Solar Atmospheres has announced the installation and full commissioning of a new 10-bar vacuum furnace at its Fontana, California, further expanding the company’s high-pressure vacuum heat treating capacity in the western United States. The system enables vacuum heat treating and high-pressure quenching of large components essential to high-performance applications across aerospace and other critical industries.
The furnace, manufactured by sister company Solar Manufacturing, is a horizontal vacuum system with a 48″ wide x 48″ high x 96″ deep hot zone and a maximum load capacity of 12,000 pounds. Equipped with a vacuum pumping package capable of reaching an ultimate vacuum level of 1×10⁻⁶ Torr, the furnace is designed for processing titanium and other high-performance alloys that require tightly controlled, low-contamination environments.
Derek Dennis President Solar Atmospheres California
“This investment gives our [clients] another regional solution for high-pressure quenching of large components and heavy workloads,” said Derek Dennis, president of Solar Atmospheres California. It also allows the company to increase capacity and improve efficiency as demand continues to grow, he adds.
The move supports vacuum heat treating needs across aerospace, defense, medical, and power generation markets, with capacity aimed at maintaining consistent turnaround and performance.
Press release is available in its original form here.
Following tight standards might not mean your heat treat process is truly accurate…if your instrumentation does not see the full picture. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Dr. Steve Offley, product marketing manager with PhoenixTM Ltd., discusses how combining accurate data loggers, high-quality thermocouples, and linear interpolation of correction factors ensures consistent compliance with AMS2750H and delivers trustworthy survey results. The article further explores how thermocouple behavior and real-world processing conditions necessitate carefulattention to each thermocouple junction.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sMarch 2026 Annual Aerospace Heat Treating print edition.
Introduction
In the world of heat treatment, temperature measurement accuracy is critical, whether performing process monitoring or temperature uniformity surveys (TUS) as part of AMS2750. Measurement accuracy is defined as the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or standard. Without confidence in the accuracy of your measurement, you are working in the dark and could be deceiving yourself and possibly others.
The requirement of ±0.1°F readability first referenced in the F revision of AMS2750 pyrometry standard has garnered much debate and critical discussions throughout the years. Although helpful in resolving confusion in what option to record and removing discrepancies in recording temperatures in metric versus Imperial units, this solution does not necessarily guarantee instrumentation accuracy working in a real-world heat treat operation settings.
The following article introduces important considerations to be made when performing the temperature monitoring operation with reference to measurement accuracy in a real-world test environment — on a shop floor, not just a stable controlled calibration laboratory.
Monitoring & TUS Methodology
Traditionally, TUS are performed using a field test instrument, which in most situations will be a temperature data logger. For static batch ovens, a static data logger is positioned externally to the furnace. Long thermocouples are trailed into the furnace heating chamber connected directly to the TUS frame.
Figure 1. Typical TUS setup for a static batch furnace. Twenty channel external data loggers connected directly to a nine-point TUS frame used to measure the temperature uniformity over the volumetric working volume of the furnace. | Image Credit: PhoenixTMFigure 2. Thru-process TUS monitoring system. The data logger shown is located inside the thermal barrier, which travels with the TUS frame through the furnace. | Image Credit: PhoenixTM
For continuous or semi-continuous modular processes, this trailing thermocouple method is difficult if not impossible. For these furnaces, the preferred method of temperature monitoring is “thru-process”: the data logger is connected to a TUS frame, traveling with the load through the furnace. To protect the data logger from the hostile process conditions (including heat, pressure, steam, water, salt, or oil) the data logger is encased in a thermal barrier designed for the process in hand (Figure 2).
Calibration Accuracy Requirements
In either static or continuous processing conditions, the accuracy of the temperature monitoring system is dependent upon the combined accuracy of the field test instrument (data logger) and the temperature sensor thermocouples.
Both aspects of the monitoring system must be strictly controlled for AMS2750H compliance. The field test instrument data logger needs to have a calibration accuracy of ±1.0°F or ±0.1% of temperature reading, whichever is greater (Table 7 in AMS2750H), and a readability of ±0.1°F. The most common base metal thermocouples (K and N) used will themselves need to have a calibration accuracy of ±2.0°F or ±0.4% (percent of reading or correction factor °F, whichever is greater) as defined in Table 1 of the AMS2750H specification.
Field Measurement Accuracy
For process monitoring, thermocouples are generally the preferred temperature sensor when considering accuracy, robust operation, cost, and availability. It is important to fully understand the working limitations of the sensor technology from measurement accuracy attainable on the heat treat shop floor to ensure they are compensated for.
The theory of the thermocouple is traced back to a German Physicist, Thomas Seebeck in 1821. The “Seebeck effect” describes the generation of electrical voltage when a temperature difference exists between two dissimilar electrical conductors (metals). The resulting milivoltage (mV) is defined by actual temperature experienced at the measurement junction. For any given thermocouple, the measured mV can be converted to a temperature using standardized Seebeck voltage curves, commonly documented in thermocouple reference tables.
Figure 3. Basic thermocouple measurement circuit showing critical hot and cold junctions. Image Credit: PhoenixTM
Using the Seebeck principle, the thermocouple consists of two wires of dissimilar metals joined at the measurement point, known as the hot junction. The output voltage from the sensor is proportional to the temperature difference between the hot junction and the point of voltage measurement, known as the cold junction. It is important to recognize that a thermocouple measures temperature difference, not an absolute temperature. The basic principle of how a thermocouple measurement circuit operates is shown in Figure 3.
Critical Cold Junction Measurement
A common misconception is that thermocouple accuracy only needs to be accounted for at the hot junction. As previously mentioned, the thermocouple measurement is reliant on the temperature reading at the hot junction offset against the temperature of the cold junction. From an electronics level, the cold junction is where the thermocouple wires connect to the copper/copper connection on the electronic circuit. The cold junction therefore may be inside the data logger or on the outside of the data logger, if universal thermocouple connectors are used (Cu sockets).
Therefore, to get a consistent accurate reading from the hot junction, it is important to consistently and accurately monitor the cold junction temperature so the measurement can be corrected using a method known as “cold junction compensation.” It is critical that the cold junction temperature sensor is located correctly to ensure that the true cold junction temperature is measured and applied.
Essential Accuracy in Real World
While the accuracy of many data loggers may appear to be acceptable on paper, this may not reflect the real world situation. Data logger temperature may not be stable, which can compromise temperature accuracy when proper cold junction compensation is not implemented. The calibration accuracy in a stable temperature-controlled laboratory, or while performing an in-situ calibration, is one thing, but is the field test instrument able to work accurately on the production floor with significant swings in temperature over the survey period? Do you know what temperature changes the data logger may be experiencing on your process floor (e.g., climatic variation during day/furnace heat up, loading and unloading actions)?
Remember, only a few degree change in the cold junction temperature may compromise the measurement accuracy enough to fail the TUS level being tested, if no compensation is undertaken or if the compensation temperature used does not accurately reflect the live cold junction temperature.
Cold Junction Compensation Logger Data
Data loggers designed with an essential accurate cold junction compensation technology, like those created by PhoenixTM, maintain measurement accuracy in every changing industrial environments. This design allows the data logger accuracy to be quoted at ±0.5°F (K and N) over the full operating temperature range of the PhoenixTM data logger family. For standard data loggers used in conventional thermal barriers (phase change heat sink), the accuracy is maintained over the operating range of 32°F to 176°F. For high temperature data loggers used in phased evaporation thermal barriers (water tank protection), the accuracy is provided over the operating range of 32°F to 230°F. As designed, the data logger will operate at 212°F (boiling water), so cold junction compensation is critical with the data logger ambient temperature changing from 70°F to 212°F during normal operation.
Take for example an external data logger with cold compensation technology with an operating temperature range of 32°F to 131°F (see PTM4220 in Figure 1). On a production floor, users can safely operate, relying on the cold junction compensation to address temperature fluctuations in the processing environment.
Figure 4. Effect of changing physical data logger temperature on the thermocouple measurement with and without cold junction compensation measure a stable process temperature of 1470°F. Image Credit: PhoenixTM
Additionally, the thermocouple socket in the data logger case is connected directly to the measurement board of the data logger using thermocouple wire of the designated type (e.g., type K). A thermistor temperature sensor accurately monitors the connector temperature (±0.18°F) providing an accurate record of the cold junction. The connector is located inside the data logger cavity, protected from rapid environmental temperature changes, and is compact and isothermal. As such, the thermistor temperature accurately reflects the cold junction of each unique thermocouple connection. This temperature provides an accurate cold junction temperature compensation to maintain measurement accuracy with any internal data logger temperature variation (Figure 4).
Thermocouple Accuracy
Figure 5. Nonexpendable mineral insulated thermocouple type K (0.06 inch) or N (0.08 inch). UHT alloy sheathed insulated hot junction, terminating in miniature plug. Maximum temperature 2192°F ANSI MC96.1 Special Limits (±2.0 °F or ± 0.4%, whichever is highest). Image Credit: PhoenixTM
To maximize measurement accuracy, it is important that thermocouples are selected with the highest accuracy and manufactured to resist damage from thermal cycling at elevated temperatures.
For thru-process monitoring, short thermocouple lengths are required to connect the data logger within the thermal barrier and the TUS frame. As such, nonexpendable (see AMS2750H 2.2.36, Table 3) thermocouples can be employed with ease. Robust mineral insulated thermocouples (MIMS) (Figure 5), typically type K or N, can be permanently fixed to the TUS frame. This both reduces setup time and guarantees that thermocouple positions are consistent for periodic TUS work as defined (see AMS2750H 3.1.7, Table 5).
Barring physical damage, the mineral insulated thermocouples can be used unrestricted for up to three months (type K) and three months or longer (type N) if recalibration is successful at the three-month check.
Data Logger and Thermocouple Correction Factors
The PhoenixTM system allows both data logger and thermocouple correction factors to be applied automatically to the raw survey temperature data, maximizing measurement accuracy. The data logger correction factors can be read directly from the onboard digital data logger calibration file. Thermocouples are available with comprehensive calibration certificates providing corrections factors at multiple set temperatures across the required measurement range.
Figure 6. Schematic of the linear interpolation method (AMS2750 accepted) of calculating thermocouple correction factors over the entire calibration range of the thermocouple. Every TUS measurement in therefore corrected accurately against matching calibration offset data. Image Credit: PhoenixTM
For both data logger and thermocouples, correction factors are interpolated across the complete calibration range using the linear method as permitted by AMS2750H 3.1.4.8 (Figure 6). This approach means that the accuracy of the entire TUS dataset is guaranteed compared to applying a single correction factor calculated at a single nominated temperature, which may not truly reflect the complete temperature range.
Summary
To guarantee the accuracy of both temperature profile and TUS data, it is important that the field test instrument data logger not only provides the desired calibration accuracy but is able to work accurately in a production environment. For thermocouple systems, accurate cold junction compensation offers critical peace of mind to correct for changes in the operating temperature characteristics of the data logger during use.
Data logger and thermocouple correction factors should be implemented to maximize measurement accuracy. As discussed, the use of linear interpolation method ensures that correction factors calculated over the entire measurement range are implemented providing full data accuracy.
About The Author:
Dr. Steve Offley Product Marketing Manager PhoenixTM Ltd.
Dr. Steve Offley, “aka Dr O” is a product marketing manager with PhoenixTM Ltd. with 30 years of experience of temperature monitoring in the industrial thermal processing market.
Carbon emissions reporting is no longer optional for heat treaters — it’s becoming a competitive and regulatory necessity. In this Sustainability Insights installment, Heat TreatToday examines research from Professor Fu Zhao and PhD candidate Lakshmi Srinivasan of Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium, detailing a new python-based carbon calculator built specifically for heat treat operations, how it models Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions from furnace geometry and process parameters, and how in-house heat treaters can use it to meet growing transparency demands with minimal manual effort.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
Emissions reporting has become an essential step. Navigating the requirements in an influx political environment only adds to the challenge. How can heat treaters remain in compliance? A tool designed through Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium (PHTC) may be the answer.
The consortium has funded research across heat treat projects ranging from the efficacy of novel quenchants to improving materials hardness. Roughly two years ago, the PHTC member companies requested research to develop a tool that would make carbon estimation possible.
Lakshmi Srinivasan, PhD Candidate in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue UniversityProfessor Fu Zhao, Faculty Member at the School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue University
Professor Fu Zhao, faculty member at the School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue, decided to take on this research request. He brought on PhD candidate Lakshmi Srinivasan, an astute researcher of energy systems modeling and life cycle assessment in the School of Mechanical Engineering, to research and develop the tool. “This project aims to model furnace energy requirements based on furnace geometry and heat treating input parameters,” Srinivasan explained. “From these modeling energy flows and furnace build inputs, we calculate Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 carbon emission associated with operating the furnace.”
Scope 1: Direct carbon emissions from energy consumption within the plan (e.g. combustion of natural gas or other fuels)
Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling
Scope 3: All other indirect emissions across the supply chain (e.g., suppliers, transportation, product use)
The tool is a python-based desktop application with scalability in mind. Since development targets the carburizing process for both market and regulatory reasons, it is highly focused on industry needs. Additionally, Zhao and Srinivasan built the tool for users to integrate additional features and data sets to align with new requirements or emerging technologies. They also underscored that the tool’s architecture is designed for growth as a web-based application.
Image of the digital carburization tracking tool | Image Credit: Srinivasan and Zhao
Ease of use is central. Zhao and Srinivasan have refined the tool to limit how much unique user input is required to generate an accurate output. The team explained this as particularly challenging, having examined alternatives to simplify the interface without oversimplify the “underlying physics.” They described how the final form of the tool will work, saying that once key parameters are entered (furnace type, processing temperatures, time, part geometry), the tool will automatically calculate energy usage and emissions with minimal manual intervention.
PHTC members, many of whom represent manufacturers with in-house heat treating, have shown great interest, providing feedback and resources to shape the development of the tool. Additional enthusiasm was found at IHEA’s annual SUMMIT in August 2025, where Srinivasan presented the tool’s development. When asked what inquiries have directed their research, Zhao and Srinivasan shared the following:
Versatility and functionality: How flexible is the tool in accommodating different furnace geometries, part geometries, furnace types, and heat treatment processes?
Part-based allocation: How does the tool allocate emissions accurately to individual parts or batches within a furnace load?
Location-specific emissions: How does it account for location-based variations in scope 2 and scope 3 emissions, such as differences in electricity generation or supply chain impacts?
Another challenge has been ensuring careful tool calibration and verification. To do so, the team has taken accurate, real-world natural gas and electricity consumption from heat treat operations, courtesy of PHTC members, to verify the model’s predicted energy consumption at defined furnace operating temperatures.
Eventually, some form of this tool will be made available to those outside the consortium. Currently, however, PHTC members are at the forefront of development and usage. The researchers underlined this, commenting, “This tool is particularly timely and essential for industry, as companies are increasingly expected to provide transparent and accurate emissions reporting.”
While the world of standards and regulations can feel like a minefield, benchmarked discussions of this tool reveal promising applications for in-house heat treaters in the near future.
El reporte de emisiones de carbono ya no es opcional para los especialistas en tratamiento térmico — se está convirtiendo en una necesidad competitiva y regulatoria. En esta entrega de Perspectivas de Sostenibilidad, Heat TreatToday examina la investigación del Profesor Fu Zhao y la candidata a Doctorado Lakshmi Srinivasan del Heat Treating Consortium de Purdue University, detallando una nueva calculadora de carbono basada en Python, desarrollada específicamente para operaciones de tratamiento térmico, cómo modela las emisiones del Alcance 1, 2 y 3 a partir de la geometría del horno y los parámetros del proceso, y cómo los especialistas en tratamiento térmico con operaciones internas pueden utilizarla para cumplir con las crecientes exigencias de transparencia con un mínimo de intervención manual.
Este artículo informativo se publicó por primera vez enHeat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
Si tiene comentarios o preguntas sobre este artículo, háganoslo saber en: editor@heattreattoday.com.
El reporte de emisiones se ha convertido en un paso esencial. Navegar los requisitos en un entorno político cambiante solo añade complejidad al desafío. ¿Cómo pueden los especialistas en Tratamiento Térmico mantenerse en el cumplimiento normativo? Una herramienta diseñada a través de Purdue University’s Heat Treating Consortium (PHTC, por sus siglas en inglés) podría ser la respuesta.
El consorcio ha financiado investigaciones en proyectos de tratamiento térmico que abarcan desde la eficacia de nuevos medios de temple hasta la mejora de dureza de los materiales. Hace aproximadamente dos años, las empresas miembros del PHTC solicitaron una investigación para el desarrollo de una herramienta que hiciera posible la estimación de carbono.
Lakshmi Srinivasan, Candidata a Doctorado en School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue UniversityProfessor Fu Zhao, Miembro del Profesorado de School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue University
El Profesor Fu Zhao, miembro del profesorado de School of Mechanical Engineering and the School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental Engineering at Purdue decidió asumir esta solicitud de investigación. Incorporando a la candidata a Doctorado Lakshmi Srinivasan, una destacada investigadora en el modelado de sistemas energéticos y evaluación del ciclo de vida en School of Mechanical Engineering y la School of Sustainability Engineering and Environmental, para la investigación y desarrollo de esta herramienta. “Este proyecto tiene como objetivo modelar los requerimientos energéticos del horno en función de su geometría y los parámetros de entrada de tratamiento térmico”, explicó Srinivasan. “A partir de estos flujos energéticos modelados y de los insumos asociados a la construcción del horno, calculamos las emisiones de carbono del Alcance 1, Alcance 2 y Alcance 3 asociados a la operación del horno”.
Alcance 1: Emisiones directas de carbono derivadas del consumo de energía dentro de la planta (por ejemplo, combustión de gas natural u otros combustibles)
Alcance 2: Emisiones indirectas provenientes de electricidad, vapor, calor o enfriamiento adquiridos
Alcance 3: Todas las demás emisiones indirectas a lo largo de la cadena de suministro (por ejemplo, proveedores, transporte, uso del producto)
La herramienta es una aplicación de escritorio basada en Python, diseñada pensando en la escalabilidad. Dado que el desarrollo está orientado al proceso de carburizado tanto por razones de mercado como regulatorias, se encuentra altamente enfocada en las necesidades de la industria. Adicionalmente, Zhao y Srinivasan diseñaron la herramienta para que los usuarios puedan integrar características adicionales y conjuntos de datos que se alineen con nuevos requerimientos o tecnologías emergentes. También subrayaron que la arquitectura de la herramienta está pensada para su crecimiento como una aplicación basada en la web.
Imagen de la herramienta digital de seguimiento de carburizado | Image Credit: Srinivasan and Zhao
La facilidad de uso es un aspecto esencial. Zhao y Srinivasan han refinado la herramienta para limitar la cantidad de entradas únicas requeridas por el usuario para generar un resultado preciso. El equipo explicó que este aspecto fue particularmente desafiante, ya que se examinaron alternativas para simplificar la interfaz sin simplificar en exceso la “física subyacente”. Describieron como funcionará la versión final de la herramienta, explicando que una vez que se introduzcan los parámetros clave (tipo de horno, temperaturas de proceso, tiempo, pieza) la herramienta automáticamente calculará la energía usada y las emisiones con una intervención manual mínima.
Los miembros del PHTC, de los cuales muchos representan compañías manufactureras que cuentan con tratamiento térmico interno, han mostrado interés, proporcionando retroalimentación y recursos para dar forma al desarrollo de la herramienta. Un entusiasmo adicional se observó durante el IHEA’s annual SUMMIT en agosto de 2025, donde Srinivasan presentó el desarrollo de la herramienta. Cuando se les preguntó qué interrogantes han guiado su investigación, Zhao y Srinivasan compartieron lo siguiente:
Versatilidad y funcionalidad: ¿Qué tan flexible es la herramienta para adaptarse a diferentes geometrías de horno, geometrías de piezas, tipos de hornos y procesos de tratamiento térmico?
Asignación basada en piezas: ¿Cómo asigna la herramienta las emisiones de manera precisa a piezas individuales o lotes de una carga dentro del horno?
Emisiones específicas por ubicación: ¿Cómo considera las variaciones regionales en las emisiones del Alcance 2 y Alcance 3, tales como las diferencias en la generación de electricidad o los impactos de la cadena de suministro?
Otro desafío ha sido garantizar la calibración y verificación cuidadosa de la herramienta. Para ello el equipo ha utilizado datos reales y precisos de consumo de gas natural y electricidad provenientes de operaciones de tratamiento térmico, cortesía de los miembros del PHTC, con el fin de verificar el consumo energético predicho por el modelo a temperaturas de operación definidas del horno.
Eventualmente alguna versión de esta herramienta estará disponible para usuarios fuera del consorcio. Sin embargo, actualmente, los miembros del PHTC se encuentran a la vanguardia tanto del desarrollo como del uso. Los investigadores enfatizaron este punto: “Esta herramienta es particularmente oportuna y esencial para la industria, ya que las empresas enfrentan una creciente expectativa de proporcionar reportes de emisiones transparentes y precisos”.
Si bien el mundo de las normas y regulaciones puede sentirse como un campo minado, las discusiones comparativas sobre esta herramienta revelan aplicaciones prometedoras a corto plazo para los especialistas en tratamiento térmico con operaciones internas.
We’re celebrating getting to the “fringe” of the weekend with a Heat TreatFringe Fridayinstallment: a private equity firm in the aerospace supply chain has acquired Forged Solutions Group, a manufacturer of high-specification forgings used in flight-critical engine and structural components. The company’s products, including aeroengine discs and shafts, are the kinds of advanced alloy components that typically move through multiple downstream heat treatment steps before entering service.
While not exactly heat treat, “Fringe Friday” deals with interesting developments in one of our key markets: aerospace, automotive, medical, energy, or general manufacturing.
J.F. Lehman & Company has completed the acquisition of Forged Solutions Group, a manufacturer of high-specification closed-die forgings for aerospace, defense, and space applications. The company produces components including aeroengine discs, shafts, and structural parts from advanced alloys such as titanium, nickel-based superalloys, steel and aluminum before moving through machining and materials testing as part of the production process.
Ben Hatcher Managing Director J.F. Lehman & Company
The company supplies components for commercial aerospace and defense platforms through its manufacturing facilities. J.F. Lehman & Company, a private equity firm focused on aerospace, defense, maritime, government, and environmental sectors, completed the acquisition as part of its strategy to invest in companies supporting critical industrial supply chains.
Ben Hatcher, managing director at J.F. Lehman & Company, said, “FSG’s expansive forging capabilities, diverse product portfolio, and meaningful available capacity form a compelling and critical solution to the broader aerospace and defense industry’s production requirements. We are excited to build upon FSG’s differentiated technical capabilities and scaled operational footprint to increase throughput in support of current and next-generation aeroengine and defense platforms.”
Press release is available in its original form here.
Two vacuum induction melting (VIM) casting systems are being deployed to support the production of components used in power generation turbine manufacturing. The systems are designed to produce advanced alloys with controlled microstructures for components operating under demanding thermal and mechanical conditions.
The equipment, engineered to support both equiaxed (EQ) and directionally solidified (DS) casting processes, will be used in the production of high-performance, nickel-based alloy turbine components. These casting technologies are critical for achieving the structural integrity, thermal resistance, and performance consistency required in modern power generation turbines operating under extreme conditions.
Earl Good President Retech
Retech, a U.S.-based company and part of the SECO/WARWICK Group, supplied the two VIM systems. “These systems were designed to build on prior installations while incorporating specific changes requested by the [client] to support their current and future production goals,” said Earl Good, president of Retech. The systems are based on Retech’s core designs but incorporate client-specific modifications, tailoring feeder configurations to align with the client’s established production practices. This enables repeatable casting while maintaining precise thermal and atmospheric control throughout the process.
The order continues a relationship between Retech and the client that dates back to the 1980s, with several legacy systems still in operation at the facility. The client has indicated plans to expand capacity in the coming years, including potential additional system purchases and replacement of older equipment.
Press release is available in its original form here.
NUTEC Inc., a manufacturer of industrial insulation and fire protection products, has acquired ETS Schaefer LLC, a provider of monolithic ceramic fiber linings used in high-temperature applications. The acquisition, effective March 1, 2026, reflects ongoing activity in the thermal processing supply chain, where insulation systems play a key role in furnace efficiency and performance.
ETS Schaefer, based in Macedonia, Ohio, designs and manufactures monolithic ceramic fiber lining systems, including its Monster Modules™ and Monster Lock™ attachment system. These products are used by heavy-industry end users and OEMs requiring high-temperature insulation solutions in demanding operating environments.
The company will operate as NUTEC ETS SCHAEFER, a wholly owned subsidiary of NUTEC. According to Daniel Llaguno, CEO of NUTEC Group, the company aims to build upon ETS Schaefer’s strengths while introducing gradual improvements, mainly focusing on leveraging synergies between the two organizations to expand commercial coverage, enhance engineering capabilities, and deepen fiber integration.
Daniel Llaguno CEO NUTEC GroupGerardo Muraira President of Fiber Division NUTEC GroupBrian Bradley General Manager NUTEC ETS SCHAEFER
President of NUTEC’s Fiber Division, Gerardo Muraira adds that this acquisition aligns with the company’s strategy to strengthen ceramic fiber product offerings and expand technical capabilities in high-temperature insulation solutions.
Brian Bradley, currently the business manager of Engineered Systems at NUTEC Inc., has been named general manager of NUTEC ETS SCHAEFER. He brings more than three decades of experience in the ceramic fiber industry and will support commercial growth and research initiatives related to monolithic module systems.
ETS Schaefer was previously owned by REAL ALLOY, a North American operator in aluminum recycling and alloy production.
Press release is available in its original form here.
Ask The Heat Treat Doctor® has returned to bring sage advice to Heat Treat Today readers, answer questions about heat treating, brazing, sintering, and other types of thermal treatments, as well as metallurgy, equipment, and process-related issues. In this installment, Dan Herring examines the essential role of heat treatment in gear performance: exploring the key material and design considerations for power transmission gears, the difference between through hardening and case hardening, and the atmosphere heat treatment processes — from carburizing and carbonitriding to nitriding and nitrocarburizing — that determine how well a gear handles load, wear, and fatigue in heavy-duty applications.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Annual Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
Have questions or feedback? We’d love to hear from you — reach out to our editorial team at editor@heattreattoday.com.
Gears play an essential role in the performance of many products that we rely on in our everyday lives. When we think about gears, we generally separate them into two categories: motion-carrying and power transmission. Motion-carrying gears are generally nonferrous alloys or plastics, while load bearing power transmission gears (Figure 1) are usually manufactured from ferrous alloys and are intended for heavy-duty service applications.
Figure 1. Typical off-highway truck power transmission gears | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®
Gear Materials & Engineering
Power transmission gears involve a wide variety of steels and cast irons. In all gears, the choice of material must be made only after careful consideration of the performance demanded by the application end-use and total manufactured cost, taking into consideration such issues as pre- and post-machining economics.
Key design considerations require an analysis of the type of applied load, whether gradual or instantaneous, and the desired mechanical properties, such as bending fatigue strength or wear resistance — all of which will define core strength and heat treating requirements.
Figure 2. Stress profile in a heavy-duty transmission gear | Image Credit: The Heat Treat Doctor®
It is important for the designer to understand that each area in the gear tooth profile sees different service demands (Figure 2). Consideration must be given to the forces that will act on the gear teeth with tooth bending and contact stress, resistance to scoring and wear, and fatigue issues being paramount. For example, in the root area, good surface hardness and high residual compressive stress are desired to improve endurance or bending fatigue life. At the pitch diameter, a combination of high hardness and adequate subsurface strength are necessary to handle contract stress and wear and to prevent spalling.
Some of the factors that influence fatigue strength are:
Hardness distribution, a function of:
Case hardness
Case depth
Core hardness
Microstructure, a function of:
Retained austenite percentage
Grain size
Carbide size, type, and distribution
Non-martensitic phases
Defect control, a function of:
Residual compressive stress
Surface finish and geometry
Intergranular toughness
In the total manufacturing scheme, a synergistic relationship must exist between the material selection process, engineering design, and manufacturing (including heat treatment). A balance of the priorities in each discipline must be reached to achieve the optimization necessary for the ultimate performance of the gear design. This is often not an easy task.
Various atmosphere heat treatment methods are used for most types of gears including pre-hardening steps (e.g., annealing, normalizing, stress relief) and hardening processes (e.g., neutral hardening and case hardening).
Hardening
Neutral (aka through hardening) refers to heat treatment methods that do not produce a case. Examples of commonly through-hardened gear steels are AISI/SAE grades 1045, 4130, 4140, 4145, 4340, and 8640. It is important to note that hardness uniformity should not be assumed throughout the gear tooth. Since the outside of a gear is cooled faster than the inside, there will be a hardness gradient developed. The final hardness is dependent on the amount of carbon in the steel. The depth of hardness depends on the hardenability of the steel.
Through hardening can be performed either before or after the gear teeth are cut. When gear teeth will be cut after the part has been hardened, machinability becomes an important factor based on final hardness. The hardness is achieved by heating the material into the austenitic range, typically 815°C–875°C (1500°F–1600°F), followed by quenching and tempering.
Case Hardening
By contrast, case hardening is used to produce a hard, wear resistant case (surface layer) on top of a ductile, shock resistant interior (core). The idea behind case hardening is to keep the core of the gear tooth at a level under 40 HRC to avoid tooth breakage while hardening the outer surface to increase pitting resistance.
Carburizing
Figure 3. Atmosphere carburizing of large gears | Image Credit: Photograph courtesy of Aichelin Group
Atmosphere carburizing is the most common of the case hardening methods in use today and can handle a diverse range of part sizes and load configurations (Figure 3). In general, a properly carburized gear will be able to handle somewhere between 30–50% more load than a through-hardened gear. Examples of commonly carburized gear steels include AISI/SAE grades 1018, 4320, 5120, 8620, and 9310, as well as international grades, such as 20MnCr5, 17CrNiMo6, 18CrNiMo7-6, and 20MoCr4.
Atmosphere carburizing is typically performed in the temperature range of 870°C–955°C (1600°F–1750°F) although temperatures up to 1010°C (1800°F) are used for deep case work. Carburizing case depths can vary over a broad range, typically 0.13–8.25 mm (0.005–0.325 inches).
Carbonitriding
Carbonitriding is a modification of the carburizing process, not a form of nitriding. This modification consists of introducing ammonia into the carburizing atmosphere to add nitrogen to the carburized case as it is being produced. Examples of gear steels that are commonly carbonitrided include AISI/SAE 1018, 1117, and 12L14.
Carbonitriding is done at a lower temperature than carburizing, typically between 790°C–900°C (1450°F–1650°F), and for a shorter time. Combine this with the fact that nitrogen inhibits the diffusion of carbon, and what generally results is a shallower case than is typical for carburized parts. A carbonitrided case is usually between 0.075–0.75 mm (0.003–0.030 inches) deep.
Nitriding
Nitriding is another surface treatment process that has as its objective increasing surface hardness. One of the appeals of this process is that rapid quenching is not required, hence dimensional changes are kept to a minimum. It is not suitable for all gear applications; one of its limitations is that the extremely high surface hardness case produced has a more brittle nature than say that produced by the carburizing process. Despite this fact, in a number of applications, nitriding has proved to be a viable alternative. Examples of commonly nitrided gear steels include AISI/SAE 4140, 4150, 4340, and Nitralloy® 135M.
Nitriding is typically done in the range of 495°C–565°C (925°F–1050°F). Case depth and case hardness properties vary not only with the duration and type of nitriding being performed but also with steel composition, prior structure, and core hardness. Typically, case depths are between 0.20–0.65 mm (0.008–0.025 inches) and take from 10 to 80 hours to produce.
Nitrocarburizing (Ferritic or Austenitic)
Nitrocarburizing is a modification of nitriding, not a form of carburizing. In the process, nitrogen and carbon are simultaneously introduced into the steel while it is in a ferritic or at times an austenitic condition. A very thin “white” or “compound” layer is formed during the process, as well as an underlying “diffusion” zone. Like nitriding, rapid quenching is not required. Examples of gear steels that are commonly nitrocarburized include AISI/SAE grades 4140, 5160, 8620, and certain tool steels, such as H11 and H13.
Nitrocarburizing is normally performed at 550°C–600°C (1025°F–1110°F) and can be used to produce a 58 HRC minimum hardness, with this value increasing dependent on the base material. White layer depths range from 0.0013–0.056 mm (0.00005–0.0022 inches) with diffusion zones from 0.03–0.80 mm (0.0013–0.032 inches) being typical.
In Summary
There are many ways to heat treat gears. While atmosphere heat treatment (discussed above) is perhaps the most widely used technology today, other types of heat treatments, namely vacuum and induction hardening, are becoming more and more common methods. These will be discussed in Part Two.
About the Author
Dan Herring “The Heat Treat Doctor” The HERRING GROUP, Inc.
Dan Herring has been in the industry for over 50 years and has gained vast experience in fields that include materials science, engineering, metallurgy, new product research, and many other areas. He is the author of six books and over 700 technical articles.
G.S. Precision, a precision machining and manufacturing company headquartered in Brattleboro, Vermont, has expanded its global manufacturing platform with the announcement of the acquisition of Lush Heat Treatment Ltd. and Headwater Precision, Inc., strengthening vertical integrated capabilities that support aerospace, defense, and other high-spec industries. The additions broaden the company’s technical scope across machining, coatings, and thermal processing, while extending the company’s geographic footprint in North America and Europe.
James R. Callan Chief Executive Officer G.S. Precision
Lush Heat Treatment, based in the United Kingdom, provides vacuum and endothermic heat treating services, as well as brazing services, for clients in the aerospace, defense, space, and nuclear power sectors. These processes support the performance requirements of critical components operating in demanding environments.
Headwater Precision, located in New Hampshire, is a precision manufacturing and advanced coating technologies business serving clients in aerospace defense, semiconductor, and industrial markets.
By bringing these capabilities together, G.S. Precision is positioning its company to offer a more integrated manufacturing approach, combining machining, surface treatment, and heat treating within a single organizational structure.
James R. Callan, chief executive officer of G.S. Precision, said the acquisitions align with the company’s growth strategy, adding capabilities such as advanced coatings and specialized heat treating to better support clients producing mission-critical components.
Press release is available in its original form here.
What do aerospace and industrial heating vessels have in common? Backups for essential systems. In this Technical Tuesday installment, Bruce Yates, president of Protection Controls Inc., explores how NFPA 86 Standard for Oven and Furnaces addresses redundant flame safety, compares common sensing approaches, and highlights recent advances in UV scanner technology that improve reliability and reduce maintenance risks.
This informative piece was first released in Heat Treat Today’sFebruary 2026 Air & Atmosphere Heat Treating print edition.
Introduction
Boeing Aircraft lost billions of dollars before realizing that the 737 MAX’s MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) needed a redundant angle-of-attack vane to prevent erroneous MCAS-induced drive commands. Lockheed Martin uses dual-redundant MIL-STD-1553 data bus (that is, a shared communication pathway for exchanging data between electronic systems) on its Apache Guardian attack helicopter for target acquisition and cueing for the helicopter’s fire-control radar system. Spacecraft internal Active Thermal Control Systems (ATCSs) can either be a fully redundant thermal-control loop or a single loop system that is equipped with a redundant accumulator to be activated if needed. The accumulator represents a single point of failure that can result in a loss of crew.
Aerospace is not the only industry where redundancy is an important aspect of safety. It is critical in the industrial heating industry. NFPA 86 Standard for Ovens and Furnaces has for many years required redundant pilot gas valves and redundant main gas valves.
Let’s discuss redundant flame safety.
Redundancy in Industrial Heating
There are two types of flame sensors generally used on industrial burners: flame rods and ultraviolet scanners. Flame rods are simply stainless steel rods that intersect the burner flame. A voltage potential from the combustion safeguard is applied to the flame rod. When a flame is present, an electrical current (measured in millionths of an amp) flows from the flame rod through the ionized gases of the flame to the burner, which is grounded. This current is amplified in the combustion safeguard and energizes a relay output to power the fuel valves (see Main Image).
Redundancy can be achieved by using a two-burner control with one flame rod. The flame signal from the flame rod goes to the sensor input of both positions of the two-burner control (Figure 1).
We will devote the rest of this article to UV scanners (Figure 3).
Figure 1. Redundant flame safety with a single burner flame safeguard with a flame rod sensor
Figure 2. Solar radiation begins at approximately 2,800 Å and is therefore not detectable by the flame rod sensor.Figure 3. Demonstration of two independent UV tubes producing UV rays out of sync with one another | Image Credit: Protection Controls
Redundant Flame Safety with UV Scanners
The tube of a UV scanner responds only to radiation in the spectrum of 1,900 to 2,300 Å (Figure 2). Peak response is at 2,100 Å (210 nm). Solar UV starts at about 2,800 Å, as shown in Figure 2, and is therefore not detectable by the device. Solar radiation, of course, extends into the visible spectrum (4,000 Å) and extends into the infra-red spectrum. A UV tube consists of a fused silica or UV glass envelope, two electrodes, and a gas contained in this envelope. This is called a cold-cathode gas-discharge tube.
This tube conducts or ignites when it is irradiated with ultraviolet light and when sufficient voltage potential exists across the two electrodes. The electrodes can be made of tungsten, molybdenum, or nickel. When a photon of sufficient energy is absorbed into the cathode electrode, electrons are emitted and are drawn to the anode. A larger cathode allows more electrons to avalanche, causing higher current flow and thus higher sensitivity to UV. There are high sensitivity UV scanners designed for special burners that will produce low UV, such as one designed by Protection Controls, Inc.
The gas in the tube is usually a helium-hydrogen ionizable mix. Electrons released by the cathode release electrons in the ionized gas, becoming a self-sustaining discharge much greater than that of the originally generated electrons and producing a very high current gain or avalanche effect. The sensitivity of a tube will very slowly decrease over a period of time. Replacement should be made after 8,000 hours of operation. The current produced by the photoelectrons is measured in millionths of an ampere, so this current is amplified in the combustion safeguard to energize a relay that can then energize the fuel valves.
Critical Maintenance to Avoid Tube Gas Contamination
While UV scanners are very reliable, tube gas contamination may occur with large temperature shock (ΔTEMP/ΔTime) or large physical shock (a 2-inch drop may cause 100G shock), causing the electrode to UV glass envelope seal integrity to be compromised. Because of this, it is possible for a UV tube to conduct current when no UV is incident upon it. This would normally be detected during the flame safeguard safe start check. When an indicated flame on condition exists prior to purge or ignition, the safe start check relay prevents ignition and gas valve energization.
In addition to safe start check before every heating cycle, a monthly preventative maintenance schedule should be in place if the burner is used daily. This consists of closing a manual gas valve. The electrically powered gas valves should close in two to four seconds as the UV scanner and combustion safeguard respond to loss of flame.
If a burner is in continuous service, we recommend that this maintenance schedule be performed weekly. An alternative to this is to use a self-checking ultraviolet scanner and control. In the past, this type of scanner involved an electrically operated shutter, which alternately would block and allow UV to the tube. However, having a mechanical device operating close to the burner heat and vibration is a recipe for frequent and premature failures; it is typically rated for only 140°F to 175°F maximum and is quite expensive.
Going Shutterless
Figure 4. Note how each amplifier has its own flame relay | Image Credit: Protection Controls
Newer designs are available that completely avoid using a mechanical operating device to moderate the UV, increasing reliability and durability. For example, the Dual/Redundant Self Check UltraViolet Flame Sensor and Combustion Safeguard Control from Protection Controls includes two UV tubes in one ultraviolet sensor to monitor one burner flame. UV tubes respond to welding sparks, ignition sparks, lightning, bright incandescent or fluorescent light, solar radiation, gamma rays, and x-rays.
Since UV tubes produce UV rays when they conduct, two UV tubes in one sensor would not normally be suitable for sensing a burner flame, as one UV tube could be responding to the other tube and not the flame. But in the case of this safety control, two voltage supplies to the UV tubes are out of phase with each other. When one UV tube is powered and may respond to UV rays, the other UV tube is off. Additionally, the two UV tubes are powered through two rectifier circuits from two transformers that are out of phase with each other. The two UV tubes are powered and sense UV from the flame on alternating half cycles (Figure 3).
Each UV tube and rectifier circuit provides input to its amplifier. Each amplifier provides input to its own flame relay (Figure 4). Upon burner startup, before burner ignition, if either UV tube is in conduction, the safe start check circuit does not permit powering the fuel valve.
During the burner run cycle, if either UV tube fails in the conduction state, the cycle will safely continue with the other UV tube sensing the burner flame. See Figure 5.
Regardless of which sensor option you choose, accounting for flame redundancy and ensuring your maintenance plan is proactive enough for the method chosen is key to a safe manufacturing environment.
Figure 5. Redundant flame safety for single- and multi-burner flame safeguards: (a) redundant flame safety with a single burner flame safeguard with an ultraviolet sensor and (b) redundant flame safeguard (2-burner shown) with an ultraviolet sensor. | Image Credit: Protection Controls
About The Author:
Bruce Yates President Protection Controls, Inc.
Bruce Yates is the president of Protection Controls and is involved with management, sales, and engineering responsibilities. He graduated from the University of Illinois with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering in 1968. He works with his brother Douglas in the family-owned flame safeguard control manufacturing company, started by his father, James, and uncle, Robert, in 1953.
