leak testing has one main role in production: it is a sorting function. Its job is to distinguish between good and bad parts based on a leak specification. That means it is not just a machine — it is the gatekeeper of quality. And for a gatekeeper, what matters most is not just the cost of admission, but how reliably the gate opens and closes.
The Hidden Cost of “Lower Purchase Price”
Imagine two leak test systems on the factory floor. One has a lower CapEx and looks attractive on paper. But in practice, it requires more frequent calibrations, eats through consumables, and delivers an uncomfortable number of false rejects. Every false reject creates rework and lost time. Every misclassified “pass” creates a risk that defective parts slip through. Suddenly, the lower cost option does not feel so appealing anymore.
Now compare it to a system with a higher upfront price but stable measurement performance, longer service intervals, and better correlation to the specification. Over years of production, this system quietly saves money and protects reputation, even if the original CapEx line was higher.
Beyond the Purchase Price
Image Credit: @TarikVision/AdobeStock
Focusing only on CapEx is like buying a sailboat and budgeting for the hull, but forgetting sails, navigation equipment, and upkeep. The hull might look affordable, but the true cost of ownership is what keeps the ship sailing safely across oceans.
In leak testing, the total cost of ownership (TCO) includes:
Purchase and installation (CapEx)
Calibration, service, and downtime (OpEx)
Consumables and spare parts
Impact on throughput (cycle times, operator time)
Impact on quality (false rejects and escapes)
These factors flow directly into cash flow, customer satisfaction, and brand reputation.
The Real Measure of Value
Learn the fundamentals of helium leak detection firsthand at Heat TreatToday’s Leak Detection Seminars. Click the image above to register for a session near you.
Leak test systems do not just live on balance sheets, they live in production lines. Their value is measured not just in cost, but in confidence:
Confidence that every part has been tested against specification
Confidence that defects are caught before they leave the factory
Confidence that customers can trust what you ship
That’s why a decision made only on CapEx is incomplete. A leak test system is a long-term partner in your production process. It is not just a one-time payment, it is what you pay and gain every day it runs.
Closing Thoughts
When considering new leak testing equipment, do not just ask, “What is the CapEx?” Ask instead:
What will it cost me to run?
What will it cost me if it fails to sort correctly?
What confidence does it provide in every product leaving my site?
Because in the end, the true price of a leak test system is not the invoice you pay at purchase. It is the trust it secures, or fails to secure, for years to come.
About The Author:
Norbert Palenstijn U.S. Brand Manager Nolek|VES|ALPHR|Natgraph
Norbert Palenstijn has built a career as a recognized specialist in helium and hydrogen leak detection, with over 26 years of dedicated experience in industrial vacuum systems, industrial leak testing and detection, and advanced engineering solutions.
A new downstream aluminum fabrication facility is being planned in Inola, Oklahoma, to convert molten primary aluminum into value-added products. The project is intended to strengthen domestic aluminum supply chains and expand U.S. primary aluminum processing capacity by anchoring fabrication operations adjacent to a proposed new smelter.
Local firm U.S. Aluminum Company has signed an agreement with Emirates Global Aluminum (EGA) and Century Aluminum, the companies behind the planned primary aluminum production plant in Inola, Oklahoma, to explore the development of an aluminum fabrication plant near the smelter. The project, named Oklahoma Primary Aluminum, is expected to double U.S. primary aluminum production. U.S. Aluminum Company is the first downstream firm to formalize an agreement tied to the project.
Jesse Gary CEO Century Aluminum
U.S. Aluminum Company plans to build its facility near the smelter to process liquid aluminum into products for the electrical, defense, aerospace, automotive, and machinery industries. By locating next to the smelter, the company aims to strengthen the domestic supply chain and support growth of a broader downstream manufacturing ecosystem in the region.
“By establishing an aluminum hub in Oklahoma, we are strengthening and shortening the supply chain for a critical metal that supports American industries. Today’s announcement highlights the multiplier effect of revitalizing domestic production — attracting new infrastructure investment and creating jobs in adjacent industries,” said Jesse Gary, chief executive officer of Century Aluminum.
Founded by the Oklahoma City-based Plotkin family, owners of M-D Building Products, a long-standing aluminum fabrication company, U.S. Aluminum Company is focused on serving clients requiring domestically produced aluminum with high performance, traceability, and supply security.
Press release is available in its original form here.
Grace Manufacturing is expanding its vacuum heat treating capabilities to support growing demand for thin martensitic stainless steel components used in the medical industry. The Arkansas-based precision metal manufacturer has invested in a new vacuum furnace to strengthen process control, reduce downtime, and maintain stringent metallurgical and quality standards required for medical component production.
Located in Russellville, Arkansas, Grace Manufacturing selected a TITAN H2 2-bar vacuum furnace following third-party testing at a Midwest commercial heat treater. The evaluation confirmed the system met application requirements for thin martensitic stainless steel medical components. The new furnace will replace an aging unit from another manufacturer that has experienced increasing downtime and service challenges in recent years.
Image Credit: Ipsen
Supplied by Ipsen, the TITAN H2 includes a work zone measuring 18 x 18 x 24 inches deep, a 1,000-pound load capacity, and a maximum operating temperature of 2400°F. The system provides temperature uniformity of ±10°F, supporting the repeatability and precision required in medical manufacturing environments.
Established in 1966, Grace Manufacturing specializes in precision metal services primarily serving the medical industry. The upgrade in equipment supports Grace Manufacturing’s continued growth in medical component production.
Press release is available in its original form here.
JISCO Carbon Steel, a global steel producer serving international markets including North America, has commissioned a new integrated CSP®-HSM line at its Jiayuguan facility following an upgrade and expansion project. The new production line combines Compact Strip Production (CSP®) with a hot strip mill (HSM) into a fully integrated system with complete automation. The move increases annual production capacity from 2 million to 4.5 million tons and enhances operational flexibility and stable production performance.
The newly commissioned line integrates CSP® casting and rolling with a newly installed hot strip mill, creating a continuous production route that allows rapid switching between production modes. According to the company, the system enables fast ramp-up and stable rolling performance while maintaining controllable quality from the start of operations. Importantly, the expansion was executed without interrupting ongoing CSP® production.
The upgrade includes the installation of new mechanical equipment and a complete automation package designed to coordinate casting and rolling operations. The automation system supports process control, operational stability, and consistent production results across product grades.
Technology and automation systems for the integrated CSP®-HSM line were supplied by SMS Group, which provided engineering, mechanical equipment, and its X-Pact® automation platform, including models and visualization systems for coordinated line control.
Commissioning ceremony on February 2, 2026, at JISCO’s site. | Image Credit: SMS Group
“Bringing the world’s first integrated CSP®-HSM line into production is a strategic leap for JISCO Carbon Steel. We now have the flexibility to align products and processes with customer needs in real time, backed by stable, repeatable quality from day one,” said Mr. Qiao Degao, CEO of JISCO Hongyu New Materials Co., Ltd. “SMS group’s automation technology and disciplined project execution were essential to meeting our schedule and performance targets.”
With the line now in operation, JISCO expands its production capacity and strengthens process integration between casting and hot rolling, positioning the Jiayuguan facility for increased throughput and operational flexibility in the flat steel market.
Press release is available in its original form here. Main image shows the SMS Group team at JISCO after the successful first coil. Image Credit: SMS Group
Heat TreatRadio host Heather Falcone is joined by Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, for a deep dive into AMS2750 and best practices for managing pyrometry compliance. Drawing on more than 35 years of hands-on experience and his role on the AMS2750 writing team, Bassett explains how the specification has evolved and why pyrometry continues to drive a majority of audit findings. The conversation explores common compliance pitfalls, practical system-level solutions, and how heat treaters can better prepare for audits without over testing. Falcone and Bassett also discuss the value of industry involvement in shaping standards that directly impact daily heat treating operations.
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 (00:04)
Heather Falcone: Hi, I’m Heather Falcone, and welcome to Heat TreatRadio. Today we are talking about AMS2750, and the best practice to manage pyrometry compliance. Joining me today is Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry. Andrew has more than 35 years of experience working alongside manufacturers, captives, and commercial heat treaters to ensure their testing calibration and pyrometry programs meet the demands of industry specifications like AMS2750 without losing sight of how shops actually operate.
Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry (ATP) provides accredited testing, calibration, and pyrometry services nationwide that support heat treaters and aerospace manufacturers across compliance, audit readiness, and ongoing system integrity. The company also developed the Aerospace Compliance System (ACS), a software platform designed to support compliance and documentation requirements tied to testing and pyrometry programs.
Andrew is deeply involved in the aerospace, metals, and engineering committee responsible for writing AMS2750 specification and is an active contributor within the Nadcap Heat Treat Task Group. He brings practical systems level views of quality that go beyond checklists and audits.
Tell us a little bit about yourself, other than my delightful intro. There’s more about you, your industry involvement, and about ATP.
Andrew Bassett: I’ve been involved with pyrometry for 35 years now. My involvement with pyrometry started with a family-owned business. About the time when the Nadcap process was coming to fruition, some of my mentors, who are still my mentors today, dragged me to my first Nadcap meeting and said, “Well, if you’re going to do this pyrometry stuff, then you better learn it.”
Off I went to Hartford, Connecticut for my first understanding of Nadcap and how much pyrometry is a big part of the thermal processing industry. From that point forward, I dove into the specifications and wanted to be a part of a solution rather than contributing to the problem.
I got involved with AMS2750 and AMEC. When I showed up to my first meeting, the chairman at the time wanted to know who I was and what I was doing there. After explaining what I do and my desire to join the 2750 team, he said absolutely, because at that point, I was the only person in the sub-team that had hands-on experience in pyrometry and was writing the standard. I’m the one that actually picks up the thermocouple, sticks it inside a furnace, and knows what the real world is. Thankfully the chairman saw that and said, “You need to be a part of this.”
I started Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry (ATP) in 2007. When I first started the company, I wanted to dedicate my focus on helping our clients succeed, and make sure that we are the industry experts, providing the customer service that they deserve. I wanted to look at what the specification allows for frequency reductions and stop over testing the equipment, while staying within the compliance requirements of the standards.
AMS2750 is not the only pyrometry specification out there. We then got involved with the other aerospace prime specifications, ensuring our customers maintained compliance to those as well.
We have branched out since those early days of 2007, which consisted of me running around the country, taking care of pyrometry. Now we have 28 people in the business and multiple offices coast to coast with a great team behind us that shares the same vision, ensuring pyrometry service is our ultimate focus for our clients.
Heather Falcone: What is really important about that is that, as a former heat treater actively helping the heat treat industry now, there is not one system that puts all of these standards and specifications together. Companies have their records, data collection, and everything is all separate.
What is ACS? (5:37)
Heather Falcone: Tell us a little bit about ACS and how this software helps with this issue.
Andrew Bassett: The dream of the aerospace compliance software came out of us doing things the old-fashioned way, entering calibration data into an Excel spreadsheet, which enables the human factor and leads to human errors. When it comes to compliance audits, human errors cannot happen. So we tightened up our processes in the Excel world, but I knew there had to be a better way.
That is how we started down the road of developing aerospace compliance software. The idea was that it was going to be strictly an ATP tool to use for my technicians and the team to use the software. But the industry is small enough that people started hearing about what we were doing. Clients began requesting to be able to use the software. That is how the system has grown to where it is today.
Back in my early days in pyrometry when I started ATP, I would literally build pyrometry compliance notebooks, old fashioned binders. When we would get a new client, I would go buy a bunch of notebooks from Staples and put in their little dividers of a pyrometry program together. We would have information and specifications about their furnace, calibration reports, SAT reports, TUS reports, thermocouple control logs, etc. That’s where ACS has now been built, replacing my old notebooks.
Now we have a system that’s 100% not just a pyrometry tool — it’s also a compliance tool. New features we have added have a focus on compliance, just not pyrometry-related tools. We now have tools for preventive maintenance leak rate testing checks that are required and controlling your thermocouple replacement schedule. It’s bigger than a pyrometry tool now.
This software has now expanded across multiple industries, not just in heat treating and thermal processing, but also chemical processing, NDT, composites, etc. It is a fully compliant software for multiple industries.
Heather Falcone: It’s meant to be that holistic, wraparound software for your quality folks to have someplace safe that all their data can get stored, aggregated, and usable.
Andrew Bassett: It’s also and most importantly a self-checking software to not only the industry specifications, but client internal specifications. It doesn’t have to be solely what AMS2750 says. It could be 2750 or GEs requirements, or Boeing’s requirement, or an internal spec. It will parse all that information to make sure it’s compliant to those standards, and it’s completed faster than you can blink your eye.
AMS2750 (9:20)
Click the image to get a deep dive into AMS2750F fundamentals, as Andrew breaks down the core requirements of AMS2750F.Click the image to learn about navigating AMS2750F compliance challenges.Click on the image to understand the critical role of Temperature Uniformity Surveys (TUS) in ensuring repeatable heat treating processes under AMS2750F
Heather Falcone: Can you talk about AMS2750, how it has evolved beyond I think what many of us ever thought it would be, and some best practices on how you can best get your arms around that standard and manage that day to day?
Andrew Bassett: When I got into the industry, we were at Rev C, AMS2750C, and those who’ve been around long enough to know that revision of the spec was the Bible. You gave it to a hundred different people and you got a hundred different interpretations.
It was very unclear on the spec. The iterations from there have gotten better, with 2750D and then the major changes going into E, then all the way up to our current state of Rev H. It’s now more clear, though there are still some confusing parts. My goal personally is to make sure that document is clear and understandable. Even if it’s 300 pages and we use stick figures and crayons to explain what the intent is — I’m okay with that. So it shouldn’t be a document that is hard to understand. The aerospace standards for heat treating are fairly clear on the intent of the spec, but for some reason, pyrometry has always been this scary black hole that you have to try to figure it out. I’m looking forward to the day where that is not the case.
Click on the image above to check out Heat Treat Radio #91 where Andrew demystifies one of AMS2750’s most critical yet often misunderstood specs: the ±0.1°F requirement.
Coming to a understanding of that specification is not easy to do. Understanding what the intent and the requirements are takes some good studying, as well as getting the intimate training of that specification.
We do provide pyrometry training, and when I first started doing it, it was a 6- to 8-hour day class, the 30,000-foot level. Over the last several years, I’ve broken it now into a two-day class. My PowerPoint presentation has expanded to 168 slides when the spec is only 57 pages. But now I’m doing more of a crop-dusting training level so everybody can understand it. That is extremely helpful for suppliers that need to meet that standard.
Heather Falcone: Interpretation is key for suppliers, understanding how the standard applies to their shop, their floor — that’s a real challenge.
Andrew Bassett: The specification is just not a North American spec. It’s a global specification, and it’s not even just an aerospace standard anymore. It’s gone into the commercial world, the FDA. Now, if you’re doing heat treatment of dental drill bits or knee replacement parts, anything that’s metal, the FDA now requires compliance to AMS2750. Having someone walk you through the standard and reaching out, there are many ways to figure out the intent of the spec and how it applies to each organization.
Best Practices in Managing the Beast (14:40)
Heather Falcone: What are some best practices in managing this if you have to integrate AS, ISO, Nadcap? You have your whole QMS, and then you have 2750, P10TF3, etc. How do you do it?
Andrew Bassett: That’s a huge undertaking. My experience over the years is diving in with our clients and finding out what types of heat treating they are doing. I like to find out who they are heat treating parts for, who are the clients, where are the parts ending up? There could be POs coming in for the clients to heat treat “X” part, and maybe they are not doing their due diligence and the part is actually going to GE Aviation. Well, GE Aviation has their own pyrometry requirements that are offset from AMS2750 or Saffron or any of the other aerospace primes that may have a requirements from a pyrometry standpoint.
So first gathering that information altogether and making sure you are constantly up to date of what you’re processing is critical. From there, with the aerospace compliance software, now that tool can be utilized to manage all your requirements, from your calibrations, your TUS, your SATs, everything can be managed in one location.
For instance, if you’re doing work for GE, and you have to follow their requirements of P10TF3. GE does not have anything in their specification that talks about the alternate SAT that’s specified in AMS2750, but GE also do work that needs to comply with that standard. So this tool is going to keep you on track. This kind of management tool is cabale of managing that for you, so nothing gets missed.
Once that knowledge base is put together and we have a clear path of what needs to be done from the heat treater or the captive shops standpoint of who they are processing work for, then you can use something like ACS that can manage that whole aspect for you.
How Does ACS Work with Other Systems? (17:06)
Heather Falcone: From what I understand, ACS is plug and play. It comes on-site, ready to go as a standalone tool. But how does it also work with other systems that you might have?
Andrew Bassett: ACS is a standalone system. People have access to it; we have a tiered subscription for it depending on what level of the ACS you want. We have also been working with a few industry giants out there to integrate ACS software with certain systems that help manage heat treat processes. There will be an integration point there where ACS will be able to make sure that jobs don’t get processed if TUS or calibration or SATs are past due for heat treat equipment. They won’t be able to enter a job into that piece of equipment. It will stop them from putting something that shouldn’t be going into a furnace. These are some of the features that we will be integrating in 2026 where we’ll be able to work with other software solution providers out there in the heat treating realm to make sure everybody is looking at the same thing.
Heather Falcone: The reason that we want those lockouts in place is because we are trying to avoid NCRs during our audits. We’re trying to get NCRs that will be value-add, not something that we knew we should have been doing and were not. The whole point is to better the company so that we do not have a bunch of pyrometry NCRs during our audits.
Common NCRs for Pyrometry (19:08)
Heather Falcone: What are the top NCRs that you’re seeing for pyrometry currently?
Andrew Bassett: It has been well documented through the Nadcap process that 80% of NCRs actually do come from pyrometry. That has always baffled me, especially being a member of AMS2750 sub-team that writes the standard. What have we done as a team to fail the suppliers out there by not writing clear consistency?
Over the last two revisions, I think many requirements have been clarified. But there are still some pyrometry-related issues that I still see. For example, you may have your preventive maintenance or unscheduled maintenance that is being completed to a piece of equipment. You have a requirement to have that maintenance documented and then approved by a by someone from quality to make sure that no further pyrometry testing is required. Sometimes those logs are missed, or possibly a maintenance manager verifies a door seal was replaced, but then quality does not sign off and date that log.
That is an example of an issue that we identified and put into ACS. Now you can keep that preventive maintenance program in ACS for that particular piece of equipment. With unscheduled maintenance, when the maintenance is completed, it automatically shoots an email to the quality team to have them review and ensure no pyrometry requirements are missed.
That’s an example of one of those top NCRs that you always see with Nadcap. We saw the need and created a solution to that with ACS.
Benefits of Getting Involved (21:11)
Heather Falcone: We want to make sure that everybody can get more involved in shaping the face of compliance so that they do not become a victim of it. How can everybody, including captives, get more involved, and why is that valuable to their bottom line?
Andrew Bassett: This is something I preach constantly with our client base. If you’re Nadcap accredited, firstly, go to a meeting. Learn, be present. You have a say. I’ve been going to Nadcap meetings for 30+ years now, and even though I’m not a supplier, I’m not an aerospace prime, I’m a guest that that shows up. But I keep going and I raise my voice and share my concerns with the group at Nadcap and with the suppliers. Having that voice is important. I know that suppliers need to get more involved. I know it’s an expense to send several people from a company out to a Nadcap meeting, but it’s money well spent when you get involved with AMEC and with creating the specifications.
I had this myth early on in my career that this golden group of aerospace gods were creating standards. When I showed up to the meeting, there were more suppliers there writing the standards than there were the primes. It was amazing to see that we have people that are in the industry that do the heat treating or in the metallurgist or for these organizations that are in charge of the specs. It’s the everyday heat treater, the people with boots on the ground, so to speak, that get involved. So getting involved with AMEC, getting involved with Nadcap, that’s key to any success when it comes to compliance and having that say in writing standards that you know what you’re going to have to comply with.
Heather Falcone: Absolutely. They give us so many opportunities to get involved. There’s four AMECs a year and three Nadcap meetings.
Andrew Bassett: To me it’s well worth it. At least go to the Nadcap meeting that’s always once a year in Pittsburgh. It is the most well attended meeting typically out of all of them. That one is really going to get your feet wet and get that whole experience of Nadcap.
Heather Falcone: That’s usually where they’re making major decisions, like finalizing checklist changes. Being able to get out in front of that and not just wait to get the email from the automated PRI.
Andrew Bassett: I will move mountains to make sure that I am at every Nadcap meeting. For us, I can take that information for those meetings for my clients that don’t end up going and be able to disseminate that information. It doesn’t matter if it’s pyrometry or heat treating or whatever that’s coming out and say, this is coming down the pike. Where do we need to tighten some things up?
Developing Compliance Software For Complex Specifications (25:46)
Heather Falcone: Most of the time I’ve seen when I’m going in to see a heat treater that their compliance program is great at a base level, but there’s too many pieces. So what has that been like trying to develop a compliance software for literally one of the most technically complex and arguably important specifications in our industry?
Andrew Bassett: It’s been a challenge for sure. With AMS2750, at one point it was starting to be updated every two years. Thankfully, we have four developers on our software team, so all the developing for us is in-house. Being on the forefront of changes by attending Nadcap meetings and being a part of AMEC, we can jump right into development and be ready for the update.
Future Specifications and Revisions (27:30)
Heather Falcone: We are on Rev H — what’s next? Is there another spec change on the horizon?
Andrew Bassett: Letter J is on the horizon. We did start working on it. Once the spec is released, the team keeps a parking lot of issues that come up. Then we just basically put it on a storyboard, and when we’re ready to start working on them again, we start working on it. The changes over the last two revisions on G and H, have been minor. It was the first time in the history of the specification, back at Rev G, that there were change bars for the first time.
A change bar is on the left-hand side of the document, indicating where we changed something in the spec. Prior to that, we rewrote the spec and people had to read the whole thing to know what had changed.
I don’t see a time where we’re ever going to have a complete overhaul rewrite of the spec in the future. So yes, we are working on Rev J. These updates will be more clarifications that have sprung up over the last several years. We were trying to put one out every two years to keep up to date. The aerospace community, Nadcap, and AMEC, they were getting a little antsy that we were writing it so quickly, so we put a little pause on that.
We did jump back into it a couple weeks ago. We had our team meeting and worked out a few more issues that are out there. Not a big major overhaul, more clarifications and trying to get more intention of what the requirements that we’re writing.
From a Nadcap standpoint, with any changes to industry specifications, there will be updates on new checklist revisions. That’s always a grinding process to get a checklist that everyone’s going to be happy with. I did not yet look at the agenda for the next meeting in February in San Francisco, but it seems like every time we do have a meeting, there’s a checklist that we’re working on.
Heather Falcone: That is a great takeaway — get involved, right? Go to the meetings, take your opportunities, get involved with people like Andrew that have been in the industry. It’s a wealth of knowledge, and if we’re not taking advantage of your expertise, your experience, then we’re really missing out on taking knowledge back to our own shops.
Is there anything that you want to leave us with before we close out?
Andrew Bassett: You’re spot on with that. That’s that actually what brings me the most joy of what I do is being able to part the knowledge that I have to my clients. Anytime I meet somebody and we talk pyrometry, my business card comes out and I have my cell phone number on there. I tell them, go ahead and call me, text me, smoke signals, whatever you want to do. If there’s a question you have, I’m more than happy to answer it to the best of my abilities. I mean, I’m only one of 12 people on the team. It’s about parting that knowledge and assisting our clients to be successful and have a great understanding of what the requirements are and really make sure that they understand it.
About the Guest
Andrew Bassett President Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry
Andrew Bassett has more than 35 years of experience working alongside manufacturers, captives, and commercial heat treaters to ensure their testing, calibration, and pyrometry programs meet the demands of industry specifications like AMS2750 without losing sight of how shops operate. Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry provides accredited testing, calibration, and pyrometry services that support heat treaters and aerospace manufacturers across compliance, audit readiness, and ongoing system integrity. The company also developed the Aerospace Compliance System, a software platform designed to support compliance and documentation requirements tied to testing and pyrometry programs. Andrew is deeply involved in the Aerospace Metals and Engineering Committee responsible for writing the AMS2750 specification and is an active contributor within the Nadcap Heat Treat Task Group. He brings a practical, systems-level view of quality that goes beyond checklists and audits.
An international aircraft motion-control manufacturer is expanding its heat treat process capacity by ordering an additional low-temperature vacuum tempering furnace to support tempering, aging, and other sub-critical heat treating of precision components. The equipment will be used to maintain consistent thermal processing standards for aerospace applications.
The repeat order will be supplied by SECO/WARWICK‘s U.S. subsidiary. The furnace is a low-temperature vacuum tempering unit capable of operating up to 1380°F (750°C) within a 24 × 24 × 36 in (600 × 600 × 900 mm) work zone and supports a 1750-lb (~800 kg) load capacity. Designed to meet AMS2750F Class 2 temperature-uniformity-survey (TUS) requirements (±10°F/±5.6°C), it uses nitrogen convection for both heating and cooling, with final cooling provided by an internal recirculation blower and water-cooled heat exchanger for stable, efficient cycles.
Piotr Zawistowski Managing Director SECO/WARWICK USA
This additional furnace joins an existing suite of heat treat equipment at the manufacturer’s facilities, which already includes multi-chamber CaseMaster Evolution models and a Vector single-chamber high-pressure gas-quench vacuum furnace from SECO/WARWICK. These installations reflect long-standing collaboration on thermal processing solutions for aerospace components.
According to Piotr Zawistowski, managing director of SECO/WARWICK USA, the ongoing investments by this aerospace partner reflect confidence in the technical expertise and support provided by SECO/WARWICK and the performance consistency of its vacuum tempering solutions.
Press release is available in its original form here.
