Want a free tip? Check out this read of some of the top 101 Heat TreatTips that heat treating professionals submitted over the last THREE YEARS. These handy technical words of wisdom will keep your furnaces in optimum operation and keep you in compliance. If you want more, search for "101 heat treat tips" on the website! This selection features 10 tips to meet heat treat industry standards.
Also, in this year's show issue, Heat TreatToday will be sharing Heat TreatResources you can use when you're at the plant or on the road. Look for the digital edition of the magazine on September 13, 2021 to check it out yourself!
Compliance Issues? Try On-Site Gas Generation
On-site gas generation may help resolve compliance issues. Growth and success in thermal processing may have resulted in you expanding your inventory of reducing atmosphere gases. If you are storing hydrogen or ammonia for Dissociated Ammonia (DA), both of which are classed by the EPA as Highly Hazardous Materials, expanding gas inventory can create compliance issues. It is now possible to create reducing gas atmospheres on a make-it-as-you-use-it basis, minimizing site inventory of hazardous materials and facilitating growth while ensuring HazMat compliance. Modern hydrogen generators can serve small and large flow rates, can load follow, and can make unlimited hydrogen volumes with virtually zero stored HazMat inventory. Hydrogen is the key reducing constituent in both blended hydrogen-nitrogen and DA atmospheres—hydrogen generation (and optionally, nitrogen generation) can be used to provide exactly the atmosphere required but with zero hazardous material storage and at a predictable, economical cost.
(Nel Hydrogen)
Inspection Mistakes That Cost
Rockwell hardness testing requires adherence to strict procedures for accurate results. Try this exercise to prove the importance of proper test procedures.
A certified Rc 54.3 +/- 1 test block was tested three times and the average of the readings was Rc 54 utilizing a flat anvil. Water was put on the anvil under the test block and the next three readings averaged Rc 52.1.
Why is it so important that samples are clean, dry, and properly prepared?
If your process test samples are actually one point above the high spec limit but you are reading two points lower, you will ship hard parts that your customer can reject.
If your process test samples are one point above the low spec limit but you are reading two points lower, you may reprocess parts that are actually within specification.
It is imperative that your personnel are trained in proper sample preparation and hardness testing procedures to maximize your quality results and minimize reprocessing.
(Young Metallurgical Consulting)
Where You Measure Matters
Eugene Gifford Grace (August 27, 1876 – July 7, 1960) was the president of Bethlehem Steel Corporation from 1916 to 1945. He also served as president of the American Iron and Steel Institute and sat on the board of trustees for Lehigh University, of which he was an alumnus. One of his famous quotes is as follows:
“Thousands of engineers can design bridges, calculate strains and stresses, and draw up specifications for machines, but the great engineer is the man who can tell whether the bridge or the machine should be built at all, where it should be built, and when.”
If you check out the additional accomplishments of Mr. Grace, you will see that he was a successful and smart person. Maybe all of us are not capable of reaching such breadth of vision as he articulated above, but as heat treaters, do we simply accept the specification given? Or do we stop to ask if the specification has been properly determined?
With modern computer added stress analysis (FEA), we have at our fingertips a way to move beyond both the “guess and test” and the “copy the historical spec” methods of determining the case depth. Within “guess and test,” of course there are scientific guesses and scientific wild guesses. If you are using a wild guess, chances are that the field is the test lab!
Figure 1. Metallurgical mount holding a cross-section of the steel gear.
Especially for carburized components, deeper case is more time in the furnace, and thus more expensive. I continue to wonder why, if even back in the 1950s, thousands of engineers were available who could calculate stresses and strains and thus set a quantitative foundation for a case depth, in 2019, so few people take advantage of modern technology to optimize the cost of their products.
If you are not ready to take this big step toward design optimization, maybe you would consider always using effective case depth, based on hardness and thus linked to tensile strength, instead of total case depth, which is not linked to any durability or strength criteria.
Figure 1 shows the metallographic cross-section that was used to measure the hardness. Each white pin point is a Knoop 500 gram hardness indentation. The cross-section of the gear was mounted in black epoxy resin. Figures 2 to 4 show the data collected to determine the effective case depths to the common Rockwell C 50 criteria.
Figure 2. Knoop 500 gram hardness data converted to Rockwell C at the tooth flank.
Figure 3. Same data but for Root position.
Figure 4. Same data as shown in Figure 3, near surface information easier to see.
The effective case depth is the depth where the hardness dips below HRC50. For Gear Tooth Flank A, that value was 0.85 mm. For another gear from the same lot, it was over 1.08 mm. But for the root areas, between the teeth—the high-stress area, the effective case depths were only 0.45 and 0.65 mm, respectively. Figure 3 shows the same data as Figure 2, but using a logarithmic scale, illustrating what’s going on near the surface layers more clearly.
In any case, there’s a big difference between the two test locations, and this shows the importance of making sure that all relevant features of the component are adequately characterized!
(Aliya Analytical, Inc.)
AMS2750 Is Golden
This standard is gold and unfortunately has a bad rap today because companies feel it’s just added cost into the process. Today’s technology means you can afford AMS2750E compliant controllers and digital recorders for only a few hundred dollars above a standard offer. This investment will be paid back many times over due to the longer lifetime expected with a quality instrument as well as the quality benefits from better drift performance between calibration intervals, redundant recording (in case of record loss), and overall accurate temperature control, leading to less rejects and reduced rework.
(Eurotherm)
Snagged T/C Wire – Avoid It
Try not to use insulated thermocouple wire if you snag the insulation off the outerjacket along the length of the wire. This may cause the inner insulation to fail andcause low temperature readings.
(WS Thermal)
Order SAT Probes All at Once
Place a yearly blanket order for your SAT probes and ask that they are made from the same coil. This will give you the same correction factors and temperature tolerances.
(GeoCorp)
Out of Control Carburizing? Try This 11-Step Test
When your carburizing atmosphere cannot be controlled, perform this test:
Empty the furnace of all work.
Heat to 1700°F (926°C).
Allow endo gas to continue.
Disable the CP setpoint control loop.
Set generator DP to +35°F (1.7°C).
Run a shim test.
The CP should settle out near 0.4% CP.
If CP settles out substantially lower and the CO2 and DP higher, there’s an oxidation leak, either air, water or CO2 from a leaking radiant tube.
If the leak is small the CP loop will compensate, resulting in more enriching gas usage than normal.
Sometimes but not always a leaking radiant tube can be found by isolating each tube.
To try and find a leaking radiant tube, not only the gas must be shut off but combustion air as well.
(AFC-Holcroft)
3 Tips to Meet Temperature Uniformity Surveys
Adjust the burners with some excess air to improve convection.
Make sure that the low fire adjustment is as small as possible. Since low fire will provide very little energy, it will make the furnace pulse more frequently and this will improve heat transfer by convection and radiation.
Increase internal pressure. This will “push” heat to dead zones allowing you to increase your coldest thermocouples (typically near the floor and in the corners of the furnace).
(Nutec Bickley)
CQI-9 Best Practices
Whether you need to meet rigid CQI-9 standards or not, what are the top 3, nay 4 best practices that nearly every in-house heat treat department ought to follow to make sure their pyrometer stuff is together?
Daily furnace atmosphere checks. Use an alternative method to verify your controls and sensors are operating properly and that there are no issue with your furnace or furnace gases.
Daily endothermic generator checks. Using an alternate method to verify your control parameter (dew point typically) or the gas composition is accurate will alleviate furnace control issues caused by bad endothermic gas.
Verify/validate your heat treat process every 2 hours OR make sure process deviations are automatically alarmed. this is a solid practice to ensure your controls and processes are running properly. This practice can help ensure that parts are being heat treated to the proper specification intended.
Conduct periodic system accuracy tests (SATs) per pre-defined timelines in CQI-9. Good pyrometry practices are an essential part of heat treatment. Because of the importance of temperature in heat treatment, ensure timeliness of all pyrometry practices addressing thermocouple usages, system accuracy tests, calibrations, and temperature uniformity surveys.
(Super Systems, Inc.)
Inspection Mistakes That Cost
Rockwell hardness testing requires adherence to strict procedures for accurate results. Try this exercise to prove the importance of proper test procedures.
A certified Rc 54.3 +/- 1 test block was tested three times and the average of the readings was Rc 54 utilizing a flat anvil. Water was put on the anvil under the test block and the next three readings averaged Rc 52.1.
Why is it so important that samples are clean, dry, and properly prepared?
If your process test samples are actually one point above the high spec limit but you are reading two points lower, you will ship hard parts that your customer can reject.
If your process test samples are one point above the low spec limit but you are reading two points lower, you may reprocess parts that are actually within specification.
It is imperative that your personnel are trained in proper sample preparation and hardness testing procedures to maximize your quality results and minimize reprocessing.
(Young Metallurgical Consulting)
Check out these magazines to see where these tips were first featured:
Heat TreatRadio is a podcast where Doug Glenn, publisher of Heat TreatToday discusses cutting-edge topics with industry-leading personalities. Among many cutting-edge interviews and conversations on the latest technologies and commercial happenings in the industry are topics like AMS2750F, ferritic nitrocarburizing, and supply chain options.
You can subscribe to Heat TreatRadioon iTunes or SoundCloud, and even listen to these episodes on PodBean, iHeart Radio, and ListenNotes. Check out some of the top heat treat topics from the list of episodes below.
1 - The World of Ferritic Nitrocarburizing with Thomas Wingens
"A big part of the success of FNC is the combination with post oxidation. That is a big part because the combination of ferritic nitrocarburizing with post oxidation leads not only to a mechanical strong surface with compressive stresses, it also has a very high corrosion resistance."
"One of the things I always had in my mind when I first got involved with the specification was that the specifications were written by the aerospace 'primes,' but that’s not the case; it involves people, such as myself, who are end-users of this specification. I’m an end-user, so I’m able give my input and say, 'Hey, this doesn’t make sense. What you want to add into the spec is not real world.' It’s nice that people such as us get involved with these specifications."
3 - Rethinking Heat Treating for the 21st Century with Joe Powell (Part 1 of 4)
"I am a commercial heat treater who believes that part design should be integrated for heat treating by the part-maker. It’s a nuance, but what it really boils down to is that sometimes commercial heat treaters do it best, but sometimes the part-maker can do it better."
4 - Metal Hardening 101 with Mark Hemsath, Part 3 of 3
"[Nitriding], and really its cousin FNC (ferritic nitrocarburizing), are actually fairly inexpensive treatments and they can be performed on final dimension parts. There is no post machining and there is minimal distortion. That’s kind of my opinion of why it has done well.”
"Who wouldn't want to have a smoother operation? Not have to schedule people, pay overtime, justify it. We're three years into the project and I think we have a very viable tool for heat treaters to see what they currently cannot see."
6 - James Jan & Andrew Martin on Development of Modeling Software
"We model what happens with FIRE CFD code, we model what is happening at the transition of the interface between the metal component and the water. Because when something that hot gets plunged into water, it is quite an interesting thing that happens—it is called the Leidenfrost Effect. Initially, what happens is the component is so hot, it forms a film around the outside of it, a vapor film, and perversely that vapor film then insulates the component from the water. That film slowly breaks down then you get into nucleate boiling and things like that, and that becomes a lot more aggressive and the cooling happens much faster until you eventually get a single phase. But actually modeling the boiling process is what the CFD code does. That is the secret sauce that we’re bringing to the party here."
7 - A Discussion with Carl Nicolia, PSNergy President
"Their recovery cycle was reduced by 25%. Now, a recovery cycle is from the time I close the door to the time I start my controlled cycle. 25% reduction. And in that total cycle, they dropped gas consumption 5% which eventually led to an increase in output of that furnace by 10%. What we love about this, and this is kind of the theme of the article really, is that the total cost to implement this was less than $10,000. This is a perfect example of high value solution. I hate to say ‘low cost’ because cost is relative, but this is high value. If I can deliver 25% improvement with less than $10,000, or if I can deliver 10% double-digit output increases for less than $10,000, that’s a high value solution."
"The other one I think that’s going to emerge is most probably making more and more parts by powder metallurgy from metal powder which are 100% free alloyed. In other words, all the elements are in each metal powdered particle. In other words, you’re starting with a micro ingot as opposed to a big ingot that you normally use to make bars, and then from bars you cut pieces, and then from those pieces you do hard forging or machining."
9 - Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 1 of 4) – Pyrometry
"Perhaps the most significant change within the temperature uniformity survey section is to the alternative temperature uniformity survey testing methods. In instances when I can’t perform a survey with sensors being trailed in, or I can’t send a data pack sort of unit or a PhoenixTM unit through that furnace system itself to collect the data, for systems like that, in the third edition, there were three or four paragraphs of information about what you could do."
"The interesting thing is that there is a phenomena precipitation hardening that goes on in aluminum and titanium. But it also goes on in these high alloy steels. It is a secondary hardening mechanism. We’ve been working on that and we feel that once we can handle secondary hardening in steel, then the jump to aluminum and titanium should be pretty straightforward."
Welcome back to the show. Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, wraps up a four-part series on CQI-9 Revision 4 changes with Acument Global Technologies’ James Hawthorne and Controls Service Inc. Justin Rydzewski. In this final episode, both of these experts give their advice on how to navigate and comply with Rev 4.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn (DG): We're here today with Justin Rydzewski who is the director of sales and marketing of Controls Service, Inc. in Livonia, Michigan and also with James Hawthorne, heat treat specialist at Acument Global Technologies. Both of these gentlemen have been with us for two or three of the last three episodes that we put together. James, was the committee chair, I believe that's the right title, for the Revision 4, and Justin, of course, was right alongside on the committee getting things done. Gentlemen, first off, welcome back to Heat Treat Radio.
Justin Rydzewski (JR): Glad to be here.
James Hawthorne (JH): Thank you, Doug. Glad to be here.
DG: We've covered a lot of the major changes, a lot of the main points that people ought to know, on the first three episodes. We want to wrap it up today by asking a couple of very practical questions, a couple of “opinion” questions, but, I think, also a couple of very practical questions on implementation, and things of that sort, of the new CQI-9 Rev 4.
Justin, if you don't mind, I'd like to start with you and address an issue that I think you and I touched on in the very first episode, and that was the difference between the CQI-9 standard and AM2750F, specifically, about the automotive industry. Why doesn't it just adopt AMS2750F as opposed to having this separate CQI-9 standard?
Episode 1 of 3 of AMS2750 series
JR: I think that both specifications are appropriate for their industries. But, there are some significant differences between the two. First and foremost, one is intended for aerospace and the other for automotive. AMS2750F, as we've mentioned in a previous episode, is a pyrometry standard, whereas CQI-9 is a system assessment; it is a process-based approach to things, whereas AMS2750 is more equipment based. You classify things by temperature tolerances, by the instrumentation type that you have, whereas requirements within CQI-9 are generally based on your type of process and specific to your process, in particular.
I would say that the most significant difference between the two documents is AMS2750 is part of the NADCAP program and requires accreditation and an auditing body, PRI, to come out and say, “Yep, you're good to go. Here's your certificate. We'll see you in a year”. CQI-9 is intended to be a self-assessment. It's intended for heat treaters to implement themselves to provide them with a process of managing their heat treat and that doesn't require somebody to come in and accredit them and hand them a certificate.
There is a big difference between the two; they are not equals. There are similarities, especially in the pyrometry section. At one point, AMS was heavily sited inside of CQI-9. Since its removal, however, we've had success, and that success has been measurable; it's been significant. I would image that the OEs have been rather happy with what it is that they have there in the document, especially in the 4th edition, and I think that the thought of going to an AMS2750 and abandoning CQI-9 is well outside the realm of plausible.
JH: One thing I would add here is, if you read the headers for each section of the HTSA, section one is “Management Responsibility and Quality Planning”, section two is “Floor and Material Handling Responsibilities”, and section three is the equipment. On the equipment side, you're going to get more into the pyrometry side of things- the metrology and the maintenance specifics to that equipment, as well. So, the all-encompassing HTSA is a system that is a management system, or at least a system that you can develop a management system based behind, and ensure compliance.
DG: For those who are just joining on this episode, HTSA, heat treat system assessment, is one of the main parts of the CQI standard. Justin, I think your point is good. James, I think, as well, the point is well taken. CQI-9 is meant to be an internal tool, a continuous improvement tool that helps a company that is involved with heat treating to continually improve their process. AMS2750F specifically, is pretty much exclusively a pyrometry certification program, where you've got to have somebody coming from the outside. I remember, back in the day, when they were first starting one of the QS standards, they said, no longer are you going to have to comply or get qualified by this OE, or this prime, or this prime, now you can have one standard. Has that been the case here? Has it been effective in the automotive industry, CQI-9?
JH: I think, 100%, Doug. It's like IATF – all of the automotive industry has to be compliant to that. Same thing with CQI-9. It provides that commonality for all heat treaters in all the different processes that are employed at their facilities, or the multiple facilities that they may have. For a company like ours, we have 8 companies in North America. For the North American side of things that have heat treat furnaces in them, we have induction furnaces, we have carbonitriding furnaces, and we have stress relief furnaces. So that commonality even helps us internally with our management system and how we take steps to provide that common approach and compliance to CQI-9.
[blockquote author="Justin Rydzewski" style="1"]The CQI-9 intent largely was that this is something that you can do yourself and implement yourself. We'll provide you with the guidance and put it in simple terms and give you all the research you need to support this on your own.[/blockquote]
JR: I think that also bodes well, up the ladder as well, for the OEs. The more commonality that exists in the industry, the wider that, for lack of a better term, talent pool is. The more people, the more sources that you can go to in order to have work done and have it what you expect it to be, from a quality standpoint.
I think one of the things that CQI-9 has done really well is they've made a concerted effort to make that document easier to understand and to simplify things down to just its bare bone necessities, whereas some of the other specifications that exist in industry can be lacking. There is a real good reason why a lot of the work of some of those other pyrometry specifications out there are outsourced, because the expertise to adhere to those things and be confident that you're adhering to those things is possessed by an in-house team; they have to go outside. The CQI-9 intent largely was that this is something that you can do yourself and implement yourself. We'll provide you with the guidance and put it in simple terms and give you all the research you need to support this on your own.
Justin Rydzewski, James Hawthorne, and Doug Glenn (clockwise from the left) sat around the virtual screen to hash out a few final expert opinions on CQI-9.
DG: I'm pretty sure, based on everything we've talked about, that you guys really like CQI-9.
JH: 100%! I embrace it and our company embraces it.
DG: So, I know you guys like it, you're the main cheerleaders. What is your perception about companies outside of yourself? Has it, in fact, been embraced, or has it kind of been “Heisman trophied”, the stiff arm – “We'll embrace you with one extended arm”.
JH: If I may, I will say that it's been embraced across the industry through all heat treaters. I think anywhere that anybody deemed it to be a burden, I think with the changes to the format, the added clarity, the improvements to the document, the knowledge base that's now been updated in the glossary, it is all going to help those guys cross any bridge that they were struggling with and make it better for them.
I believe we touched on a little bit in one of the past episodes, or maybe it was when Justin and I were talking about this offline, but one of our customers, who is a non-automotive customer, embraces CQI-9 and our systems and our approach to our heat treat. That is a huge step because that particular company has a lot of internal specification as it pertains to heat treat, but CQI-9 is either equal to or exceeds what their expectation is. It makes it easy for them to embrace it. That was one of the things that was brought up in the roll-out presentation we did through AIAT – one of the other industries had mentioned they were following it.
DG: It sounds like, overall, it has been fairly well embraced and this Rev 4 is going to make it even easier to cuddle up with a cup of hot cocoa and feel comfortable with it.
JR: Generally speaking, in my travels, I have two categories of people that I come across. You have the sort that is looking to embrace it. They recognize that it's a “have to do” and they just want to know what the rules are. They want to make sure that they understand what the rules are and that they make sense. Maybe there is a point or two that they take exception to about, not fully understanding what the intent is of it, but, for the most part, by and large, they want to adhere to the requirements. They recognize that they need to.
The other category includes those who fight anything that they're asked to do, no matter what it is. “No, I don't want to do that. We've been doing it this way forever. Convince me, show me, that I'm doing it wrong. I do some sort of subsequent testing and it always come out fine. I've never had any complaints. Why do I have to go do this?” While that group is definitely the minority, I can tell you that that group, almost 100% of those people are going to be those types that you find more issues with than any other. That's because they fight it and they try to find ways to circumvent things. That's a real slippery slope there.
I think CQI-9 does a real good job at trying to keep things in its lane and recognize that if there's something that we're asking the heat treater to do, that that requirement needs to provide value on some level, or it needs to mitigate risk on some level, and a meaningful one at that.
You asked, “Do I like CQI-9?” I like AMS2750 too. There are some things in AMS2750 I like better than what we did in CQI-9. Talking from experience of having to write some of the requirements in the document, and how difficult that can be to say what it is you want to say but in a manner that makes sense outside of your own brain, it's difficult. I think AMS states some things very, very well. I like their thermocouple calibration certificate requirements better than ours; I think they're more detailed. But I think both work really well, and embracing it sometimes just requires a bit of an education or an understanding of the intent side of things, the purpose side of things.
DG: When was CQI-9 Rev 4 released?
JR: The last week of June.
DG: It's been going on for months now. How about timing? I would imagine that a lot of people that are listening to this probably know that they need to comply with certain aspects of CQI-9. What is the timing for them? When do they need to have all their ducks in order?
JH: During the roll out presentation, the OEMs made a joint statement. We did that roll out presentation in September, and they essentially said that the time between the June release and that (roll-out) presentation was the grace period. When the 3rd edition expired, you have to do 4th edition assessment and they will no longer accept 3rd edition assessments at that point. So, whenever your expiration is, you shall do it to the 4th edition.
JR: The 3rd edition is officially obsolete.
DG: So if you're doing another assessment, it's going to be a Rev 4 assessment. Are there any other timing issues that people need to be aware of?
JR: That should pretty much cover everything. If you're outsourcing an element of your service or of a material, you should be specifying adherence or conformance to the 4th edition at this point.
DG: So, James, I want to address this next question to you, if you don't mind. I know you said in your organization, you've got how many North American locations?
JH: 8 plants in North America.
DG: OK, 8 plants. And you've, obviously, rolled out Rev 4. How did you handle the transition? How did it go? What was complicated and difficult, and how did you address it?
JH: For me, I think it's a little easier, because I was in the room while we were writing the 4th edition. The heat treat systems for all of our locations, I wrote. So, I have a very unfair advantage. But, that being said, even knowing and being as intimate as I am with our own system and the 4th edition of CQI-9, we have made a concerted effort to slow down the process of doing the heat treat system assessment and slow down the process of doing the job audit and doing the process tables to ensure that we are capturing everything.
We've made this statement many times, whether it was here with you or if it was through our roll-out presentation, it is essential to read this document. It is essential to understand what's happening in it. If it takes just a little bit of extra time to read a little bit further to do the checks and balances, pop into the glossary, just to make sure that you are answering the questions as compliant as you possibly can, is the most important thing.
A wise man told me once, Compliance is a circle and if you're just outside the circle, all I want you to do is get you just inside the circle. And next year I'm going to tighten the circle a little bit and if you're still sitting outside, we're going to move you inside. You don't have to hit a bullseye every time, but you have to be inside the compliance circle. So, if you understand that, and if you manage it that way, it's going to make it easy and more effective. Then, you can stick to the intent of the document, and the intent of the document is within the acronym itself of CQI-9: it's continuous quality improvement. Never take your foot off the pedal.
Source: Heat Treat Today
DG: Right. It never ends. Justin, how about you? Same question. I know you're going in through your company into a variety of other companies who are trying to comply. What are you seeing, from their perspective, as far as the difficulty? How are they handling it?
JR: I think the most difficult aspect of things, I guess, is probably one of the most obvious: implementation. You've been doing it one way for the last 8-9 years and now we're going to need to implement something new. And when do you want to implement something new? It's really nice when you work for an organization that has process specifications and certain test specifications very well defined, because then you can hold onto them and say, “Here are the things that we were doing,” and you can go through them and see where things need to be different.
Where they're less defined, or they're defined in some manner that is not on the forefront of things – like I define things in a quote or in a purchase order – those become difficult. There could be elements of implementing something too soon, and now, all of a sudden, I violate something that they've done internally, or sometimes if they had it stated internally for a requirement.
For us, the most difficult thing has been the implementation side of things. It's meant a lot of conversations and trying to determine what this is going to look like, what things we are going to need to do differently, what things we want to check on, and the finally to, for lack of a better word, “coach” my customer along. Here are things you need to consider, here are things you might need to do differently, here's how I would state it for the new edition for making revisions. But to the horse that has been thoroughly well beaten, you have to read the document.
The CQI-9 audio book, coming soon, we'll have that on tape for you. Whether you're driving to work or putting your kids to sleep, it will work either way.
DG: Last question for you guys. For a company who's wanting to become CQI-9 compliant, what are some of those must do's and what are some of the practical advice you've got for them as they start down that path?
JH: If, I may, I think the first and most important thing there is to evaluate the talent that you have on site. Who is your in-house expert? Who is the guy that most fits what you need to be the driver of those next steps? As long as you have that, and that guy understands your system, then the journey can begin and I think your process is more linear with less hills and valleys. You start to win, and you start to win with less drop-off, and that's what you want to do. First and foremost, have the right guy in place.
[blockquote author="James Hawthorne" style="1"]First and foremost, have the right guy in place. [/blockquote]
DG: So, in your estimation, James, you're saying it's a personnel issue. Right away, make sure you do a good assessment and get the right guy in the spot to oversee the process.
JH: Right. You don't want to be a commercial heat treater and you just hired a quality manager from a widget factory to come be the champion of your heat treat. You want him to be a heat treater. You want to have a heat treater in place that knows his stuff.
DG: Right. And who has an attention to detail, I'm sure.
JH: I think it's important to the extent of what Justin was just talking about is, when that person talks to his suppliers, his service providers, you want to have somebody that has some wherewithal and understanding in that field so when that communication does take place, and you have folks like Justin and others in his field, trying to help educate the heat treater on what it takes to be compliant with, whether it's reporting, whether it's through the process or whatever, having that understanding is going to make even the service provider’s job easier.
JR: I think that organizations that struggled with the 3rd edition are probably going to continue to struggle with the 4th edition. If you're comfortable with the 3rd edition and you're doing well with the 3rd edition, the 4th edition is going to be relatively easy to adapt to and to implement. Like with any math story problem, you've got to write down what it is you know. So you go through the document itself, you start making notes on things, you start citing where things might need to be different, you start red flagging things, you review what you have, may do a Ctrl + F for any mention of 3rd edition and replace with 4th edition, or something simple like that. It is what you have created and try to continue on with the successes you had for the 3rd edition into that 4th one. If you've struggled with the 3rd edition, the likelihood that you're going to struggle with the 4th is also pretty great. It is likely that the document isn't the issue, the issue is likely a lack of awareness.
It cannot go understated how valuable it is to invest in training, especially if you're bringing some new guy on to champion the effort, or if you've got a team that's eager and hungry and looking to prove their worth – get them trained. It's readily available. Our organization offers it, the AIG offers training on the HTSA side of things; there are plenty of organizations out there that will offer this training. The benefits to working with a high-end service provider in many of these regards, is that they'll help you through the process as part of their service offering. That's how the true value of a good service provider can be measured is in these sorts of situations. I'd lean on your experts. Invest in your staff. Get the training to get everyone up to speed.
Again, if you fought it in the 3rd, and your plan is to fight it on the 4th, it's going to be an unenjoyable road and you might need to figure out ways to embrace what it is you know and acknowledge what it is you don't, and then fill those gaps in so that you can get to where you need to go.
Doug Glenn,Heat Treat Today publisher and Heat Treat Radio host.
Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, begins a 4-part series with Justin Rydzewski about Revision 4 of CQI-9. Having served on the 4th revision of CQI-9, this expert is full of interesting information and practical advice on how to understand and comply with CQI-9 Rev.4.
Below, you can either listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or you can read an edited version of the transcript.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn (DG): Today, we’re beginning a new four-part series on the latest revisions to the CQI-9 specification. If you want to learn more about this series or related content, stick around ‘til the end of this episode.
We’re here with Justin Rydzewski who is the director of sales and marketing at Controls Service, Inc. in lovely Livonia, Michigan. At least, this time of year it’s still lovely, right?
Justin Rydzewski (JR): Yes, we’ve got a few weeks left, I think.
DG: Justin is involved with the new revision of CQI-9. First off, I want to welcome you. Thank you so much for joining us on Heat Treat Radio. If you wouldn’t mind, let’s give listeners/readers just a sense of who you are and what your qualifications are to talk about CQI-9 and a little bit about Controls Service.
JR: I am the director of sales and market development for Controls Service. I got my start with this company around 2009/2010 working just as a sales rep, making phone calls and quoting work. Around 2010, the then president of the company was making a presentation to the AIAG, the Automotive Industry Action Group, the organization that publishes CQI-9, regarding their standard CQI-9. We had some questions and concerns, and so they allowed us an audience. After our presentation, they inquired whether or not we’d be interested in assisting them with drafting the third edition. We obviously said yes. I indirectly helped support at that point, and then when the third edition was released, we started working on the next one almost right away. After the third was rolled out, it wasn’t too long before the fourth edition meetings started, and then I began participating in a support role, and finally as a full blown participant at the end. The fourth edition took about 8 or 9 years to complete. It’s was an involved process, but it was fun. I learned a lot, and I’m proud of what we’ve been able to kick out.
As far as Controls Service is concerned, we’re an accredited calibration laboratory. We provide various on-site calibration and pyrometry testing services within the metro Detroit area, northern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
DG: According to your website, the company is an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited provider of process control systems, calibration, maintenance, and services. Just to be clear, you were, in fact, fully engaged in this Revision 4. It wasn’t that you were standing on the sidelines; you were on the committee doing the work.
CQI-9 4th Edition vs. CQI-9 3rd edition (photo source: Control Services Inc.)
JR: Yes, I, myself. The president of the company was heavily involved with the third edition, so he was firsthand in the trenches on that one. My participation was directly hands-on with the fourth edition.
DG: The point is, you can speak with a good bit of authority, and that’s great. You’ve hit on it, but give us information again on CQI-9. Give us a brief history. When did it start? Who owns it? Maintains its update? To whom does it apply? And what’s its scope?
JR: The best way I know to describe it, because perhaps the most widely known pyrometry specification is AMS2750, is CQI-9 is the automotive equivalent of AMS2750. There are obviously some differences between the two documents, but, in a nutshell, that’s the comparison. It is a document supported by the AIAG, the Automotive Industry Action Group. They oversee the publication of it, the drafting of it, and supervise the whole thing through that process. CQI-9 is the number. Officially, I think it’s called the Special Process Heat Treat System Assessment and that kind of gets the nomenclature of CQI-9 that applies to automotive heat treaters, or any performing heat treat work within the automotive industry; and several processes fall into that category. It can be from commercial heat to in-house heat treat, to organizations like mine that support. It applies to anyone participating in that effort of heat treat.
DG: Let’s talk about Rev 4. You said as soon as “3” was out, you started on “4” and it took 8 – 9 years to get done with “4.” What was the main reason why you needed to abandon “3,” if you will?
JR: They schedule these things out to be rewritten on a routine basis. Like most specifications, they are reviewed on some established interval of time. When the third edition came out, the biggest difference between the second edition of CQI-9 and the third edition was that the third edition removed all references to AMS2750. When 2750 was in the document, it created a world of confusion, and the guidance and errata sheets that followed were just so numerous that they made it a somewhat difficult document to adhere to. One of the ideas we brought to the table was that maybe we should just remove all reference to it [2750] and write our own specification. So, the third edition removed the 2750 references. In doing so, it ended up being a very well written document. It was effective. The OEMs – your GMs, Fords, FCAs – were happy with the results of the document. The prolonged active interval of that document allowed us to collect a lot of really good data about what was working, what wasn’t, what was confusing, and where additional clarity was needed. The more data we collected, the more confident we were that the fourth edition would truly make a stride toward being a more effective document. It was longer than what we would have probably prepared for – in terms of that interval of review – but I think, all in all, the result shows for itself that it is better than it was.
Click here to read the Expert Analysis Article to hear more voices on this CQI-9 Revision 4.
DG: You would say this Rev 4 is a major revision? Or is it just minor?
JR: The way the drafting process works is that you get all this feedback from the industry and review it. Everyone who participates in that work group brings their notes about things they noticed or things that they would like to see different; then we compile all of those notes together, review it, and establish a charter that drives every effort thereafter. The major items on our charter was to increase clarity and guidance, simplify, and make it easier for the end user to adapt. Largely, the changes within the fourth edition are towards that primary focus of our charter.
There are a lot of things in there that are different, but the difference there was merely to try to make it more clear: adjust syntax of a sentence, use a different choice of words, etc. One of the things I’ve learned in this process is that this document, while it might be clear as day in English, when it translates to German, it’s not. Or, when it translates to a different language, whatever the language, it’s not as clear; so, when you find out what it says in the other language, you say, “Hey, that’s not what we meant to say. We’ve got to think of another way to say it.” Largely, the changes are to increase clarity, but there are some real big changes in that effort. Like the heat treat assessment questions. The formatting was completely revamped, we changed that up dramatically, expanded it in some instances, and removed some that were redundant in terms of requirements.
So, there are some big changes, but, for the most part, it was an effort to enhance the clarity. It’s not a complete rewrite, but it is a different document.
DG: Substantial enough that people need to pay attention. You and I have talked in the past about the addition of a number of process tables. Wasn’t there a lot added there?
JR: There was one process table added to the primary document and it was Process Table I, which is regarding hot stamping. Process Table I technically existed in the third edition of the document. It was issued as an errata sheet in 2014, three years after the third edition, but it was never part of the primary document, so issuing it as an errata sheet had its complications. Not only did you have to make sure that the end user was aware of the document requirements, they had to be aware that there was an errata sheet also available to them, and this complicated things. It was very frequent for me to be out in my travels and talk to customers that were performing hot stamping that would say, “Well, it’s tough to tell what requirements in CQI-9 apply to us because we don’t have a process table.” Well, yes you do, actually; it’s an errata sheet. That caused frustration because, again, most people want to adhere to the requirements– they just want to know what the requirements are. When they don’t, it’s frustrating.
DG: For those who might not know, or have not been baptized into CQI-9 in the past, what are the major sections? Can you break it down into the three or four major sections and a very, very brief description of those sections?
JR: It is structured very similar to the way of AMS2750 in that regard. You have four sections that divvy up a pyrometry section: thermocouples, instrumentation, system accuracy testing and temperature uniformity survey. But, unlike AMS2750, CQI-9 is a system assessment, it is a process, it is a heat treat management system. It encompasses more than just pyrometry. Where AMS2750 is a pyrometry specification, CQI-9 is a process specification; it encompasses everything. It also includes your heat treat system assessment, which is three sections of questions regarding your heat treat operation, then you have your pyrometry which is those four sections I mentioned. Then you have your process tables. Your process tables drive all of your requirements for your particular operation, in terms of frequencies and tolerances.
Process tables from Rollout Webinar (Source: Rollout Webinar PowerPoint)
DG: Let’s jump into the section that, I think, you would probably say you’re most comfortable with- the pyrometry section. You mentioned in that section there are four subsections. Let’s run down through those. I’d like to do two things. First, let’s just talk about, very briefly, what are the major changes in each of those four sections and then let’s come back and revisit each of those sections with maybe some very practical advice. Let’s talk thermocouples first; that’s the first section.
JR: The thermocouple section had a fair amount of changes made to that portion of the document, but again, they were mostly for the clarity aspect of things. I would say, from a significant standpoint, one of the things that we had in the third edition that was rather confusing was in regards to grace periods. The only area in which a grace period was stated within the third edition was within the thermocouple section, which is funny because it doesn’t apply to thermocouples, in terms of CQI-9. It applies to instrumentation and system accuracy tests, and so that portion was removed and placed into a more appropriate area within the document.
Another aspect of it was the requirement for the calibration report to include an accreditation symbol. It was already a requirement that if the thermocouples were calibrated by an outside provider or third party, that they had to be accredited. But one of the areas that that doesn’t address is that if I am an accredited calibration laboratory, and my scope includes instrument calibration, whether it be for measure or source, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m accredited to perform a thermocouple calibration. So, instead of trying to overcomplicate the document and write something that says that the calibration that I’m performing on the thermocouple has to be included on my scope and create something more difficult than it has to be, we decided to just establish that the accreditation symbol needed to be included on the report. Also, as an accredited lab, I can’t place that symbol on a report for calibrations that aren’t part of my scope. It kind of allows that portion of the industry to self-police a little bit. That was one of the more significant changes.
Another one was that we made some adjustments to the usage side of things. There was a requirement – in lieu of tracking uses of nonexpendable thermocouples – which allowed you could to put a nonexpendable thermocouple in use for a duration of time, and you could have unlimited uses essentially for that duration, and then you could remove it from service at that point. However, that duration of time was absent of some critical information, that being, for usage of the elevated temperatures. In the usage table, it was 90 uses for over 1800 degrees and 180 for under 1800 degrees, and you had 6 months for a placement interval. That didn’t necessarily convey what we were trying to do, so we added some usage in there for the nonexpendable for over that 1800 degree mark.
We also included RTDs. I come across them, but just because of the temperature range that most of the processes within the automotive heat treat world are operating RTDs are necessarily applicable. But, they exist and a common approach that I would come across at least, was “well, they’re not included, so I don’t have to do anything.” So, we just included them to wipe that off the board, and now we know that any sort of temperature sensor is critical to address, if that portion of the process is temperature critical.
We added some caveats around resident thermocouples and their usage, which, in the previous one, were only allowed for comparative method SAT. We added some caveats for requirements when they’re used for probe methods within the realm of CQI-9.
DG: Before we go on to the next section which will be calibration, let’s back up just for a half a second. You and your team actually did a rollout webinar. Can you briefly tell the listeners where they can find a little more thorough description of the rollout on this thing, because we’re not going to cover all the details here, obviously.
Rollout Webinar PowerPoint Cover Image. Get the webinar here.
JR: Yes. It would be really tough to dive into everything; some of the changes are so insignificant, that it’s not worthy of discussion, really. The AIG’s website has a page assigned to automotive heat treat and on that page they have some links to different content that we produced for that rollout presentation back in mid-September. There is also a page 3 of the document itself which outlines the majority of the changes, (at least the significant ones), made within the fourth edition. So there is a list, 3 ½ pages long, of the different changes made. There are summaries of those changes that exist in several different places, but one of them being the document itself.
DG: Did you not do a webinar? Is there a webinar? Can people actually see the webinar?
JR: I’ve not seen the webinar posted yet, I’ve not checked in a little while, but the intent was to post a version of that webinar.
DG: In our transcript of this podcast, we will look for it first off, and if we find it, we will put a link to it when we put this online. So if you’re listening and you want to see that webinar, if it’s out there, we’ll put the link in.
OK, let’s move on then, Justin, to the second of the four pyrometry sections which is calibration. What were the major changes?
JR: Again with reporting, the reporting requirements for calibration are updated; they are different. There are some minor revisions to the requirements for the calibration report. Those sort of things can be easily overlooked, so I wouldn’t ignore that. They are different. The biggest, perhaps most significant difference within the instrumentation section is that in June 2023, all control monitoring recording instrumentation must be digital. It is very similar to the approach taken by 2750 in removal of analog instrumentation, CQI-9 as well, is going to follow suit there, as well. [Listen to the AMS2750F episode with this update here.]
DG: I think AMS is by 2022, so you guys are an extra year, but nonetheless, you’ve got to start getting away from analog over to digital.
JR: For the most part, that’s the biggest change within the instrumentation section.
DG: Let’s move on to system accuracy tests.
JR: Within system accuracy tests, again reporting requirements are updated. They include some new requirements there. The illustrations within the system accuracy test section have all been updated and revamped. I believe the old ones, that were in the third edition, were very similar in nature to the illustrations that were included in AMS2750 C, so they were well overdue for an update. We cleaned those up. We removed nonessential information just to make it clear what it is we’re actually discussing there.
Also, we established grace periods that are specific to each method of system accuracy test. There are three different accepted methods for SAT within CQI-9- probe method A, probe method B, and a comparative method, and we established grace periods for each of those individually so that it’s clear and not an assumed grace period.
DG: And grace periods being, for example, “Well, the due date falls on a holiday, how many days afterwards do I have?” That type of thing?
JR: Yes. If my system accuracy tests were due on a Friday, let’s say they’re due on the 1st, technically. I don’t lose my compliance on that system from a system accuracy test standpoint for x period of days after the fact. It’s to allow for, like you said, a weekend coming up, a holiday coming up. You can still maintain your compliance interval without having to shut everything down and start fresh. A practical application would be, say you order some test thermocouples and they’re delayed. So now, all of a sudden, you don’t have the test materials that you need to perform the task, or your instrument that you sent out for calibration got delayed and it’s not back yet. Those uncontrollable sort of events don’t prevent you from operating.
DG: The final section under pyrometry would be temperature uniformity surveys. Any major changes there?
JR: There were a few. First, the reporting requirements are now different; they’ve been updated. They include some new things. Perhaps most notable is the requirement for when you perform a test on a semi-continuous or continuous system to indicate the soak time required versus soak time achieved. That has to be included on the report. Technically, it probably should have been there for the third edition as well, since one of the requirements is that you have to have obtained your desired soak time. This just calls it out to the forefront and makes it a bit clear. That information of the report makes assessing that aspect of things a bit more simple.
We added a specific grace period for temperature uniformity surveys so that it’s clear, it’s not assumptive. Where I’ve seen it most often is within the hot stamping world. You have a single stack furnace with multiple individually controlled chambers that are all separated by insulation or wall or some sort of means of differentiating them, so that they’re all essentially individual furnace cavities. We added in some clarity to say that it’s not good enough just to test one of those chambers, you need to test all of them, because they all can be different.
[blockquote author=”Justin Rydzewski ” style=”1″]Perhaps the most significant change within the temperature uniformity survey section is to the alternative temperature uniformity survey testing methods.[/blockquote]
Perhaps the most significant change within the temperature uniformity survey section is to the alternative temperature uniformity survey testing methods. In instances when I can’t perform a survey with sensors being trailed in, or I can’t send a data pack sort of unit or a PhoenixTM unit through that furnace system itself to collect the data, for systems like that, in the third edition, there were three or four paragraphs of information about what you could do. It was not entirely clear what other aspects of the section applied, what reporting was required, what sort of procedures needed to exist, and so you found a lot of variance in that testing practice. A lot of times, I’d have customers that say, “I don’t know how to perform a TUS on it, or I don’t think that I can, or it’s not practical, so I guess I don’t have to do anything.” And that’s not proper. It wasn’t clear that these surveys applied in instances where you couldn’t do the other, like a traditional TUS. So that whole entire section got rewritten from ground up to include a structure that is very similar to the other aspects of that TUS section, structured in the same way, in terms of data collection, when you need to perform the tests, these alternative tests like property surveys and whatnot, the procedure that needs to exist, what needs to be included in the procedure, and what needs to be included in the reporting. Basically, just more clear guidance so that in those instances where a survey can’t be performed, the heat treater at least has a degree of confidence that what it is they are going to be doing is going to be up to snuff, that it’s going to pass muster with their auditor.
DG: I want to go back and go all through those four sections again and ask you the same basic question for each of those four sections. When your company, or companies like yours, walk into a prep for an audit situation, what are the things that you’re seeing, practically, on the thermocouple end of things, the calibration end of things, the SAT and the TUS? Let’s start with the thermocouple: When you walk in, what do you most often see and what do you tell people?
JR: When I first walk into a facility, one of the first things I’m looking for is how the flow down of information is conducted. How are they approaching the flow down of information? Because, in order for me to assess whether or not you’re compliant with the document, I need certain bits of information. And it’s not just me, anyone would need it. As I go through a plant, and I’m looking for information on thermocouples, I want to know when the thermocouple was installed, I want to know if it was calibrated, what’s the number of the calibration certificate that it ties back into, what’s the location of that thermocouple and where it’s installed, what’s its purpose? I can tell you that often it happens where I ask, “What’s this thermocouple?” “Well, that’s my control thermocouple.” “Are you sure?” “Yes, I’m sure.” Then, when you go to remove it, it turns out to be the high limit. There are these little things where people ask, “Well, what’s it matter if one is a control or one is the high limit?” Especially if they’re both in the same well and it’s a dual element sort of thermocouple. It’s important for a multitude of reasons. If you don’t know that basic sort of information, or you don’t find that information to be important, what other information won’t you find important? It becomes like a mentality aspect of things. I like seeing that sort of information available and ready, that you don’t have to go digging for it. So, that’s the first thing I look for any time I walk in a plant. More often than not, I find that aspect of things can be lacking, from a documentation standpoint, from an availability of documentation standpoint, or “Can I see the calibration certificate for this specific thermocouple?” and I get, “Well, here are all of my certificates.” “Well, which one applies to that thermocouple?”
Justin Rydzewski explains the importance in knowing your thermocouple system inside and out from an auditing perspective. (Photo source: Pelican Wire)
What I also try to convey is that the more difficult that you make this for me – for someone who’s coming out to audit you or to perform this assessment to check on you – the more difficult you make it, the harder they’re going to start scratching. You want this to be easy. You want to convey confidence. You want to convey the repeatability of things. I can’t stress enough strong documentation and great documentation systems for easy recall, like availability of information at the actual thermocouple itself is such a nice convenience, and when someone sees that, it conveys confidence. Outside of just a basic compliance issue, it’s that support system for thermocouples, because everything starts there. All of it starts there. Even from the basic things like knowing what it is you have there, from a thermocouple aspect.
With one of my closer customers in our first interaction together, he called and asked for a 30” long thermocouple and to just make sure that it’s type K. “Well, I need just a little bit more information than that. What else can you tell me about it?” “That’s all I have. Just get me one.” “Well, I have a binder on my desk that’s an inch and a half thick and every thermocouple in there just about matches your description. I need more. Should I just flip a page and pick one?” There are a lot of variants that can exist there and when you introduce variants, you have an opportunity to introduce variance in your performance of that system.
So, consistency, repeatability, and assuring those things on a perpetual basis is critical. Things like insertion depth, length, diameter, type, calibration, where you have it calibrated. All of those things should be documented and standardized and that documentation should be readily available to anyone who needs it so that you can ensure that you’re replacing like with like, what was there before, if it was compliant, and what you replace it with is also compliant. The performance that you had on that system on day 1 versus day 180, you want to be able to assess that variance in performance, not based on the variables that have changed, like are they new thermocouples, are they in new locations; you want to assess it in terms of those other exterior factors. That’s why you call out thermocouples instrumentation and the like within pyrometry and CQI-9. Those things, to me, are really important, and they’re the first things that give that indicator of what things are going to be like as I go through a job site initially.
DG: Anything else under thermocouples, or should we move on to calibration?
JR: That pretty much covers it. From a thermocouple standpoint, just ensuring that you have solid documentation surrounding those things. It can be an overlooked piece of equipment, but they are so incredibly critical.
[blockquote author=”Justin Rydzewski ” style=”1″]From a thermocouple standpoint, just ensuring that you have solid documentation surrounding those things. It can be an overlooked piece of equipment, but they are so incredibly critical.[/blockquote]
DG: Right. And be able to easily access it and instill confidence in the auditor so that they know you know what’s going on.
Let’s move on to calibration then. When you walk into some place and you’re going to check their calibration processes and whatnot, what do you see usually?
JR: Especially when a new edition comes out, or a newer revision of a pyrometry specification, the first thing that I typically go there with is – again, similar to the thermocouple side of things – I want to look at documentation. If I have a new Rev, the first thing I’m going to ask is what are the new requirements for reporting? I want to know what was on the report yesterday and what needs to be different tomorrow, so that I can make sure from a documentation standpoint, I’m going to be covered, because that’s what I’m going to put in front of someone. That’s the thing they’re going to evaluate initially. And so, I want to make sure that this first impression is solid and that it checks every box that it’s supposed to. I’ll review all of the reporting requirements initially, just to make sure my reporting is going to pass muster with an audit. And I will scrutinize that thing up and down to the Nth degree, just to make sure that I’ve got it to a point where I’m comfortable with it. That’s where I typically start.
Again, similar to thermocouples, I want to make sure that I have a solid support system for my facility in terms of instrumentation. I know what instruments I have there, I know what’s required of all of them, I know where I want them calibrated, I know how I want them calibrated, I know where they operate, all of those sorts of things. I find often, especially on new job sites, an instrument and they’ll have offset in there. “Well, what’s this offset for?” “I don’t know.” “OK. What was it the last time you had calibrations? Has this changed? Is this a value that changes?” “I couldn’t tell you.” And sometimes, the level of offset there, it’s possible for it to be at a level that is not compliant with the document without that documentation to support it, without something calling out what it’s there for, what the intended purpose is of it. Anytime you have that “I don’t know” answer, or “It’s in someone else’s hands,” let’s say the provider of pyrometry services that are out there perform the calibration, they’re not aware that they have to go through some sort of approval process to change offset, pay the instruments out, I’m going to pump in some offset, and there you go. In the worlds of CQI-9, and especially within AMS, you can’t do that.
There is a right way to go about doing things, and a ladder of things to climb before you can just go ahead and jump. Having a solid foundation of understanding of your instruments, documenting the details of those instruments, and having that readily available. If you have that, the likelihood that you’re going to be compliant and have a favorable audit in terms of your instrumentation, is going to be so much higher than if you don’t. So, strong support system. Strong documentation as well.
DG: Let’s move on to the system accuracy tests.
JR: The system accuracy test is often something that we encourage our customers to take on themselves because it’s not an overly complicated process, by and large. From a third edition to fourth edition, again my first stop is at reporting. I want to make sure whatever it is the data I need to collect is going to be there at the end of the day and is going to be presented in a manner where anyone can understand at glance. I don’t have to have a training session on how to understand my reporting. I want it to be very clear, very forthright in terms of information that it’s clear. And then understanding the differences between the acceptable methods.
Probe method A in CQI-9 is most like the comparison method within AMS2750 where you have a test instrument system alongside your process instrument system and doing a comparative in terms of the calculated difference there. Understanding the math and the order of operations out there is essential. It is so easy to mess that up or forget how to do it properly. One of the benefits of the illustration within the fourth edition is that we made a very concerted effort to make sure that the means in which that math is performed is clear, and how it’s reported is clear, so that there’s no too much confusion. The goal here isn’t, “Aha, gotcha! You don’t know how to do an SAT.” The goal is that you do an SAT and that you do it in a manner that produces you with a level of confidence that you’re okay and that everything is going to have the best likelihood or repeatability and coming out as expected.
Understanding the math is also critical. The only real thing of note in the third edition that wasn’t explicitly called out, that in the fourth edition is explicitly called out, is that the SATs only apply to the control and monitoring and recording thermocouples; it does not apply to thermocouples that are dedicated to the purpose of over-temp protection. That can be a nice break for most users who were thinking that they had to do it in the previous edition.
For the most part I see that the act of actually performing it— again, that flow down of information becomes critical. If I know how long my thermocouple is, the process thermocouple is at that process thermocouple. Say, for instance, it’s identified on a tag at the thermocouple and it says it’s 40”. If I go insert my test thermocouple and it goes in 20” and I feel like I’ve bottomed out, the only indicator that I would have that I’ve not bottomed out my thermocouple and I’ve lined my measuring junctions, would be that measurement at the thermocouple, would be an indication of how long it’s supposed to be or an awareness of how long it’s supposed to be. If I don’t have that, and I drop my test thermocouple in and it feels like it bottomed out. Cool, they’re lined up. They could be dramatically different. In that case, I would go ahead and guess that you would notice that instantly as you’re failing that SAT, but an inch or two inches can make a significant difference in misalignment of junctions. Having an awareness of insertion depth of your process thermocouple, length of process thermocouple, and what’s required for insertion depth on your test thermocouple is critical to perform in that test and it’s something I see lacking often when I’m out in the field assessing how my customers are performing the tests in-house.
DG: And finally, let’s talk about what you’re seeing when you walk into a shop for temperature uniformity surveys.
JR: Uniformity surveys, again, the first thing I’m doing is assessing the reporting requirements to make sure everything is up to snuff, because that’s your first impression you’re going to convey to everyone. The requirements within the fourth edition are of note, that would require something to be done differently, for the most part, you’re going to be find them to be very similar. The thing that I’m looking for most is the repeatability of that test. How like is one test to the next one? What is your means of collecting data and what is your response plan when that data is unfavorable? Having that predetermined, so that you’re not doing in on the fly, can be incredibly helpful and it adds to expedite that process of getting good tests out of there.
[blockquote author=”Justin Rydzewski” style=”1″]How like is one test to the next one? What is your means of collecting data and what is your response plan when that data is unfavorable? Having that predetermined, so that you’re not doing in on the fly, can be incredibly helpful.[/blockquote]
One of things I’ve always recommended my customers doing is that before you perform that survey, have some sort of pre-survey list that you go through of tasks that you want to verify before that test is run, just to make sure that you’re collecting all the data that you need to collect before you perform it. In an instance where that test data is unfavorable, you can go back and take a look at it and compare it against previous tests performed and not have to be concerned about whether or not this test was performed differently than the one prior.
Consistency is the key. And again, strong documentation systems. Understanding what the operating temperature ranges are for each system, where your sensors are placed, how they’re traversed, where they’re installed at if it’s a continuous furnace. There are so many variables to performing that test, having a handle on them is incredibly important. Otherwise, the test data performed on day X compared to on day Y is a meaningless comparison, and you want that value to be there, to be able to compare them, so that you can see where performance has varied or where it’s different, and have something pointing at where you need to go investigate.
DG: Justin Rydzewski of Controls Service up in Livonia, MI, thank you very much. I think this is going to be our first. We’re going to have either three or four of these podcasts. I think next time, we’ll either deal with heat treat assessments or we’ll talk about the process tables some.
Want a free tip? Check out this read of some of the top 101 Heat Treat Tips that heat treating professionals submitted over the last THREE YEARS. These handy technical words of wisdom will keep your furnaces in optimum operation and keep you in compliance. If you want more, search for "101 heat treat tips" on the website! This selection features 10 tips to meet heat treat industry standards.
Out of Control Carburizing? Try This 11-Step Test
Out of Control Carburizing? Try This 11-Step Test
