Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

Watlow Completes Acquisition of Eurotherm

HTD Size-PR Logo

Rob Gilmore
CEO
Watlow Electric Manufacturing Company
bizjournals.com

Watlow, a North American designer and manufacturer of complete industrial thermal systems, announced it has completed its acquisition of Eurotherm from Schneider Electric Company on October 31, 2022.

Eurotherm, coming from Schneider Electric Company, is a global provider of temperature, power and process control, measurement and data management equipment, systems, software and services. The company employs about 650 people worldwide, with headquarters in Worthing, U.K. and core manufacturing operations in Ledziny, Poland.

“We are excited about Watlow and Eurotherm and all we will accomplish together," said Rob Gilmore, CEO at Watlow. "This acquisition aligns with our vision of providing innovative thermal products and technologies that help increase our customers’ competitive advantage."

Watlow will establish and expand Eurotherm’s sites in Europe in order to provide a path to growth in other parts of the world including the Americas and Asia in industries such as semiconductor processing, environmental chambers, energy processes, diesel emissions, medical, and foodservice equipment.

Read more about the history of the acquisition here.


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


Watlow Completes Acquisition of Eurotherm Read More »

AMS2750F: Expert Analysis

AMS2750F, a rewrite of the specification that covers pyrometric requirements for equipment used for the thermal processing of metallic materials, was released at the end of June. For this Technical Tuesday feature, Heat Treat Today asked a few experts in the aerospace industry to share their insights of this much anticipated revision that helps to better clarify issues with the previous revision. Specifically, Heat Treat Today wanted to know what they perceived to be the top 2-3 most important changes in revision F; what companies should do to prepare for these changes; and additional thoughts about the revision as it relates to aerospace heat treating.

Industry experts who contributed to this Original Content piece are Andrew Bassett, president, Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry, Inc., Jason Schulze, director of Technical Services; Special Process – Metallurgy, Conrad Kacsik Instrument Systems, Inc., Peter Sherwin, Global Business Development manager for Heat Treat, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric, Jim Oakes, president, Super Systems, Inc., and Doug Shuler, lead auditor, owner, Pyro Consulting LLC.


Andrew Bassett was on the subteam for AMS2750F as well as the previous revision AMS2750E and has been a member of AMEC and SAE Committee B since 2006. He shares some “inside baseball” background about this four year process, “The AMS2750F subteam utilized the Nadcap Pyrometry Reference Guide, the Nadcap Heat Treat Audit Advisories that pertained to Pyrometry, and the collective experience from the sub-team which dealt with the previous revision issues and problems. The AMS2750F sub-team had a broad range of backgrounds, with representatives from Boeing, Safran, Arconic, GeoCorp Inc, Nadcap-PRI, and Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry.”

What do you believe to be important changes in revision F?

Jason Schulze, Director of Technical Services; Special Process – Metallurgy, Conrad Kacsik Instrument Systems, Inc.

Jason Schulze comments on offsets saying, “Offsets have often been a confusing subject throughout the years. How they are applied, removed and documented has caused confusion and has been a source of Nadcap findings. With the changes to the offsets section of AMS2750 in the new revision, these issues will be greatly reduced. Offsets have now been split into two categories; correction offsets and modification offsets. It will be important for suppliers to understand and implement the new requirements as well as use the same verbiage as this will hopefully alleviate further confusion.”

Andrew Bassett, President, Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry

Andrew agrees this is an important change regarding the offsets and further clarifies, “A “Modification Offset” is when an instrument is purposely, either through electronic means or manual means, shifts the accuracy away from the nominal temperature. This is typically done to “center a temperature uniformity” that may be skewed in one direction or another. The modification offset, when used properly, will shift the temperature uniformity more towards the set point of the thermal processing equipment. A “Correction Offset” is used to bring the instrument back to the nominal temperature. As always, a well defined procedure will be required on how the “Correction Offset” and “Modification Offset” will be introduced into your system.”

One of the biggest changes that caused a lot of controversy was the restricted re-use of expendable test thermocouples,” Andrew notes. “The AMS2750F subteam provided studies and data that showed that there was considerable drift of certain types of base metals thermocouples, especially when it came to Type “K” thermocouples. The previous revision of AMS-2750 already had restrictions on these types, but after providing data of the drift of these thermocouples, the team felt further restrictions were required for Expendable Base Metal SAT & TUS Sensors. Section 3.1.7.3 describes the limitations of these type thermocouples. Types “M”, “T”, “K” & “E” shall be limited to 3 months or five uses, whichever occurs first between 500F and 1200F (260C and 650C) and is limited to single use above 1200F (650C). Types “J” and “N” shall be limited to 3 months or ten uses, whichever occurs first between 500F and 1200F (260C and 650C) and is limited to single use above 1200F (650C).”

Peter Sherwin, Global Business Development Manager for Heat Treat, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

Peter Sherwin comments on instrumentation, “From an instrument perspective our no.1 focus is the instrument accuracy specification. This has not changed for Field Test or Control and Recording Instruments (now in Table 7), however the impact of the decimal place for digital recorders could cause some issues for less precise instrumentation. In 3.2.3.1 All control, recording and overtemp instruments shall be digital 2 years after release of AMS2750F – this was not a surprise, and today’s overall cost (paper, pens, storage etc.) of paper chart recorders cannot match their digital counterparts. Digital time synchronization (3.2.3.19) is also sensible to ensure you have an accurate time record across a number of Furnaces/Ovens and charts – we are used to this for other regulations (e.g. FDA 21 CFR Part 11) and offer a SNTP/Time Synchronization feature in our Recorders.”

Jim Oakes, President, Super Systems, Inc.

Jim Oakes shared his pleasure with section 3.2.3.12, “I was happy to see the document address integrated recording/controlling data.  It states in section 3.2.3.12 when the control and recording system is integrated such that the digitally displayed control value and digitally recorded value are generated from the same measurement circuit and cannot be different, it is only necessary to document a single displayed/recorded value for the control reading.  This is happening through direct communications, so what you see on the controller is what you are recording electronically.  This saves a step and eliminates the need for additional documentation.”

Doug Shuler, Lead Auditor, Owner, Pyro Consulting LLC

Doug Shuler cites the auditor advising piece, “The top of the list has to be the overall progress we made by incorporating auditor advisories and pyrometry reference guide FQS into the body of the specification so users don’t have to ask themselves “What did I miss.”

How should companies prepare for these changes?

Jason Schulze’s advice to companies focuses on training, “Companies should receive concise training regarding the revisions within AMS2750F, including administrative and technical. As with any training, continuous courses may be necessary to ensure comprehension. I recommend performing a characteristic accountability for each and every requirement stated within AMS2750F.”

Peter Sherwin encourages companies to ready instrumentation for the standards, “Recent feedback from the MTI indicated that 3rd party audits to the new standard would probably start next year. However, if you are in the market for a new instrument then it only makes sense to ensure this meets the requirements of the updated standard.”

Doug Shuler sees the benefit of analysis, “Users should prepare by performing an internal or perhaps an external gap analysis to establish where their pyrometry system is today, and what has to be changed going forward.  Users don’t have to wait until AMS2750F and AC7102/8 Rev A are released and in effect before making changes.  The key is that if a user has an audit before the revised Nadcap Checklist AC7102/8 Rev A becomes the law of the land, they will have to declare compliance to AMS2750E or AMS2750F in full and will be held to that revision’s requirements.  Once AC7102/8 Rev A takes effect (best guess after January 1, 2021)  all audits will be done to AMS2750F.”

Andrew Bassett recommends, “First and foremost, get a copy of AMS2750F and start the review process. Since the document was a complete re-write, there is no change summary or change bars to point the supplier in the direction of what has changed. Spend time creating a matrix of the previous requirements (AMS2750E) and comparing to the new requirements (AMS2750F). I would suggest breaking this matrix down into four main sections: Thermocouples, Calibrations, System Accuracy Testing, and Temperature Uniformity Surveys. This will allow suppliers to work on each section without getting overwhelmed by the entirety of the specification. Currently at the time of writing this, there is no formal implementation requirement for AMS2750F. Typically this will either be dictated by the suppliers’ customers, or in the case of Nadcap, they will issue a “Supplier Advisory” as to when their expectation for implementation will be.”

Final Thoughts

Planning for the future will serve companies well for the long term encourages Doug Shuler,  “With a number of significant changes, nearing a complete rewrite, now is a good time to take a look at your internal procedures that may have become fragmented over the years and streamline them to the new revision.  Auditing for Nadcap for over 10 years has shown me one thing for sure.  Those companies that have a thermocouple procedure, a calibration procedure, a SAT procedure, an alternate SAT procedure, a TUS procedure, and maybe even multiple TUS procedures for different kinds of furnaces (Air, Vacuum, Atmosphere, etc.)  usually have a more difficult time with audits because the SAT procedure also addresses thermocouples, but doesn’t address correction factors because that’s in the instrument calibration procedure… See where this is going?  Consider writing one pyrometry procedure with sections in it just like the specification.  Then, the SAT section can refer to the thermocouple section for test thermocouples and to the instrument section for test instruments, etc.  It’s like re-writing AMS2750, but customized for your facility, your equipment, and your practices.  In the end, remember that the pyrometry portion of your Nadcap audit follows my P.I.E. acronym.  Procedures that Include all requirements and Evidence to show compliance.”

Paying close attention to the right data solution will alleviate potential headaches when dealing with both the new AMS2750F revision and the CQI9 (V.4 update) says Peter Sherwin, “Many commercial heat treaters will also have to cope with the update to CQI9 Version 4 at the same time! According to the MTI, your ‘end’ customers may request you perform your self-audit to the new standard from this point forward. There is a bit more time allocated to move to digital (3 years), but my advice would be to take advantage of digital solutions sooner rather than later. The right data solution should save you money over time compared to the paper alternative.”

Finally, amidst all the new changes AMS 2750F has offered, Jim Oakes assures, “…the pyrometric requirements that most of us are used to will still be very familiar as this document becomes the new standard.”

 

(Photo source: pixabay.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMS2750F: Expert Analysis Read More »

Heat Treat Radio #26: Cutting Edge Trends in Data with Peter Sherwin, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

Welcome to another episode of Heat Treat Radio, a periodic podcast where Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, discusses cutting-edge topics with industry-leading personalities. 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. To see a complete list of other Heat Treat Radio episodes, click here.


Audio: Cutting Edge Trends in Data: Peter Sherwin, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

In this conversation, Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, discusses future trends in data with Peter Sherwin of Eurotherm by Schneider Electric. Learn more about coming trends in data collection, including bringing current technology to the heat treat world and cybersecurity.

Click the play button below to listen.


Transcript: Cutting Edge Trends in Data: Peter Sherwin, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.

DG (Doug Glenn):  Data topics are not new to Heat Treat Radio.  We’ve had multiple podcasts where we’ve talked specifically about data collection, data use, and data reporting. Jim Oakes, for example, from Super Systems Inc., spoke to us back in January of 2019 about heat treating data. Nathan Smith from C3 Data also spoke to Heat Treat Radio in September of 2018 about data and, more recently, George Smith and Daniel Graham from SBS Corporation spoke to Heat Treat Radio about heat treat data.  There were several other interviews that we did that hit on data even though it wasn’t the main topic of the interview.  You can access all of these previous episodes of Heat Treat Radio by Googling or Binging Heat Treat Radio, or by entering www.heattreattoday.com/radio into your browser.  Today, however, we’re going to discuss future trends in data.  Let’s jump into the interview with Peter Sherwin.

We are here today with Peter Sherwin from Eurotherm by Schneider Electric. Peter and I have known each other for a number of years, and he is one of my go-to guys for the latest in technology and advancements and trends in the heat treat industry, especially when it comes to data or process control, power control, temperature control and that type of thing.  We want to talk about trends. Since we’re at the beginning of 2020, I thought we would spend some time with Peter talking about some trends and things of that sort. We have a couple of preliminaries to get out of the way though.  First off, you are with Eurotherm by Schneider Electric.  If you don’t mind, elevator pitch about Eurotherm and Schneider Electric and let us know what they do.  Then I would like for you to brag about yourself for a moment and tell us a little about your background.  Let’s start with Eurotherm first.

Global Business Development Manager for Heat Treat, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

PS (Peter Sherwin):  Eurotherm is now, for nearly 5 years, part of Schneider Electric whose overarching theme is energy and automation solutions.  As far as Eurotherm, we specialize in precision temperature power and process control as well as data management solutions, particularly impacting things like operational efficiency of the heat treat plant and reducing the cost of complying to regulations.  That’s really what we aim for.

From a personal view and background, to have an open conversation, these are my views.  They may or may not be backed up by the views of Eurotherm and Schneider Electric, but it just gives me a bit of freedom to talk openly.

I’ve been with the industry for the past 30 years.  I started in a captive heat treater called Reynold Chain in the UK and through my career have worked for different captive as well as commercial heat treaters and even a furnace OEM.  But for just over 11 years, I’ve been working for Eurotherm.  We are a supplier to the heat treat industry, and heat treatment is one of our key verticals and actually our largest vertical business within Eurotherm.  Currently, I run that vertical globally, so I am very fortunate to have the opportunity to see heat treatment from different aspects across different cultures and regions.

DG:  You are global.  We should, in fact, say that your title is a global business development manager for heat treat.  So you are ‘knee deep’ if not ‘waist deep’ in heat treat pretty much around the clock.

PS:  I am.  That’s my vertical.  That’s my background.  I grew up as a trained metallurgist and have taken that forward in my career.  I still practice that now and again, so it’s very useful to have that background.

DG:  You are global, in the true sense of the word, because before we turned on the record button, you were telling me about your upcoming trips to India, Thailand and wherever, so you’re out and about and do see a lot of things.  For our listeners edification, your perspective, because you’re not just looking at the North American market, you can speak to some global trends and things of that sort which will certainly be impactful.

So, you and I ran into each other last at the ASM heat treat show in Detroit in October of 2019, just a few months ago, and you were gracious enough to have myself and a couple of our Heat Treat Today staff people over to talk about some of the latest things Eurotherm is doing.  I would like to start by asking you about those things.  Talk about some of that stuff that’s going on and then we can dig deeper into some of the trends as we go forward.  Tell us about what Eurotherm is, in fact, doing with some of the data acquisition and whatnot.

For more Heat Treat Radio, click image above

PS:  It’s really expanding from the base of having devices that can capture data, whether its a PID controller or a data recorder, and then being able to do more with that information to really have an impact on operational efficiency.  I think we demoed a few different platforms to you.  We have to look more at cyber security these days with any kind of offer, so that’s kind of wrapped into any of the solutions that we provide today.  But we look to predictive maintenance solutions.  I think I demonstrated a health app on one of the machine advisor programs.  We looked at the way that we can now control and manage energy much better with energy SCADA systems and we even had OEM furnace solutions where you could tie in the expertise of an OEM to the end users to give them online access to certain information so they can actually provide better service. And from a shop floor perspective, I think one of the solutions that caught a bit of buzz at the show was the augmented reality solution where you can use a tablet in front of a furnace, hold it up and through the camera you’re actually getting live information about what’s happening on that furnace.  You can actually access documentation directly like electrical diagrams.  It just makes the whole process of being able to maintain and operate a furnace much more efficient.  So just a few of the solutions that we talked about.

DG:  Yes, all very fascinating and very impressive.

Heat Treat Today has done several past podcasts on process controls and trends in data, data acquisition, and things of that sort.  We talked with Jim Oakes from Super Systems, we’ve talked with Nathan Wright from C3 Data, and we’ve even talked with two gentlemen from SBS Corporation, George Smith and Daniel Graham, about some of their systems and all of them had a lot of very interesting things to say.  But historically, a lot of the data collection that has gone on has been specifically for process validation, but I think almost all of these gentlemen, and I think including yourself, I’d like to get your comment on this, they see a lot of data collection now because of the volume of data we can take going beyond process validation. What are your comments about that?

Photo credit: research.samsung.com

PS:  I think it’s quite useful to understand why we collect data for the process and then because of that we can expand it for use in other applications to have an impact on operational efficiency.  Just taking the point about validating the process.  So heat treatment is part of one of the so-called special processes because it has the ability to impact a part’s physical integrity and induce stresses within a component. And it’s in a class of thermal treatments, chemical treatments, and mechanical treatments that can actually do this.  But because you don’t then test after the treatment for those stresses, and because that is more difficult and costly, you have to be very sure about how you process.  So that means that you need qualified personnel, approved equipment, defined procedures and also have some verification of those procedures and the process that the parts have gone through.  At the core of it, it’s very important that you’ve got very good data integrity for just validating the process. One thing at Eurotherm that we’re quite lucky and fortunate about is that we do work in other industries. One of the other industries is the life science industry and requiring to work for FDA standards means that you have to follow processes such as ALCOA+. Now, that’s not the company, it’s an acronym about how you actually capture and store and attribute the data to make sure that you’ve got that level of integrity throughout the process of data management. It’s something that with certain key clients we go a little bit deeper than the AMS 2750 standard or the CQI9, as far as being able to catch full audit trails to ensure that you’ve got that good data capture. If you’ve got that good data capture, you can then move forward with that to be able to use it for other areas, and that is where we get into operational efficiency and also having an impact on quality.  From my perspective, I’ve been with the industry for the last 30 years and I’ve seen this trend.  Thirty years ago, it was very much operator heavy.  You could be one on one with an operator and a machine and the machines were either manual or semi-automated; they were not full automated like the furnaces that we’ve got today.  So there was a lot of training of operators and different skill levels that you needed back in, say, the 90’s.  As time has moved on, those processes have become more automated and they have operators running multiple machines.  For them to be able to do that, we’ve got to present information in a way where if they’ve only got a few seconds or a few minutes at a furnace, they can really pick up the detail of what’s happening.  That’s where we start to get into operational efficiency to effect how we use labor within a heat treatment department.

The other interesting trend as we’ve moved through the decades has been the development of regulations such as AMS 2750 and CQI9. There have been more requirements for tests and task tracking. We’ve actually needed additional QA personnel or resource to counter that requirement and make sure that we comply with those regulations. And that’s also for some technology solutions. I think that’s what Nate was talking about in his podcast about his platform trying to reduce the cost of compliance regulations. And we do the same.

DG:  Regarding standards, what do you see coming in the near future for the heat treat market? What’s relevant?

PS:  Relevant for the heat treaters today is what’s coming this year with the update of the standards of AMS 2750 that will go to F version, due sometime in the summer, and also CQI9 issue 4.  That will come earlier, maybe just after the first quarter.  Obviously, we look at these standards.  We have a number of people that are on the ballot or have some involvement with the standards, and the feedback is this move from being in a paper environment to paperless.  Electronic records is going to be big for both of those standards.  They are going to give heat treaters some time to actually move if they do currently still use paper.  But ultimately, over the next 2 or 3 years, you’ll see pretty much all heat treaters using electronic records and digital paperless systems because that’s the requirement of the standards.

DG:  Maybe jump into a little bit more of the operational efficiencies.  Is there anything more that we can say about that?  Are there any trends that you’re seeing on how data and data management is going to help us with operational efficiencies?

PS:  Quite an interesting trend with a subject called Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE).  This is a KPI (key performance indicator). I don’t think it’s widespread currently within the heat treatment industry, but I see it in pockets when I travel around the world.  OEE is made up of three components, the first being up-time (the the availability of the furnace), second component being the cycle time, so where are you against the design performance that you might have got from the furnace OEM for how fast and well that cycle should run.  And the third component is quality-how many parts do you get through right first time without needing to go back through any rework or even get into rejects.  So now there is a bit of a push of, ok, so how can we use technology solutions to help companies improve their OEE?  It used to be just on the manufacturing floor, but it’s now migrating a bit more to the heat treatment department, so this is something that we’ve looked at what we can do.  We’re fortunate to be part of the larger Schneider Electric and we can rely on some of their resources and we’ve been able to tap into platforms that already offer OEE type solutions.  So that is something that we’re seeing as a trend and something that we have solutions for, and I think it’s going to be a topic for this year.

DG:  You mentioned OEE, up-time, cycle-time, and quality. I assume that built into that also is equipment utilization, right? It’s not just that the equipment is up (as in not broken down), but also in use, correct? Are we minimizing the gap times between loads, assuming it’s a batch system?

PS: Yes. It’s actually quite specific on up-time. It ignores plant maintenance because it kind of says, you have to do that to have a good running department, but it does concentrate on maybe three areas. Furnace breakdowns, so if you have something unexpected that happens.  It also looks at waiting times, and that can be split into waiting times from a labor perspective, have you got the resources to actually run the furnace, or are you getting gaps because of that?  And it could be fixtures or parts, so what you’re going to load into the furnace, are all of those ready, or are you waiting on those because you’re waiting on your customer or are you waiting on a pre-process?   So, yes, it looks at all of those areas and identifies where those gaps are.  It shows you where you’re getting trends, maybe a trend from one shift to another, so you can actually look at taking action to resolve that because it’s very valuable, the up-time of a furnace.

DG: Let’s talk about AI, analytics, machine learning and impact on things like preventative maintenance and, to a certain extent, this effects operational efficiency as well because we’re talking up-time on equipment. What are you hearing? What are you seeing?

PS: I capture a lot of this in the bubble of IoT and Industry 4.0 solutions. There are a lot of buzz words out there. There is a lot of hype, I think, over the past few years. Now some of that hype is starting to manifest itself into real solutions, but I think those have really only come out over the past couple of years. So what we do in this space is we have some predictive maintenance solutions that include a health application. Pretty much out of the box, you have data coming into an algorithm and it gives you information about the health of that particular asset. You can track that over time and so it can give you an indication of when you’re starting to get a problem, it may be on a component level on a furnace, or it may be across the entire furnace itself, but it gives you some kind of prediction so you can take action before something fails. If I go back a year or so, you kind of had to build discrete models to make this happen, and the result was as good as the model that you built. I think those have improved and they’re a bit more user friendly. And this is just going to improve over time. So I think predictive maintenance is going to be a topic that we’ll start to see having an effect this year and, as time goes on, the value of that will just increase.

DG:  I know there are several different furnace and/or induction equipment companies in the industry that already have preventative, predictive maintenance programs out there.  Do you think that’s going to continue to grow?  Are we going to see more and more of that?

PS: Yes, without a doubt. And, in fact, one of the packages that we put together allows an OEM to provide those services to their end users. You’ve got different tiers of OEM that some can afford to invest, which is quite a substantial amount in actually providing these types of solutions. Others, not so much. There are platforms now out there that enable all OEMs to kind of jump on the bandwagon of predictive maintenance and be able to offer those remote services.

One of the areas that will come out this year, just to give you a sneak peak of it, is based on the augmented reality aspect.  We already have an augmented reality solution.  We work with a number of OEMs with that, but the technology has evolved to the extent [that] you can pick up a tablet, hold it up against the furnace, and [it] give[s] you valuable information about the running characteristics of that furnace.  You can pick documentation up and electrical drawings, all from that tablet, all live. But what we will be able to do in 2020 is also get a remote view from an OEM actually dialing directly into that tablet and seeing what that person on the shop floor is actually seeing in front of them and being able to give them far better advice and better direction in case they’re trying to sort out an issue, to hopefully resolve that issue in a much faster time as well as cut down the cost of traveling all the time to site.

DG:  Your interaction with the furnace manufacturers and/or induction equipment manufacturers, in fact you cooperate with them to help provide these systems to their end users as well.

PS:  It is because of this other trend that we’ve seen with the workforce, particularly in North America.   You’ve got quite a large set of baby boomers that have been retiring over the past few years and that is coming to an end, and then you’ve got millennials coming in with completely different skills.  They are very tech-savvy, so some of these new solutions that we’re offering, they can get on board and get up to speed very quickly, but they lack the experience that the baby boomers have had because some of the guys and girls in the industry have been working for like 30, maybe even 40 years.  They’ve amassed all of this experience and certainly that can potentially go out the business.  So we’re using some of this technology to take hold of some of that expertise and augment the knowledge that the younger engineers have so that they can get up to speed a lot quicker.

DG: The younger generation are much more comfortable with a smartphone than a furnace, but if you can put some of that knowledge about the furnace on that smartphone, voila, you’ve got yourself a more quickly trained younger generation.

PS: The side effect of that is also having modern technology within a furnace department, you can start to then attract some of these younger engineers.  Because if you don’t have that, there are opportunities for them elsewhere in different industries and higher technology.  So we’re all competing for a limited labor pool, and updating the technology is going to have an impact on you being able to employ people a lot easier.

DG: We did a Heat Treat Radio interview with the CEO of the Inductotherm Group, a gentleman by the name of Gary Doyan.  I asked him this same question.  I said, “So is all the hype about Industry 4.0, is it true?” I think that the issue he got to was, just because you can collect the data doesn’t mean you ought to collect the data.  That brings me to the question: There is so much data out there; what do we do with it?  Just because we can collect it, should we?  And what are we going to do with all the data?  How do we assimilate it?  How do we make sense out of it?

Digital Dashboards (Photo Credit: Eurotherm)

PS: Let me rewind the clock a little bit to when I first started in the industry and you had manual process cards.  Not a lot of paper chart recorders around, and those that were around were probably just logging the temperature rather than any other data point.  That has really changed.  From the 2000s onward, you’ve had paperless charts within the industry, SCADA systems, a lot of information.  So you’ve gone from this scarcity of data to data overload.  As you’re trying to do more and more with operational efficiency, we’re just getting more and more data points.  We’re fortunate, in a way, and I think Jim mentioned this on his call, that with the PLCs, etc., and the other devices we have on the shop floor, we’re collecting that data anyway.  So it’s not so much the issue about capturing data, it’s been about we’ve got this massive data, we’ve got this potential overload, we don’t have the time, resources, and even sometimes the expertise to make sense of all of this information, so where do we go from here?  I think this is another trend that we’re seeing. It developed in 2019, and it’s going to continue — the use of dashboards. I believe Nate touched on this as well in his interview. If you can collect that information and collate it and put it into a format that is just easy to understand and quick to get a view about what’s happening, what’s happened, what’s the direction, you can make better and quicker decisions.  We see dashboards and dashboarding as a trend that’s going to just explode, as far as in the heat treatment department because you need to be able to provide that information in a better way. An example of that is what we discussed about OEE. OEE comes with its own dashboard to give you a quick view about what’s happening across your process. That’s another trend for 2020.

Digital Dashboards
(Photo Credit: Eurotherm)

DG: Yes. Actually making sense of the data in bite size, quick pictures. Two more questions. I always have to ask this because I think everybody wants to know about it: cyber security. A lot of these systems that we’re talking about are either cloud-based or they have some vulnerability to outside intrusion. Can you talk a bit about any type of trends you’re seeing in cyber security?

PS: This is interesting. I started looking at all the IIOT and Industry 4.0 stuff back in 2013 and the trend for 2013–2018 was ‘what’s possible?’ What’s possible with the cloud, and with these edge devices, etc.?  The last two years, you’ve then moved into ‘what’s practical?’ Because we’ve seen a lot of these cyber security issues, even within our own industry, where you’ve had furnace OEMs and end users get involved with ransomware situations, not necessarily directed at the process control layer, but more targeted to ERP systems, etc., and you could get these potential viruses through USB connections, emails coming in where you click on one of those emails and then you open up this door for hackers to come through. So it has certainly become more of an issue. We were quite early in looking at this from an industrial product point of view, and we looked at starting to harden devices to enable them to withstand cyber security attacks. The latest range of controllers, the EPC3000 range, have a level of cyber security built in. They meet what’s called an Achilles Level One standard. We are also looking, even with our legacy products, to improve their cyber security requirements and try to meet some of the requirements from this international standard IEC62443. That is being built up to try and improve the safety, availability, integrity, and confidentiality of all of the components and systems that you’ve got within your plant. We, as well as Schneider Electric, have followed that, and it’s interesting to see the resource requirements that have gone from pretty much when we’re dealing with products in the past, there was very little talked about or even planned with cyber security, to it now being the number one. This leads everything. We have to have our software development life cycle start with cyber security. So, yes, it’s accelerated and it’s right. If you open up these ports for people to come in, it can work both ways. Obviously, you’re pushing information out, you can spread information across the plant, everyone gets to know what’s going on, but you can then have other people coming in that you don’t want. You’ve got to be a little bit more careful.

Very simple things I would promote to any heat treater today, and that is start looking at manage switchers and firewalls for your operation. We do have white pages on this that actually go through some of the rudimentary things that you should do from a cyber security perspective. I’m happy for people to contact me or maybe we can give you something, Doug, that you can put up on your website so they can just access it.

Eurotherm White PaperEditor’s Note: Click on “White Paper” image to be linked to the white paper referred to in this section.

DG:  Yes, that would be good to do.  We could at least put a link over to your site so people can look at those white papers. I think that would be helpful.

I’ve got a final question for you, and it’s regarding your average every day heat treater, manufacturer of some product, aerospace, automotive or whatever, who has his own in-house heat treat shop.  Let’s say they’re not doing a lot right now with IIOT, how would they get started?  What would be your suggestion on how to get rolling on using data more effectively, if you will?

[alert color=”green” icon=”fa-check”]Click here to be linked to the heat treat section of Eurotherm’s website.[/alert]

PS: There’s got to be a purpose, and that purpose usually is to have an effect on, say, something like operational efficiency.  Trying to assess where they are now and where they want to get to and using something like overall equipment effectiveness, it is down to a KPI so you can get a percentage.  You’ve got people that are world class that are like 85%, so the average is around 60%, and you’ve got some laggers that are around 40% as far as OEE. So getting that benchmark of where you are, getting an aspiration of where you want to be, and then contact anyone, like an instrument supplier that is touching on the IIOT world, like Eurotherm or others that are out there to help you on that journey.  There is a lot of support.  There are a lot of offers out there now that have all come up over the last couple of years.  So don’t hesitate to reach out.  There are people that know about this stuff and that can help, and they do want to sell it to you! Don’t be afraid of picking up the phone or sending an email because people are out there to support you. If the heat treat business as a whole improves, then everyone improves. That should be how people focus on things.

Doug Glenn, Publisher, Heat Treat Today
Doug Glenn, Heat Treat Today publisher and Heat Treat Radio host.


To listen to more Heat Treat Radio episodes, click here.

Heat Treat Radio #26: Cutting Edge Trends in Data with Peter Sherwin, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric Read More »

Not Your Grandfather’s Heat Treat Shop

Peter Sherwin
Peter Sherwin

A clash of generations may be inevitable at family gatherings, but in the heat treat shop, everybody is on board with the changes that have developed over the last few decades: technological advances in equipment and processes, enhanced quality control, greater awareness for safety issues and green operations, among others. Peter Sherwin of Eurotherm by Schneider Electric traces the course the industry has taken out of the past and into the future. This article first appeared in Heat Treat Today’s March 2019 Aerospace print edition.


My first experience in a heat treat shop could be described as your grandfather’s shop—it was dirty and dusty, and you had to be alert to avoid danger. A handful of paper chart recorders were present, and tempering ovens were controlled by a dial indication of temperature, adjusted up and down to find out the current temperature. Only manual flow controls existed. Process temperature, times, and flow-rates were handwritten on small paper cards and stored in a filing cabinet.

Fast forward 15 years and the shop has clean processes, mostly vacuum-based equipment, and all automatically controlled process cycles. Shop floor instructions moved from paper to entirely computer-generated, an industrial transformation to the digital-age that took place in the 1990s and 2000s.

How We Got Here

So, what have the last couple of decades brought? Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing springs to mind. First, we had the painful hangover from the global recession in 2008-09 which, for the next half-decade, had everyone consumed with operating as lean as possible with only a slow trickle of investment. The last few years brought a healthy rebound in manufacturing and increased heat treat production requirements. However, this surge in activity and a continued make-do attitude did not allow the time or motivation to refurbish or replace aging equipment. Add to this the promise and “soon-to-be-fulfilled” prophecies of IoT and Industry 4.0, the coming of age of the electric car, and the resultant effects on heat treatment requirements, and all of these factors conspire to make the heat treater think twice about rushing into investing in new furnaces or upgrading the existing plant.

Your Grandfather's Heat Treat Shop
Your Grandfather’s Heat Treat Shop

The curse of this is watching the average life of equipment catch up with the average age of operators, and we are transported back to the dark ages of your grandfather’s shop.

Admittedly, this is an over-simplification of the current situation—not all plants are stuck in this rut. Contrary to the above, AMS2750D (released 2005) was a boon to European furnace OEMs and associated suppliers, and yet this was not a worldwide phenomenon because the U.S. received a “grandfathered” pass due to the heavy involvement and prior investment in meeting AMS2750C requirements.

Over this same recent period, the final aerospace customers (aerospace primes and engine manufacturers) have not rested on their laurels. A rise in the middle class in Asia has fueled a healthy increase in demand for passenger aircraft and allowed best-in-class suppliers to invest, innovate, and develop more energy-efficient aircraft. Younger airline brands in the Asian continent have been able to rapidly take market share by leveraging a lower cost base created mainly by engine technology improvements.

Engine Developments and Quality Control

The A320neo, available since 2015, incorporates new, more efficient engines and large wing tip devices called “Sharklets” delivering significant fuel savings of 15 percent, which is equivalent to 1.4 million liters of fuel per aircraft per year, or the consumption of 1,000 mid-sized cars. In addition, the A320neo provides a double-digit reduction in NOx emissions and reduced engine noise. [1]

The 737 MAX 8 reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 14 percent over the newest Next-Generation 737 and 20 percent better than the first Next-Generation 737s. Also, the 737 MAX 8 uses 8 percent less fuel per seat than the A320neo. [2, 3]

The GTF engine has met all performance specifications since entry into service. For example, the GTF-powered A320neo has achieved a 16% reduction in fuel consumption, a 75% reduction in noise footprint and a 50% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. [4]

Today's Modern Heat Treat Shop
Today’s Modern Heat Treat Shop

These significant recent engine innovations have been possible through the use of modeling software to aid fast development (versus slow in-field trials) and by maximizing the overall performance via a mix of standard and exotic materials. Future developments include evaluating the use of actual component properties (e.g., tensile test, hardness profiles, other material, etc.) rather than relying on industry averaged properties. These advancements could lead to substantial changes in shape design and associated weight reduction but would require more stringent processing control.

Nadcap accreditation and the SAE AMS2750 standard have been used to manage a specific quality output from the heat treat supply chain. Even with the expected release of AMS2750F, control tolerances are not anticipated to change dramatically. This situation could create tension between the ongoing innovation on the design-side and the slower-development in process equipment capability. Let’s hope this doesn’t result in a path back to individual prime requirements over-shadowing the unified AMS standard.

Heat Treating 101 for the Shop of the Future

So, it’s back to the heat treat shop and the conundrum of upgrading/updating equipment due to age, performance, capability, and now the added twist of potential changes in future customer requirements. What strategy should a heat treater undertake?

Refurbishment of existing equipment to help lower running costs and improve capability can usually occur with updating the control and automation system. By looking at the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) rather than just the “ticket” price of the upgrade, the payback for the investment can be in months rather than years. Control systems can improve the uptime of the equipment and precision control can positively impact quality results and even shorten process times in some instances. The relatively low payback time can ease the decision to invest.

Investment in new equipment requires a more detailed look at the customer base and changes within the external environment. To help with this uncertainty, some OEMs are starting to provide flexible financing solutions, including leasing. Control and automation suppliers are also doing their bit by designing control and recording instruments that can be enhanced by secure over-the-air software updates rather than requiring a complete change of hardware.

Conclusion

The shops of the past are looking less and less like the shops in most plants today, but it’s more than just physical changes that reflect a forward-looking operation. Today’s shop can leverage innovative thinking about cost of operations, improve the quality of communication with customers and suppliers, effectively use control systems, and be creative about equipment upgrades. These are changes that begin with an attitude adjustment—having the right view of the past and a broad vision for the future.

References:

[1] “Airbus, Indigo places order for 130 A320 neo”, https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2011/06/indigo-firms-up-order-for-150-a320neo-and-30-a320s.html

[2] Retrieved 01-Feb-19 https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/by-design/#/leap-1b-737ng-737max

[3] Retrieved 01-Feb-19 https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/leap/

[4] Retrieved 01-Feb-19 https://www.pw.utc.com/products-and-services/products/commercial-engines/Pratt-and-Whitney-GTF-Engine/

About the Author: Peter Sherwin, a Chartered Engineer, is business development leader with Eurotherm by Schneider Electric, recognized for his expertise in heat treat systems technology, IIoT, Industry 4.0, and SaaS/digital solutions. This article, which originally appeared in Heat Treat Today’s March 2019 Aerospace print edition and is published here with the author’s permission.

Not Your Grandfather’s Heat Treat Shop Read More »

Heat Treat Control Panel: Best Practices in Digital Data Collection, Storage, Validation

When processing critical components, heat treaters value and demand precision in every step of the process — from the recipe to data collection — for the sake of accurate performance of the furnace, life expectancy of all equipment, as well as satisfactory delivery of a reliable part for the customer.

So what’s the obstacle to achieving those goals? Gunther Braus of dibalog GmbH/dibalog USA Inc. says, “The general problem is the human.” Indeed, the need to remove the variable of human fallibility plays a significant role in the search and development of equipment that could sense, read, and record data separate from any input from the operator. “As long there is a manual record of values there is the potential failure,” adds Braus.

Now, as part of the quest for precision, particularly in the automotive and aerospace industries, many control system requirements are driven by the need to prove process compliance to specified industry standards like CQI-9 and AMS 2750. These standards allow for and frequently require digital data records and digital proof of instrumentation precision.

With this in mind, Heat Treat Today asked six heat treat industry experts a controls-related question. Heat Treat Control Panel will be a periodic feature so if you have a control-related question you’d like addressed, please email it to Editor@HeatTreatToday.com and we’ll put your question to our control panel.

Q: As a heat treat industry control expert, what do you see as some of the best practices when it comes to digital data collection and storage and/or validation of instrumentation precision?

We thank those who responded: Andrew Bassett of Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry, Inc.; Gunther Braus, dibalog GmbH/dibalog USA Inc; Jim Oakes of Super Systems, Inc; Jason Schulze, Conrad Kascik Instrument Systems, Inc.; Peter Sherwin, Eurotherm by Schneider Electric; and Nathan Wright of C3Data.

Calibration and Collection

Jim Oakes (Super Systems Inc.) starts us off with an overview of the equipment review process, the crucial component of instrument calibration, and digital data collection:

“Industry best practices are driven by standards defined by the company and customers they serve. Both the automotive and aerospace industries have a set of standards which are driven through self-assessments and periodic audits. Instrument precision is defined by the equipment’s use and is required to be checked during calibrations. The frequency of these calibration depends on the instrument and what kind of parts and processes it is responsible for.

The equipment used for these processes can be defined as field test instrumentation, controllers, and recording equipment. Calibration is required with a NIST-traceable instrument that has specific accuracy and error requirements. Before- and post-calibration readings are required (commonly identified as “as found” and “as left” recordings). During calibration, a sensitivity check is required on equipment and is recorded as pass/fail. The periodic calibration procedure is carried out not only on test equipment but also on control and recording equipment, to ensure instrument precision.

Digital data collection is a broad term with many approaches in heat treatment. As mentioned, requirements are driven by industry standards such as CQI-9 and AMS 2750. Specifically when it comes to digital data collection, electronic data must be validated for precision; checked; and calibrated periodically as defined by internal procedures or customer standards. Data must be protected from alteration, and have specific accuracy and precision. Best practice tends to be plant wide systems that cover the electronic datalogging that promotes ease of access to current and historical data allowing use for quality, operational, and maintenance personnel. Best practices in many cases are defined by the standards within each company, but the hard requirements are often the AMS 2750 and CQI-9 requirements for digital data storage.”

Industry Guidelines and Requirements

Andrew Bassett (Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry) has provided us with a reminder of the industry guidelines for aerospace manufacturing (via AMS-2750E, paragraph 3.2.7.1 – 3.2.7.1.5)

  1. The system must create electronic records that cannot be altered without detection.
  2. The system software and playback utilities shall provide a means of examining and/or compiling the record data, but shall not provide any means for altering the source data.
  3. The system shall provide the ability to generate accurate and complete copies of records in both human readable and electronic form suitable for inspection, review, and copying.
  4. The system shall be capable of providing evidence the record was reviewed – such as by recording an electronic review, or a method of printing the record for a physical marking indicating review.
  5. The system shall support protection, retention, and retrieval of accurate records throughout the record retention period. Ensure that the hardware and or software shall operate throughout the retention period as specified in paragraph 3.7.
  6. The system shall provide methods (e.g., passwords) to limit system access to only individuals whose authorization is documented.

“One of the biggest issues I see with one of these requirements will be point 5,” says Bassett. “The requirement is to be able to review these records throughout the retention period, which in some instances is indefinite. I always recommend to clients who may be upgrading or purchasing new digital systems that they should consider keeping a spare system in place to be able to satisfy this requirement. Who knows — today we are working on Windows 10, but in 50 years, will our successor be able to go back and review heat treat data when everything is run on Windows 28?”

Jason Schulze, Aerospace Heat Treating“This is a topic that yields great discussions,” adds Jason Schulze (Conrad Kascik). He directs us to a challenge he sees from time to time.

Within the Nadcap AC7102/8 checklist, there is this question: “Do recorder printing and chart speeds meet the requirements of AMS 2750E Table 5 or more stringent customer requirements?” This correlates with AMS2750E, page 12, paragraph 3.2.1.1.2 “Process Recorder Print and Chart Speeds shall be in accordance with Table 5”.

“To ensure the proper use of an electronic data acquisition unit used on furnaces and ovens, these requirements must be understood,” continues Schulze. “Because this system is electronic, it should be designated a digital instrument and not an analog instrument. In doing so, this helps determine what requirements apply in Table 5. The only remaining requirement in Table 5 for digital instruments is ‘Print intervals shall be a minimum of 6 times during each time at temperature cycle. Print intervals shall not exceed 15 minutes.’

With this in mind, it is important to realize that, if your time at temperature cycles are short cycles (such as vacuum braze cycles), the sample rate of data collection may need to be adjusted to ensure it is recorded 6 times during the cycle.

As an example, if the shortest cycle processed is 4 minutes at temperature, a sample rate of every 60 seconds would not conform to AMS2750E because, in theory, the maximum amount of recordings would be 4 times during the time at soak. Now, if the sample rate was modified to every 30 seconds, this would allow ~8 recordings during the time at soak, which then would be conforming to AMS2750E.

Within the realm of electronic data acquisition on furnaces/ovens, this seems to be a frequent challenge for suppliers.”

A Critical Variable: Process Temperature

Nathan Wright (C3Data) agrees and zeroes in on process temperature as a critical variable to be measured:

“No matter the heat-treating process being carried out, complying with AMS-2750 and/or CQI-9 requires that the heat treater measure, record, and control several different variables. One of the more common variables that must be measured, recorded, and controlled is process temperature.

Measuring process temperatures requires the use of a precise measurement system (Figure-1 below), and the accuracy of said measurement system must be periodically validated to ensure its ongoing compliance.”

“The validation process is carried out through a series of pyrometric tests (Instrument Calibration and SAT), and historically these validation processes are highly error-prone.

In order to help ensure process instrumentation, process temperatures, and any other variable that impacts quality is properly validated it is good practice to begin automating compliance processes whenever and wherever possible. C3 Data helps automate all furnace compliance processes using software.”

A “Standard” Mindset

Gunther Braus (dibalog) chimes back in with some pertinent wisdom: “It is not sufficient only to record, you must live the standards like CQI-9, AMS, Nadcap or even your own standard you have set up, so you must survey the data. However, in the old times, there was a phrase: the one who measures, measures crap. In the end, it is all about surveillance of the captured data.

Where you store the data is a question of philosophy: personally, I prefer local storage in-house. Yes, we all talk about IOT, etc., and I do not want to start a discussion about security; it is more about accessing the data. No internet, no data. So simple. We are overly dependent upon cloud usage on the internet.

The automation of the instrumentation precision is so much effort in terms of automated communication between testing device and controller, from my point of view we are not there yet.”

A Look at the Standards In and Outside the Industry

Interesting question! writes Peter Sherwin (Eurotherm by Schneider Electric).

The aim is to record the true process temperature seen by the components being treated. However, there are many practical factors that can alter the accuracy of the reading. From the position of the thermocouple (TC), the TC accuracy (over time), suitability of the lead or extension wire, issues with CJC errors and instrument accuracy as well as electrical noise impacting the stability of the reading.

The standards do a good job to help by prescribing the location of TC, accuracies required for both TC and instrument, and frequent checks over time through TUS and SAT checks but note the specification requirements are maximum “errors”. And if you truly want to reach world-class levels of process control and reap the inherent benefits of better productivity and quality, you should aim to be well inside those tolerances allowed.

With 30yrs+ of data required to be stored (in certain cases, particularly aerospace), there should be some thought as to how and what form this should be stored in. There are many more options of storage when the data is in digital format.

  • Paper is very costly to store and protect.
  • The virgin data file should be secure and tamper-resistant and identical copies made for backup purposes held offsite.
  • The use of FTP is becoming more common to move files automatically from the instrument to a local server (with its own backup procedures to ensure redundant records in case of disaster).
  • Regular checks should be made to examine the availability and integrity of these electronic records.
  • Control and Data Instrument suppliers should ideally have many years of supplying instrument digital records with systems that can access even the earliest of data record formats.

We also look outside of the heat treat standards for truly best practices. The FDA regulation 21CFRPart11 and associated GAMP Good Automated Manufacturing Practice have been extended with the new document “Data Integrity and Compliance with Drug cGMP, Questions and Answers, Guidance for Industry”. These updates leverage A.L.C.O.A to describe the key principles around electronic records (see below). This industry is also leading the requirement for sFTP a more secure format of the FTP protocol.


Heat Treat Today will run this column regularly featuring questions posed to and answered by industry experts about controls. If you have a question about controls and/or data as it pertains to heat treating, please submit it to doug@heattreattoday.com or editor@heattreattoday.com.

Heat Treat Control Panel: Best Practices in Digital Data Collection, Storage, Validation Read More »

Industry 4.0 + IIoT = Smart Industrial Ovens & Furnaces

BOTW-50w  Source:  Eurotherm by Schneider Electric

“Effective process control and automation technologies link thermal processing equipment such as ovens and furnaces with the operator and the supply-and-delivery chain — in a seamless network of information exchange.”

Read More:  Industry 4.0 + IIoT=Smart Industrial Ovens & Furnaces by Perter Sherwin

Industry 4.0 + IIoT = Smart Industrial Ovens & Furnaces Read More »