Twice a month, Heat TreatToday publishes an episode of Heat TreatRadio, a unique-to-the-industry podcast. Whether it’s AMS2750 or CQI-9, these episodes will boost your knowledge about all things heat treat. Listen to these four episodes to gain confidence in compliance. Enjoy this original content, and happy listening!
Justin Rydzewski Director of Sales & Market Development Controls Service, Inc.
Heat TreatRadio: Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 1 of 4) – Pyrometry
In this episode of Heat TreatRadio, hear directly from a committee member involved in updating CQI-9. Justin Rydzewski, director of Sales and Marketing at Controls Service, Inc. sheds some light on the automotive equivalent to AMS2750: CQI-9. From translation issues and formatting to new process tables and caveats regarding thermocouples, this episode of Heat TreatRadio provides all the necessary information heat treaters need to use the new revision. It's about more than just pyrometry; it's also about heat treat system assessment and heat treat operation.
To get the run-down on CQI-9, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
"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."
Heat TreatRadio: Andrew Bassett on AMS2750F (Part 1 of 3)
Andrew Bassett, President, Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
In this three-part episode, Andrew Bassett of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry discusses all things AMS2750F. Questions on thermocouples, calibrations and thermal processing classification, SATs, or TUSs? This series of Heat TreatRadio episodes has the answers.
In this first episode, Andrew focuses on thermocouples and sensors and the different thermocouple types that AM2750 Revision F addresses compared to past revisions. The use of nickel/nickel-moly thermocouples and the use of resistant temperature devices are just two of the additions found in Rev. F.
To get an overview of the changes to AMS2750 made in Revision F, as well as to hear a bit about the process for writing the specification book, listen to this series of episodes on Heat TreatRadio.
"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."
Heat TreatRadio: Reimagining Furnace Compliance with C3 Data’s Matt Wright
Matt Wright Chief Marketing Officer, C3 Data Source: C3 Data
The future of compliance could be in the palm of your hand. Matt Wright, chief marketing officer at C3 Data, describes how C3 Data has encapsulated everything required to be AMS2750 or CQI-9 compliant into one platform: a user-friendly system that can run on a smart phone. No more clipboards, spreadsheets, or post-it notes. Using optical character recognition, heat treaters can complete SATs in real-time. With QR codes, operators can scan thermocouples and access the appropriate table within a specification book.
To learn more about what C3 Data is doing to make compliance easier, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
"When I look at our industry, one of the things that is the biggest challenge is the flow of information — getting information from where it resides to where it needs to be in the format that it needs to be."
Heat TreatRadio: Justin Rydzewski and James Hawthorne on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 3 of 4) – Process Tables & New Resources
James Hawthorne Corporate Heat Treat Specialist, Acument Global Technologies
There's more new material in CQI-9 Rev. 4 than just pyrometry updates. James Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies, zooms in on changes to CQI-9's process tables and new resources. One of these new resources, a glossary of terms used within the document, was created specifically because of end-user requests. Maintenance request forms, helpful illustrations, and informative figures are just a few other new resources added to the latest version of CQI-9.
"Read the document. Read as much of it as you can and try to understand as much as you possibly can."
To hear more about what's new in CQI-9 Rev.4, listen to this episode of Heat TreatRadio.
Heat TreatToday provides many different ways for you to keep current on heat treating technical content, news, trends, and specifications within the industry. Heat TreatRadio is one of those outlets. Publisher and Heat TreatRadio host, Doug Glenn, talked with James Hawthorne from Acument Global Technologies and Justin Rydzewski of Controls Service Inc., both of whom served on the committee, with Hawthorne being the chairman, of the latest revisions (Rev. 4) to CQI-9.
This column appeared in Heat TreatToday'sAugust 2021 Automotiveprint edition.
Check out this article for a summary of the topics and insights discussed during this four-part series, and then listen to the individual episodes to learn all you need to know about understanding and complying with CQI-9 Rev. 4.
Process tables from Rollout Webinar (Source: Rollout Webinar PowerPoint)
Heat Treat Radio:
Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev. 4
(Part 1 of 4) – Pyrometry
In this first episode, Doug Glenn and Justin Rydzewski provide an overview of CQI-9 and the “why” behind the new revision as well as talking down through the pyrometry section which covers things like sensors, thermocouples, calibration, SATs, and TUS. Rydzewski was an active participant in the writing of the new revision. His company, Controls Service Inc., is an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited provider of process control systems, calibration, maintenance, and services.
Here’s an excerpt taken from the transcript of the first podcast:
Doug Glenn (DG): Give us information about CQI-9. Give us a brief history. When did it start? Who owns it? Who maintains its updates? To whom does it apply? What is its scope?
Justin Rydzewski (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, 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 treat to in-house heat treat, to organizations like mine that support it. 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 eight to nine years to get done with “4.” What was the main reason why you needed to abandon “3”?
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. 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.
DG: What are the major 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.
To listen or read more about the CQI-9 pyrometry section, go to www.heattreattoday.com and search “Heat Treat Radio CQI-9”
Heat Treat Radio:
James Hawthorne and Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev. 4
(Part 2 of 4) – HTSAs & Job Audits
In this second installment, Doug Glenn, Justin Rydzewski, and James Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies discuss heat treat system assessments and job audits in CQI-9 Rev. 4.
Hawthorne is a heat treat specialist in Acument’s North American facilities and handles the heat treat systems, the system’s compliance, and quality assurance for heat treat within his organization. (Acument makes fasteners—nuts, bolts, rivets, washers— for the auto industry.)
Here’s an excerpt taken from the transcript of the second podcast:
DG: James, how would you explain CQI-9 to someone who has essentially zero understanding of what it is?
James Hawthorne (JH): CQI-9 is Continuous Quality Improvement. The purpose behind it is to put together a system that will help you manage and control your process, and at the end of it, the product that you’re delivering to the end user. The intent is to give you those guidelines to help avoid potential spills or escapes or whatever else may come with that.
DG: It’s mostly heat treat related, yes? Or is there more than just heat treat there?
JH: It is the entire system of heat treat. If you look at the heat treat system assessment, the first portion of it is quality based. The second portion (Section 2) is the floor responsibilities, things that are on task that are being completed. And third, you get into the maintenance and the pyrometry portion of it, very specific to the pyrometry and very specific to atmosphere control. At the end of it, there are some very specific induction questions, because when it comes to induction, there is no real furnace at that point, so you want to focus on those key elements of induction.
DG: James, we’d like to pick your brain a bit on this. Let’s jump into some questions on the HTSAs, as we’ll refer to them, heat treat system assessments, and job audits. Let’s go right to the basics: What is an HTSA and what is its purpose?
JH: HTSA, heat treat system assessment, is a tool that has been developed to help you evaluate how you manage your heat treat system for effectiveness: effectiveness in quality management and effectiveness in the floor responsibilities. Like I mentioned earlier, understanding that through aspects of training and training effectiveness and into the final section of atmospheric control and atmosphere management and reaction to those.
The purpose here is to have one system, one document that is the rules of engagement for doing heat treat in the automotive world. What this does is allows the automotive industry to give you one spec, one thing to follow. As opposed to having, say Ford, give you ten questions where none of them are exactly the same as FCA or nine of them are the same as Ford Motor Company, where one of them has a specific question. This encompasses all of those wants and needs from the auto industry to protect themselves, to protect the end user out there in the field that may be using that heat treated component.
To listen or read more about the CQI-9 pyrometry section, go to www.heattreattoday.com and search “Heat Treat Radio CQI-9”
Heat Treat Radio:
Justin Rydzewski and James Hawthorne on CQI-9 Rev. 4
(Part 3 of 4) – Process Tables & New Resources
In this third episode, the trio talks about process tables, their importance, and key information on how to read this revision of CQI-9.
Here’s an excerpt from part 3:
JH: The heat treat system assessment (HTSA) covers the heat treat system and its assessment. There are very unique processes that are covered by CQI-9 and are captured in the process table section of the CQI-9 document.
Process Table A covers carburizing, carbonitriding, carbon restoration, austempering, and precipitation hardening or aging. Section B covers nitriding and ferritic nitrocarburizing. Process Table C covers aluminum. Process Table D covers induction. Process Table E includes annealing and normalizing the stress relief. It goes up to process Table I.
AIAG Cover CQI-9 Edition, 2020
There is a process table for each unique type of heat treat that is out there in the industry and this allows some very specific topics to be covered in those types of processes.
The first portion of it is Process and Test Equipment Requirements. What are the rules of engagement for those items? The same thing for pyrometry. There are specific call outs in the process tables. If this is part of your system, you have to play by these rules. Some of them will point you to specific sections of pyrometry. So, if you’re looking at the thermocouple and calibration of thermocouples, the process table is going to tell you that you shall conform to section P3.1 which covers all of those.
It also covers the process monitoring frequency. How often do you have to check your temperatures? What are the rules of engagement? If you have a batch style furnace that covers that process, it has certain rules for you to manage your batch process.
Then you get into things like inspection – Section 5 of the process table covers things like quenchant and solution test parameters, and the rules for checking that.
What’s really nice about the document is that it’s set up in a way where you can go to the HTSA right from the process table to see if you’re compliant to what’s listed there as the shell statement and the requirements or the frequency for checking those.
To listen or read more about the CQI-9 pyrometry section, go to www.heattreattoday.com and search “Heat Treat Radio CQI-9”
Heat Treat Radio:
Justin Rydzewski and James Hawthorne on CQI-9 Rev. 4
(Part 4 of 4) – Expert Advice
In this final installment, Doug Glenn, Justin Rydzewski, and James Hawthorne field opinion questions as well as practical implementation questions of the new CQI-9 Rev. 4.
Here’s an excerpt from the transcript:
DG: Has CQI-9 been effective in the automotive industry?
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 eight 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.
JR: I think that also bodes well up the ladder for the OEs. 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 eff ort 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.
The intent of CQI-9 was, to a large extent, to be something that you can do yourself and implement yourself. We’ll provide you with the guidance, put it in simple terms, and give you all the research you need to support this on your own.
To listen or read more about the CQI-9 pyrometry section, go to www.heattreattoday.com and search “Heat Treat Radio CQI-9”
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, conducts Part 3 of this 4-part series with James Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies and Justin Rydzewski of Controls Service, Inc. about Revision 4 of CQI-9. We will hear about changes in process tables and key information on how to read this revision of CQI-9.
The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.
Doug Glenn: Welcome everybody. In the first episode of CQI-9 Revision 4, we covered pyrometry and Justin mainly covered it because he’s the expert in this area. In the second episode, we spoke primarily with James and he shared about changes in the heat treat system assessments (HTSAs) and job audits areas. Justin, if you don’t mind, would you please review with us just exactly what CQI-9 is?
Justin Rydzewski: It has essentially three primary sections. You have your heat treat system assessment, which is often abbreviated as the HTSA; you have the pyrometry section; and then you have the process tables. The job audit is also something that needs to be completed on an annual basis, so it’s a minor section to the document.
DG: Today we’re going to talk about process tables and some other support portions of the spec. Let’s jump in. James, if you don’t mind, maybe you can talk to us a bit about what are these process tables and why are they important?
James Hawthorne: The HTSA covers the heat treat system and assessing that system. There are very unique processes that are covered by CQI-9. Those are captured in the process table section of the CQI-9 document.
Process Table A covers carburizing, carburnitriding, carburrestoration, austempering, and precipitation hardening or aging. You’ve got sections like B- this covers nitriding and ferritic nitrocarburizing. Then you have process table C which covers aluminum. Process Table D covers induction. Process Table E covers things like annealing, normalizing the stress relief. And we go all the way up to process Table I. So, there is a process table for each unique type of heat treat that is out there in the industry and this allows some very specific topics to be covered in those types of processes. They all cover pretty much the same thing, so I’ll go back just to run through the headers of Process Table A.
The first portion of it is Process and Test Equipment Requirements. What are the rules of engagement for those items? The same thing for pyrometry. There are specific call outs in the process tables. If this is part of your system, you have to play by these rules. Some of them will point you to specific sections of pyrometry. So, if you’re looking at the thermocouple and calibration of thermocouples, the process table is going to tell you that you shall conform to section P3.1 which covers all of those.
Interview with Justin Rydzewski, James Hawthorne, and Doug Glenn Source: Heat Treat Radio
It also covers the process monitoring frequency. How often do you have to check your temperatures? What are the rules of engagement? It calls out specifically each portion that may be included in that type of process. If you have a batch style furnace that covers that process, it has certain rules for you to manage your batch process. If it’s a continuous furnace, you have certain rules on how you would manage that continuous. If your process has an endothermic or exothermic generator or even some type of nitrogen methanol system, there are rules of engagement on how to manage or review that system for those items.
Then you get into things like inspection. Your in-process and final test parameters are also covered here. The last portion of it, in section 5 of the process table, is when you get into things like your quenchant and solution test parameters, and what are the rules for checking that.
What’s really nice about the document is that as you traverse the document, for instance, we have in the quenchant and solution test parameters, it’s A5.1. The next column over, it tells you what is the related HTSA question. It is set up in a way where you can go to the HTSA right from the process table and see if you’re compliant to what’s listed there as the shell statement and the requirements or the frequency for checking those.
DG: That answers another question we were going to address, and that is, how do those process tables work with the HTSA? It sounds like, in a sense, they are cross-indexed. Is that it?
JH: That’s correct, Doug. Like we spoke about in the last interview when we were talking about the job audit, the job audit is set up the same way: It has that same column, it tells you what the related question is, and it affords you the ability to easily traverse the document from the questions in the HTSA to the requirements in the process tables.
DG: Justin, anything else from you on that?
JR: The way that I typically frame it for people new to CQI-9 is that the process tables essentially define two things. First, your tolerances for process and test parameters, and second, your frequencies for those process test parameters in testing parts, which are specific to each heat treat process.
As James mentioned, there are nine process tables. The requirements in each of those process tables are going to be specific to that process. The requirements within the HTSA are intended to be broad and generic. They’re intended to be applicable to any organization performing one of those heat treat processes. As you go an HTSA, you will be notified when to refer to the process table for some specific aspect of the tolerance or frequency portion on that particular requirement.
DG: It sounds like a lot of work has been put into the cross referencing, making it simple and making it user friendly, right? So, whether you’re in the process or whether you’re in the HTSA, you can quickly and easily find the portion in the other section of the spec that applies to what you’re doing.
JH: That’s correct. Plus, it does afford you the opportunity to find compliance in a simpler fashion.
JR: And to also specify tolerances and frequencies that are appropriate for that given process. If I’m heat treating aluminum, I might have a tighter tolerance than that of hardening steel. They are very two different processes susceptible to different things, so the values need to be different.
DG: When you’re looking at the changes that were made from Rev 3 to Rev 4 with these process tables, is there anything that jumps out at you?
JR: I think one of the most notable changes is an item that wasn’t changed, actually, and that was the formatting and grading system retained from the 3rd edition. The primary focus of our efforts with the process tables this go-around was to enhance that clarity. The most notable change across many of the process tables was the added requirement to continuously monitor and record that temperature control signature for generators. So, for atmosphere generators, that temperature side of things needs to not just be monitored, but also recorded.
DG: Having taken just what we’ve heard today about the process tables, thinking back to what we covered in the last section on the HTSAs, and going back, Justin, even to your first episode that we did on pyrometry, it seems like there is a lot of stuff here. The CQI-9 comes in at 115 pages long, I’m guessing there are going to be people that start dipping their big toe into this thing and say, “What the heck? I’m struggling here! I don’t understand. What’s required of me?” From what we’ve talked about, before we hit the record button, there are some other very helpful things in this spec besides these table requirements and things of that sort.
Let’s talk about those a little bit. What are some of those other resources that will help simplify the execution of this spec?
JR: There’s a lot to it, but the underlying intent was not to confuse or bombard the organization with unnecessary rules and just allowing people to figure it out on their own. Everything goes through a “stink test” as we’re writing this up. Everything must make sense to us. If it doesn’t, it’s typically not added in or it’s refined and beat up until it is okay and then added in.
What can we do or what are the things that would be helpful to the end-user to make sure that they’re adhering to these things and that they understand to a point where they can adhere to it? It is not uncommon for me to find my customers having no problem following the rules so long as they know what they are so that can understand them and they make sense.
To convey that and get that buy-in, we’ve added a few elements and refined others. I think the most significant one, and it is in the section within the document that I reference most, is the Glossary of Terms. There is a lot of really good information in there. It’s not that I’m referencing the Glossary of Terms because I don’t understand what the word “calibration” means or what the difference is between a “control thermocouple” and a “monitoring thermocouple”, it’s how did we define those terms relative to CQI-9 in terms of CQI-9? How did we intend that word to be utilized? Sometimes you can find those little bits of detail that make it easier to understand or to capture what some of the requirements are for that are noted within the rest of the main document.
JH: There are also some illustrations added to the Glossary as well. There were a couple there before, but there was some refinement to those illustrations that were in there. Even those harder to define portions where we put those illustrations to help drive home the intent of the message, I think that was done very well in the Glossary section.
DG: Would you say, James, that that’s the major change to the Glossary, or are there other things that changed there?
Source: Markus Spiske st pixabay.com
JH: We went through the entire document from cover to cover. There are many, many minor changes across the board, but there were some definitions that were added to the Glossary as questions came up during our normal meeting cycles, or that came from end-users when asking them how we should define something.
As those questions came in, we added those definitions to help with that guidance. Especially, as Justin said, as we’re talking in the meetings, if we’re hammering away at it and we have it digested in the room – we understand what we mean – how do we send this message to the rest of the users out there in the world? The Glossary ended up being a great place for items like that, as well.
JR: Right. So instead of using six paragraphs to describe a certain requirement or whatnot, just use proper terminology and then let’s define adequately those terms, which may be contested or not fully understood immediately, in the Glossary of terms so that there is a clear idea of what it is we’re trying to get across and not have to make this thing 185 pages.
[blocktext align=”right”]“In the context of this document [the CQI-9 revision 4], the following definitions shall apply.”[/blocktext]A real good example of things added into the Glossary would be terms that perhaps we all take for granted, terms that you understand what it means, but when you poll ten different people, their definitions are just slightly different. For example, “grace periods” was a word we added into the Glossary. Not that it’s an overly complicated term to understand, but relative to the document, it can have an impact on how it is you interpret those certain requirements and what it is that it means for you. “RTD” was another one added in there from a sensor standpoint. I think another that might get some attention is the inclusion of “sintering” and “sinter-hardening.” There was a fair amount of contention on the sintering side of things that CQI-9 wouldn’t apply. Then we included sinter-hardening, but we didn’t necessarily define the difference between the two processes. Now, there’s a distinction made, and it’s included in the Glossary.
DG: As far as the Glossary goes then, is there any guidance on when it should be used?
JR: Personally, I would say as often as possible. It is an incredibly overlooked portion of this document. It is amazing how much confusion can result just from misunderstanding a word that was used. Using the example of “grace period”; it’s not that I don’t understand what grace period means, it’s that I want to know what grace period means specific to CQI-9. How is it intended to be utilized? My definition might be different. I want to make sure that I’m lining myself with the definition of the word as it’s defined.
There is a statement at the beginning of the Glossary that says, “In the context of this document, the following definitions shall apply.” So, it’s within the context of this document. I may have a different context of that word, but it doesn’t matter what my definition is, it only matters as to how it’s defined within this book, the context of this document.
DG: That’s a good encouragement to have people refer to that Glossary. Even if you think you know what the word means, it’s probably not a bad idea to make sure that you understand how it’s being used in this document and don’t impose your own definition.
JH: There is one other thing I would offer, as well. I totally agree with what Justin is saying, and I think this speaks volumes or reinforces the things that we’ve talked about already on how one portion of the document supports the other portion of the document and supports the other side. This document, through and through, supports itself.
[blockquote author=”James Hawthorne, Acument Global Technologies” style=”1″]This document, through and through, supports itself.[/blockquote]
DG: Let’s jump to instructions. Probably the most important part of any spec or document is the instructions. Let’s talk about those for a moment, including maybe references, illustrations, figures, and things of that sort. Major changes? What should we know about instructions, references, illustrations and figures?
JR: There are support elements within the document that we’ve spoken about with the glossary of terms and what not, but there are also instances where instructions are called up… Step-by-step instructions on how to do something so that you can feel confident that you’re doing it correctly. For doing the HTSA (heat treat system assessment), there are instructions for completing that with the process for going about doing the assessment there, or even as simple as completing the cover sheet for the document or the job audit. There are instructions provided throughout to try to encourage and support someone’s effort in adhering to the requirements in the document.
DG: Let’s talk about references, illustrations and figures.
JR: Within the pyrometry section, specifically, there are a lot of instances of illustrations. For the system accuracy testing illustrations, the intent is instructional. It is to allow someone a means of seeing it visually both how it’s to be performed and how to correctly perform it.
Whether it’s a probe method A system accuracy test versus a probe method B system accuracy test, the illustrations included now are a bit more clearly refined. The focus was on eliminating anything that was unnecessary from that illustration to allow the user to more easily focus on those elements that are critical. The user will find a lot of improved illustrations throughout the pyrometry section.
You might have no issues performing a system accuracy test and you might have been performing them for some period of time. However, it’s still a pretty good idea to make sure that you’re doing it in the manner that CQI-9 requires in order to see if there is anything in there for added guidance and to make sure that you’re not overlooking something. That just includes simple math to perform one of those tests. Those are also illustrated to show progression of how to go about doing that test properly.
DG: Are there other resources within this spec that are available to help the user?
JR: If there is still confusion, it’s not hopeless. There are other means by which people can reach out to try to get clarification on different interpretations of requirements. James and I just recently participated in a roll-out where we had a Q&A for people to bring their questions regarding confusion around certain requirements. We provided answers from a clarity standpoint. That support doesn’t go away, nor is it just available at special events like the roll-out. At any time, people can, and often do, email into the AIAG with their questions, looking for guidance on certain matters.
If it’s as simple as- “I don’t understand question 214,” write in and ask the question and see if you can get some additional guidance. If it’s “I don’t understand pyrometry,” that’s a bit of a broader question and you’re probably not going to like the answer you get back (~chuckle~) and you’re probably not going to get what you’re looking for in the answer you get back, but there are many other sources for support outside of the document.
Justin and James recommend reading the whole document and participating in question submission forms to gain a greater understanding and voice in the CQI-9 requirements.
If the document doesn’t have enough, look outside the document. The AIAG is one of those sources. Your customer is another one. If you work with outside service providers (I’m speaking from my world of things – pyrometry), lean on them for guidance and things you don’t understand. I have my nose in these documents constantly, so my understanding of it is pretty alright. I can afford some additional guidance or interpretation.
I guess the advice I would have is don’t jump at something blindly and say “it’s going to be enough.” You’re going to want to have something behind you to give you a little bit more substance than that and to have some confidence in what you’re doing. Otherwise, it will have the tendency to snowball on you.
DG: Because these documents are “living documents”, they are continually evolving. Let’s say someone has a suggestion for a change that they would like to see made in a future Rev 5, what should they do?
JH: At the back of the book, we have what’s called a maintenance request form. The maintenance request form is a very short and sweet form that allows document users to submit for committee review what changes they believe should be made. This would give them the forum to always have their voice heard and how they feel, or believe, something should be managed.
To go back to what we were talking about, the CQI-9 technical committee still meets quarterly. As Justin alluded to, we had questions from the roll-out, but a good portion of our first post completion meeting was answering questions for the heat treater at large to help give that clarification. And, when we come across a question where we don’t really know what the person is asking or looking for, we give those questions back to our AIAG representative. They may reach out to that submitter to gain clarity on what was being asked so that we can give the best answer possible, not just potentially dilute it by giving an answer just of the sake of answering the question.
There is a lot of opportunity there and as these maintenance request forms come in, they will be handled. They’ll be handled with the committee and the group will work on it and develop the best answer. That answer may be, let’s look at making a change, whether that’s through some form of errata or by “putting it on the shelf” until – hopefully a long time from now – we look at a 5th edition. This gives us the ability to capture these things and make sure that it stays on out radar. We want to make sure that they’re taken care of with the urgency that’s needed.
JR: I think an item of note here, to make it clear, is any of those maintenance request forms that are sent in, all of them are reviewed by the technical committee. They are all reviewed. Anything submitted will make its way in front of that committee to be reviewed to on their agenda.
DG: What should these forms be? Is it just for document changes or for other things as well, for suggestions and whatnot?
JR: It’s for document changes as well as a suggestion box form.
DG: We’ve covered a lot in this third episode. We’re going to have a fourth episode that is going to deal with some practical tips from you guys on the actual execution of these things, but is there anything else that you would want to tell the listeners regarding the spec itself? Any other concluding comments?
JR: From a process table standpoint, this was something that was reiterated throughout the entire roll-out presentation: it really does take reading the entire document to capture all of the changes.
Some of them are quite minor and some of them stand out as being significant, but for the most part, they are minor, and sometimes minor ones can be very easy to overlook. There used to be requirements for calibrating your hardness testers on an annual basis. Those requirements have now been expanded to all lab and test equipment that require an annual calibration.
Another element that was included in the 4th edition was we made an effort to increase the clarity and guidance for the use of exceptions that are applicable to section 4 requirements of the process tables. For example, these would be used if you’re employing a surrogate test piece in lieu of sectioning some large or expensive product. If anyone is interested, the clarity is included on page 9.
But make note, these are not blanket requirements; these exceptions require customer approval and ultimately OEM approval, so they must be documented and approved by a customer and increased in your PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) control plan. There is a fair amount of added clarity on that topic, so it’s something people might want to take a look at and dive into just to make sure that they’re familiar with it.
DG: James, any concluding comments from your side?
JH: I think I’d just reinforce a little bit of what Justin was mentioning earlier. Read the document. Read as much of it as you can and try to understand as much as you possibly can. We made a lot of changes. Some of them are very minor, but some of those minor things could potentially be overlooked if you don’t step back and take a moment to understand the document and how each system, or each portion of the document, works with each other.
DG: The next episode is going to have some practical tips. We’re going to pick the brains of these two gentlemen on navigating Revision 4. You won’t want to miss it. There are going to be opportunities here to basically figure out some of the details.
If you have questions, feel free to send them in. You can email htt@heattreattoday.com if you have any questions and we may get those answered.
Doug Glenn,Heat Treat Today publisher and Heat Treat Radio host.
Welcome toHeat Treat Today’sThis Week in Heat TreatSocial Media. As you know, there is so much content available on the web that it’s next to impossible to sift through all of the articles and posts that flood our inboxes and notifications on a daily basis. So, Heat Treat Todayis here to bring you the latest in compelling, inspiring, and entertaining heat treat news from the different social media venues that you’ve just got to see and read!
This week, we are looking at mechanical feats of engineering from precision engineered Ferrari parts, to continuous belt furnace epic videos, to dancing robots. What? Yes. Dancing robots. Continue reading for these stories and more in the world of heat treat on social media.
Check out the smooth process behind engineering Ferrari parts. “Highlighting the entire process to craft aftermarket parts, from CAD design, CNC machining, finishing and quality control, the new video also looks at GTO Engineering’s engine building suite as well as restoration of old parts. It also incorporates a range of Ferraris GTO Engineering has been working on and using components supplied by GTO Parts.” Read more about it here.
2. Heat Treat Ready
A few quick tours around your heat treat shops: what have heat treaters accomplished this past year? Have you done anything similar? Let us know and tag @HeatTreatToday on your next post!
Do you know anyone who has used these heat treating journals? “Journal of Heat Treating is a scholarly journal published in United States focused on Mathematical & Physical Sciences. This collection contains microfilm published between 1979 and 1991. The ISSN is 0190-9177.”
4. Reading and Podcast
Having a lazy Friday? Not to worry. Listen to or read a few interesting insights from around the industry.
ArcelorMittal and the Wheels of Steel
“Ford has been teasing fans with hardcore versions of the Bronco and has been revealing some interesting design characteristics, and now it has announced that industry giant ArcelorMittal has been selected as the sole provider of steel for the 2021 Bronco. Ford will be making use of the company’s Fortiform 980 GI steel, a third-generation advanced high-strength steel, making the Bronco the first car in the world to use this specific grade.” Read more here.
Not everyone can dance, but perhaps there are programs that can help you show off at few parties… At least, your pet robot. “The fun video offers the first glimpse at two Atlas robots working together while also highlighting just how quickly this technology is developing.” A mix of funny and creepy, we’re just going to leave it right here. (“Entire Boston Dynamics robot line-up dances in the new year“)
Heat TreatRadio host, Doug Glenn, conducts Part 2 of this 4-part series withJames Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies and Justin Rydzewski of Controls Service, Inc. about Revision 4 of CQI-9. This time, the conversation focuses around heat treat system assessments and job audits.
You are about to listen to the 2nd episode in a 4-part series on CQI-9 Rev. 4. You can find the previous episodes at www.heattreattoday.com/radio.
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): Welcome to Heat Treat Radio. I am here today with Justin Rydzewski from Controls Service, and a new guest we’re going to introduce to you in just a moment, Mr. James Hawthorne from Acument Global Technologies. We are going to be talking about CQI-9. This is our second in a four podcast series on the new Revision 4 of CQI-9. We want to welcome our guests today. As I mentioned, Justin is from Controls Service, in Livonia, where he is the director of sales and marketing. Justin was actively involved on the committee that wrote Rev 4.
Justin Rydzewski (JR): That’s correct. I was an active participant in coauthoring the fourth edition. My most significant contributions were to the pyrometry section.
DG: Correct. And pyrometry was what we talked about last time. So, welcome back. We are also welcoming James Hawthorne. I want you to tell folks about yourself, but as I mentioned, you’re with Acument Global Technologies, a Fontana Groupo company, which I believe is an Italian based company, that is located in Michigan, with its headquarters located in Sterling Heights. My understanding is you are the heat treat specialist at that company. If you don’t mind, please tell us a little bit about the company and yourself as well as your involvement on the CQI-9 committee.
James Hawthorne (JH): I work for Acument Global Technologies. I am the heat treat specialist for our North American facilities. I handle the heat treat systems, the system’s compliance, and quality assurance for the heat treats within our organization. Acument has been around many, many years. We make fasteners – nuts, bolts, rivets, washers – for the auto industry. We make it for off-highway equipment, things like tractors and bulldozers and whatnot, and we also do building and construction fasteners, as well as things that are holding bridges together, and roller coasters — you name it, we probably have a fastener in it.
[blockquote author=”James Hawthorne, Acument Global Technologies” style=”1″]We’ve been working on this document for quite some time. Through a lot of expertise and many, many, many work hours, I believe we’ve put together a really good product for the industry.[/blockquote]
DG: We appreciate that! We were talking before we hit the record button how the world would be a worse place if fasteners weren’t holding stuff together. I do want to mention, before you go on, that according to the Acument website, the company is described as the world’s most innovative manufacturer of value-added screws, bolts, nuts and cold formed components.
Please continue. Tell us about you and your role on CQI-9.
JH: I’ve been in the heat treating industry for over 25 years. My formal education includes metallography and statistical process control. I’ve held positions in heat treat including maintenance, working in the laboratory, working in supervision, and now I work in the corporate capacity, which is what led me into AIAG. We are a member company, and I was brought in to add as much value and knowledge as I could, based on my experiences. Currently, I am the chairman of the technical committee. We’ve been working on this document for quite some time. Through a lot of expertise and many, many, many work hours, I believe we’ve put together a really good product for the industry.
DG: Basically, you’re the technical director of the committee?
James Hawthorne Corporate Heat Treat Specialist, Acument Global Technologies
JH: The committee chairman. The important part is to try to keep everybody on task; you’re more of a task manager at that point. You get a lot of smart people in a room, and trying to corral that intelligence is not difficult; it’s just making sure that we stay in the right lane, get to the bottom of what we’re trying to get to, and complete the specific task in the moment.
DG: I asked Justin this the last time, and I’d like to ask you, too, just to get your perspective. How would you explain CQI-9 to someone who has essentially zero understanding of what it is?
JH: First I’d start with the acronym itself. CQI-9 is Continuous Quality Improvement. The purpose behind it is to put together a system that will help you manage and control your process, and at the end of it, the product that you’re delivering to the end user. The intent is to give you those guidelines to help avoid potential spills or escapes or whatever else may come with that.
DG: Right, any of the hurdles in the process itself. It’s mostly heat treat related, yes? Or is there more than just heat treat there?
JH: It is the entire system of heat treat. If you look at the heat treat system assessment, the first portion of it is quality based. The second portion (section 2) is the floor responsibilities, things that are on task that are being completed. And third, you get into the maintenance and the pyrometry portion of it, very specific to the pyrometry and very specific to atmosphere control. At the end of it, there are some very specific induction questions, because when it comes to induction, there is no real furnace at that point, so you want to focus on those key elements of induction.
DG: Justin, the last time we talked about this, we tried to break this down to keep it simple – the CQI-9 and the four basic sections. Very briefly, let’s review those and then we’re going to jump into talking about heat treat system assessments and job audits. Can you give us the four categories?
JR: CQI-9 is broken down into a few sections and one of the reasons for that, per our conversation last time, it is not exactly like an AMS2750, which is a pyrometry standard. Instead, this is a system assessment. It is meant to assess an entire system of heat treat. It includes a multitude of sections that address the system as a whole. It starts with your heat treat system assessment, which often utilizes an acronym of HTSA, then you have a pyrometry section, then a job audit, and then your process tables and various different support elements, like a glossary of terms, instructions sheets, and whatnot. But the four are the HTSA, pyrometry, job audit and process tables.
Read/listen to the first episode. Click the image above.
DG: As we mentioned last time, Justin, you and I talked down through the pyrometry section which covered things like sensors, thermocouples, calibration, SATs and TUSs. If you, our audience, are interested in that information, you’d want to go back to the first episode.
James, we’d like to pick your brain a bit on this. Let’s jump into some questions on the HTSAs, as we’ll refer to them, heat treat system assessments, and job audits. Let me ask you this to start off. Let’s go right to the basics: What is an HTSA and what is its purpose?
JH: HTSA, heat treat system assessment, is a tool that has been developed to help you evaluate how you manage your heat treat system for effectiveness – effectiveness in quality management, effectiveness in the floor responsibilities. Like I mentioned earlier, understanding that through aspects of training and training effectiveness and into the final section of atmospheric control and atmosphere management and reaction to those. The purpose here is to have one system, one document that is the rules of engagement for doing heat treat in the automotive world. What this does is, it allows the automotive industry to give you one spec, one thing to follow. As opposed to having, say Ford, to give you ten questions where none of them are exactly the same as FCA or nine of them are the same as Ford motor company, where one of them have a specific question. This encompasses all of those wants and needs from the auto industry to protect themselves, to protect the end user out there in the field that may be using that heat treated component.
DG: How frequently does a heat treater need to conduct an HTSA?
JH: The rules of engagement are annually. On an annual basis you should be evaluating your system for compliance. The beautiful thing about the HTSA is that it is a living document. If you find any shortcomings in there, you have the ability to go back and update that and make it match what your reality is after you find the solution to the problem that may have come up while doing your assessment.
DG: For clarification, these HTSAs, are they conducted by the company, or do they need to have a third party come in and conduct the HTSA annually?
JH: That’s a great question. There are no rules to having an independent body come in to do this assessment. If you have the people that meet the criteria within your organization to do the HTSA, the system assessment along with the process table review and the job audit, you can do it within your own organization. You just have to meet the criteria that is listed in the book, and these kinds of things are having experience in heat treat, which is the number one thing you must have to be the lead auditor of a heat treat, the understanding of quality core tools and having that audit experience. Those are the things that you have to do to be able to successfully do an audit and it meet the intent of CQI9.
JR: I believe the intended purpose of the HTSA was initially for it to be supported internally by the organization. That was the intent of it. We commonly refer to the HTSA as a self assessment.
DG: That makes sense. I assume that when the auditor comes in, he may audit how you did your HTSA, to make sure that it was done well, and all that good stuff.
So the outcome of HTSA is going to be pass, fail, miserably fail; what are the possible outcomes? I know we’ve talked about “Not Satisfactory” and “Needs Immediate Action.” I want to deal with those differences, but what are the outcomes?
JH: “Not Satisfactory” is where you don’t meet the intent of the shall within the related HTSA question. Now, that could be a simple oversight where it’s very easily correctable- you put the proper things in place and you move on. If you have something that could jeopardize final product quality, now you’re looking at something that may be a “Needs Immediate Action” and that “Needs Immediate Action” will be evaluated by the assessor and the heat treat organization as to what needs to be done. CQI-9 does afford the heat treater with 90 days to correct any finding. If it’s a “Needs Immediate Action,” there should be action to correct that finding immediately up to 90 days. It’s also important to note that if it’s something that is going to jeopardize product quality, then there is a chance that it “Needs Immediate Action” will be extreme enough to where you have to stop processing – stop processing, fix the problem and then begin processing again. But that goes to the evaluator. You have to be able to evaluate that; and that’s one of the many reasons why we look at the assessor, or at least the lead assessor, being a heat treater, because he’s going to understand it, he’s going to know it. For a commercial house, it’s very easy to have those people available. In a captive house, maybe not so much, where you’ve got a lot of other things going on plus heat treat.
JR: I don’t know if you recall or not, James, from the roll-out we had a question that came through, and I don’t know if we were actually able to address it, but they posed a question of why the heat treater was given a greater amount of focus than was in the previous edition. Somehow, that was an element that required explaining because there was a question of a possibility for there to be issue with doing so.
JH: If we go back to the conversations that we had about this, I think this was one of the topics we talked at length about, and the rationale behind the lead assessor. Is it more important for that person to be a good auditor, or is it more important for that person to be a heat treater? We’re not diminishing the need to have audit experience, at all. The only difference is that we’re saying that the person that is going to be the lead auditor be a heat treater, because that heat treat experience is going to be much greater than somebody who has audit experience. Where if an auditor goes out and he looks at every day is cold forming, for example, and how they make the fastener itself, well, when he gets to the heat treat portion of it, is he going to know what atmosphere control is? Is he going to know what endothermic gas is? This is the rationale behind this change – that these people are going to understand the language, and that’s the importance.
JR: The key element is that it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to have the audit experience on that team. That person is still needed, it’s just the focus shifts a bit. It doesn’t mean that it is now absent.
DG: Let’s move on to job audit, James. It’s different than an HTSA, but what is a job audit and what is the purpose?
JH: The job audit is the supplemental portion of the assessment process. The job audit is where you would take apart and walk it through the system and then verify all of the evidence that you’ve put into the HTSA. You walk the process; you go look at each point specific item based on the job audit flow, and you check: Did the operator check the right amount of pieces? Does that match what you said in the HTSA? Did they document their efforts on, let’s say, production report A and process report B, and is that what is represented in the HTSA?
The first part is the “truss,” then you’re verified. Now, you’re doing some verifying in the HTSA, don’t get me wrong, but this is actually walking that part through the system and ensuring that every box was checked, every “T” crossed and every “I” dotted.
DG: It sounds like the HTSA is more like the blueprint and the job audit is running a part through and making sure that we match up to the standard, so to speak.
JH: Yes, sir. And it’s verification of your reality.
DG: Is there a requirement as far as frequency of job audits? How often do you have to do those?
JH: This is also annual. You are required to do an automotive part. I know that some customers might like to see their part in the job audit, but we don’t require it per customer. If it’s an automotive part, I would say 95 – 99% in the industry, what you’re doing for one customer, you’re doing for every customer, in a 101 kind of standpoint. There may be some special tests here or there, but overall, your system and your system’s management is going to be the same for one customer that it is for all customers. If it’s right for one, you’ll do it for all. And that’s the intent. Do it with the one automotive customer, and then the next year, do a different part.
DG: Do you find, in your practical experience, that people are doing more than one job audit a year? It seems to me, it would make sense to do more than one, but I don’t know.
JH: I guess it depends on the organization. I know, for our organization, we do a job audit annually for each process employed. I’ll give you an example of this. We have a facility that has belt furnaces and it is neutral hardening. So, we’ll do a job audit for the neutral hardening. Then, we have induction in that facility, as well, so we’ll do one for induction. And then there is stress relief post induction, and we’ll do one for that as well. For us, in our organization, that’s how we manage it to accommodate the processes employed at our facility.
James Hawthorne and Justin Rydzewski speak about how the heat treat system assessment (HTSA) in CQI-9 has changed.
DG: Let’s talk about the CQI-9 Rev 4. What were the major changes to the HTSA requirements?
JH: Right off the top, the big change was the format. In the 3rd edition, you had one question that required one answer. There were many shall statements inside that one question, so you were trying to answer a multifaceted question in one area. Now, the HTSA is slightly different where you have one kind of overall question and then each shall statement is individually broken out and now you have to show effective evidence inside each one of those shall statements. Talking through this, maybe it sounds a little odd, but I will tell you that it has cleaned up this document tremendously, where it makes it so much easier to walk the system and expose either your compliance or noncompliance to a shall statement.
DG: I do have a question here. You’ve mentioned it several times, but I just want to make sure our listeners understand this. I assume you’re saying “shall” statements, as in “thou shalt do this and thou shalt do that,” correct?
JH: That is absolutely correct. From an auditor’s standpoint, there is a difference between shall and should. Should is suggested, shall you will do.
DG: Right. Shall is a requirement, should is a strong suggestion, let’s say.
Any other changes in Rev 4 as far as the HTSA?
JH: I would say that there are subtle changes to all of the HTSA questions. Some of them are maybe not as significant as others, where it’s cleaning up the language or removing some wording just to make the question read clearer. That clarity to the end user was one of the high priority items for our group when we were doing the writing of this document.
The big thing I would say for anybody using this document, whether or not they’re a seasoned veteran with 20 years of heat treating experience, anything short of reading this document and you’re not doing yourself any favors. It’s important to walk the document. It’s important to traverse the document, whether you do it in phases – grab the HTSA and read through it, and then maybe a week later go through another portion of it, especially if you’re getting to the point where your assessment is coming up to be due. It provides a lot of information and a lot of guidance, and it will help you avoid any potential pitfalls.
[blocktext align=”right”]”DG: So does that mean less time, hopefully?” “JH: 100% yes.”[/blocktext]JR: I would also agree in terms of the changes. The most significant one is the formatting, far and away. I think even in the CQI-9 expert analysis article that we did with you guys, Bob Ferry even noted that as the most notable change in his mind was the improved formatting there and how much easier it is now to capture all of those requirements, whereas before you’d have some long drawn out paragraph. Before, you used to look at it and say that’s a requirement, but when you’d read it closer, you’d find five or six shall statements and multiple paragraphs and were given one box to provide an answer to. That makes things complicated. And there are several new requirements within the HTSA questions, but far and away, the changes are really to make it more clear, provide that additional guidance, and define more explicitly what the expectations are of those individual requirements. To capture all of those, it’s going to take a read-through. Some of them are minor, some of them are different, but there are new requirements. There have been a few questions that were added that weren’t in previous ones; they have been expanded on, I should say.
DG: It is a significant rewrite. If you’ve done Rev 3, don’t assume you can fudge it. Basically, start from scratch and go from there. I think that’s the point taken.
So we’ve covered some of the major changes in HTSA. How about in the job audit? What are the major changes on the job audit side, James?
JH: I would say that as far as major changes, there are not very significant changes. I think that there were some subtle changes and some removal of questions that in the 3rd edition didn’t quite fit the intent of the job audit. For example, it would ask you to go look at something like APQP process. What did that look like? In the HTSA, you’ve already covered that, and APQP information you may not find out on the floor. You’re going to have bin tickets, bin tags, part travelers, production records and things of that nature, so the APQP process you won’t find out on a floor. So, some of those things were dialed back to where that information wasn’t required to be looked at a second or third time.
DG: Is it your estimation that a job audit under the 4th edition is going to take more time or less time than under the 3rd? Does the documentation help us to do it more quickly?
JH: I think evaluating the system and utilizing the job audit is going to be significantly easier; it’s more streamlined and it’s set up to allow you to traverse the process better than it was before. In other words, more effectively and more efficiently.
DG: So does that mean less time, hopefully?
JH: 100% yes.
DG: I think that’s important. I think that will help those who maybe have some hesitation about looking at Rev 4 because there is the possibility of saving some time.
JH: I’ve had the luxury of performing six within our facilities, under Rev 4, and I will tell you that the job audit portion is certainly quicker and more efficient. The HTSA takes a little bit longer because it’s new and the format is new, so aligning everything with what your reality is takes a little bit of time. It certainly forces you not to assume, which I found to be a really amazing part of this process. Our company’s systems are very, very common and all of our heat treat processes have the same work instructions. That’s part of what my job is, is for that commonality across our plants.
Even though I am very intimate with all of our plants and very intimate with all of our processes, going through this process allowed me the opportunity to do it – and I feel do it very effectively – because at no point did I ever stop and assume that somebody was doing something. It was like, Alright, I’m going to put in what your reality is, I’m going to write down what we’re doing. And that was a great part of this process, for me.
DG: I have a final question for you on this. You know that you’re going to have some people that are going to be doing Rev 4, they’re going to be starting it and doing their initial assessment, if you will. James, you’ve already done six at least in your plant. What kind of guides would you give people to not overlook when they perform that initial assessment?
JH: First and foremost, read the question and make sure that your answer makes sense to you as a heat treater. I would say, even more importantly, if you come across any word in this document that you’re 70% sure you know the meaning of, go to the glossary and use it. It is a very intuitive tool in this document and those definitions are written as it pertains to this document. If you need that guidance, if you need that nudge over a small hurdle that you’re dealing with based on what does this mean or how do I interpret this, go to the glossary first. It is a GREAT tool.
JR: I think that due to the fact that the 3rd edition had such a prolonged life on the street of 9 years, that’s going to allow someone to get rather efficient at doing that process of going through that HTSA. You have a well-developed and worked-through system at that point, and when something comes along like the rewrite/4th edition and the HTSA, that is going to be very different; where the first few assessments that you perform to the 3rd edition may have taken X amount of time, I would compare that more so to how much time it’s going to take you for the 4th edition. As heat treaters became efficient doing their HTSAs and that time pared down, all of a sudden now they’re given this 4th edition, and it could seem like it’s a lot by comparison. But it’s just something new. You will get through it and you’ll start to gain speed overtime. And I think that the clarity and the ease of capturing these requirements within the 4th edition are going to outweigh the aspects of other things and it’s going to allow you a real good chance to turn over all those stones that perhaps have been assumptive, of sorts, over time.
DG: The point being – don’t be discouraged if the first several assessments under Rev 4 take you a good bit of time. It’s probably the same as when you were doing Rev 3: they took a lot of time but you get better and better and more efficient and ultimately, with the format you guys are providing in this Rev 4, it sounds like it’s going to be a much more beneficial outcome in the end.
JH: Absolutely. And to give you a time frame, 2–2 ½ days is what it was taking us to do an assessment at one of our facilities. Now, it’s about 3 ½ days. It’s not significantly longer, but to supplement the point that Justin was making, take your time. Read through it and take your time. It is important to make sure that we cross T’s and dot I’s, especially in our industry. It is no place to shortcut.
JR: It’s an interesting point that you made early on. As you go through the development process here, you don’t want to forget about trialing what it is you’re suggesting that we do, like to put it through the worst to make sure that it’s doing what we intended it to do. I thought it was a very interesting point that James had made in conversations with me through the development process about one element of the new formatting. That from a scoring aspect, your scoring is going to be a little different than it was in the 3rd where you had one box for an answer to five shall statements, you now have five boxes with five opportunities for scoring that differently. One question, in the previous edition, had one answer for satisfactory, not satisfactory, yada; in the new revision, you’re going to have five responses that are given. So, it’s going to change the way you would ‘score’ it. Is that how you would term it, James?
JH: Evaluate it, score it, yes. It’s important to understand that any heat treater doing this assessment for themselves should never get hung up on the number of findings, because the content could be so much worse. If I have findings at one of our facilities where they have ten findings because they had blank spaces on a log that weren’t accounted for, and I had one plant that had one finding, but they were running 10% extra water in their quench oil, I would say that that’s significantly damaging compared to not putting “not in use” in a box where they didn’t use a piece of equipment.
DG: One “Needs Immediate Action” is probably more important than a half dozen to dozen “Not Satisfactories,” so to speak.
JR: It’s a similar mentality that I conveyed to my customers when performing temperature uniformity surveys. I’m not performing a temperature uniformity survey to find passing results, I’m running the survey to find failing results. If the data ends up showing that it passes, that’s an easy one to handle; you’re good to go. But I’m running that so I can capture those things we can work on and fix and correct; that’s the purpose. To a certain extent, that’s the intent here too. I’m running this to find shortcomings, to find weaknesses, so that I can improve it, so that I can have a more effective system overall. If I’m going through this with the intent of just trying to pass everything or have “Satisfactories” for everything, sure that’s an easy thing to have if you find it that way, but I’m trying to find those things that I can improve or areas which need attention. That’s the intent of this thing.
DG: Gentlemen, that sounds great. Today we’ve covered heat treat system assessments and job audits, so that will probably put a wrap on this second one. Next time (episode #3), we’re going to delve into some process tables, the process tables that are in Rev 4 and some other supplemental support information, if you will, to help with the assessment process. In our final episode (#4), we’re going to pick the brains of these two guys and ask them about what are the practical helps as we’re moving through this assessment and job audit process.
Doug Glenn, Heat Treat Today publisher and Heat Treat Radio host.
To find other Heat Treat Radio episodes, go to www.heattreattoday.com/radio and look in the list of Heat Treat Radio episodes listed.
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.
Despite the precariousness that has defined the majority of 2020 thus far, the aerospace and automotive industries have not let that uncertainty deter them from releasing two major revisions that directly affect the heat-treating industry. Both, the 4th Edition of CQI-9 and AMS2750F were released at the end of June (AMS2750F: Expert Analysis).
In this Technical Tuesday feature, Heat Treat Today reached out to the AIAG CQI-9 Heat Treat Technical Committee with questions about the newest edition and how it might affect the automotive heat treat industry. Specifically, we were interested in the significant changes within the 4th Edition and how organizations can best prepare to implement them.
Several CQI-9 Technical Committee members responded and provided us with some outstanding expert analysis in this Original Content article. Those CQI-9 committee members included: Rick Metcalf, Materials Engineering – Valvetrain PMT, General Motors Company; Medina Kaknjo, STA Global Core Technical Expert/Global Purchasing, Ford Motor Company;Ed Rahe, Heat Treatment Engineer – Metals Group, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles; Jake Sloan, Product Development Manager, AmeriTi Manufacturing [formerly of FCA]; James Hawthorne, current CQI-9 chairperson, Corporate Heat Treat Specialist, Acument Global Technologies; Bob Ferry, Vice President – Engineering & Quality, FPM Heat Treating, John Vander Woude, Metallurgist – Automotive Division, Benteler Automotive Group; and Justin Rydzewski, Director of Sales & Market Development, Controls Service, Inc.
CQI-9 4th Edition vs. CQI-9 3rd edition (photo source: Control Services Inc.)
The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), the organization responsible for the development of CQI-9, cites the Special Process: Heat Treat System Assessment 4th Edition (CQI-9) as a comprehensive assessment, “… covering the most common heat treat processes employed by the automotive industry, intended to provide a common approach to a heat treat management system for automotive production and service part organizations.” Authoring the 4th Edition of CQI-9 was a collaborative effort, supported by a diverse group of individuals from AIAG member companies representing Tier 1 suppliers, heat treaters (both captive and commercial), and critical service providers within the heat treat industry. However, the force driving CQI-9 forward are the OEM’s – Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA).
It’s been nine years since the 3rd edition was released. Justin Rydzewski explains the timing, “The 3rd Edition was a really good document. It was effective and it served its purpose very well. The prolonged life of the 3rdEdition allowed us to collect a tremendous amount of data and feedback about the document– strengths, weaknesses, etc. This data allowed us to identify, with greater accuracy, where updates and changes were truly needed. Lastly, because CQI-9 is an international document, we spent a great amount of effort ensuring the clarity we were adding to the 4th Edition was not going to be lost when translated to other languages. As a result of this development process, we feel confident that the 4th Edition will be an even more effective heat treat system assessment tool than its predecessor.”
What do you believe to be the most notable change in the 4th Edition of CQI-9?
Justin Rydzewski and his colleagues agree on the importance of the digital changes, “Requiring all instrumentation to be digital by June 2023 (3 years after release of the document) is a very notable change. For operations heavily invested in analog instruments and paper chart recorders, this change could potentially result in a significant interruption to operations; especially in the absence of proper planning. However, we are hopeful the change will be a welcomed one as the advantages associated with digital instrumentation are far too great and numerous to ignore any longer.”
Rick Metcalf Materials Engineering – Valvetrain PMT General Motors Company
Rick Metcalf concurs, “I agree with Justin’s comments on digitizing the process controls. This allows for better off-shift monitoring of the process and provides the OEM with a greater confidence in the supplier’s ability to control the process. This is one of the most notable improvements to the 4th edition.”
Medina Kaknjo, Ed Rahe, and Jake Sloan also cited digitization as an important notable change.
The Heat Treat System Assessment (HTSA) question formatting update is another feature that is encouraging to both Kaknjo and Sloan. Kaknjo shares, “The first notable change users will notice is the new format of the document which now requires the assessor to assess every single requirement and rate it.”
Sloan further explains, “I fall in line with Medina [Kaknjo]. The formatting update is great, especially coming from the OEM side that needs to rely heavily on self-surveys. I believe it makes communication between the heat treater and Customer much easier. Not only does it require each requirement to be evaluated by the assessor, but I think it gives them a much better opportunity to give a full response. Hopefully, this will cut-out a lot of the back-and-forth that can happen when the person reviewing the survey was not onsite for the assessment.”
Medina Kaknjo STA Global Core Technical Expert/Global Purchasing Ford Motor Company
Bob Ferry also cited the reformatting of the HTSA questions as a notable change adding, “This effort allowed us to review each question and break down the long question paragraphs of the 3rd Edition. Now, in the 4th Edition, the requirements for each question are listed separately. With this new approach, the Auditee will not miss important requirements which, in the previous edition, may have been buried in a lengthy paragraph.
The alternative temperature uniformity survey (TUS) testing method revisions were tops for James Hawthorne. “The expansion of the Alternative TUS Testing Methods (P3.4.8) is one of the most notable improvements. The requirements now account for proper procedures and reporting for both property surveys and site developed testing methods. These improvements will allow the heat treater to develop a structured, repeatable, and documented solution based on the requirements of this section.”
John Vander Woude sees the addition of Process Table I – Hot Stamping as one of the most notable changes to CQI-9. “I was involved in creating Process Table I a few years ago, but it was released between revisions and seemed like the stepchild Process Table. So, personally, it is nice to see it incorporated in the 4th Edition.”
What change/update in the 4th Edition of CQI-9 do you think will be appreciated most?
James Hawthorne Corporate Heat Treat Specialist, Acument Global Technologies
Metcalf highlights the allowances for exceptions in the Process Tables: “I believe that the most appreciated change to the 4th Edition of CQI-9 is the increased allowance for exceptions to the requirements of Section 4 of the Process Tables. This will allow suppliers of large components to reduce the number of components required to be sectioned daily. However, this does require Customer approval and, ultimately, the OEM. These exceptions offer the heat treater the ability to reduce some of their inspections, provided the supplier can show the process is statistically capable.”
Qualities of clarity, fluidity, and guidance were mentioned multiple times as “most appreciated.”
Hawthorne shares, “I personally appreciate how fluid the document is now. The effort that was put into ensuring the flow of the document works across the different sections is a great benefit to the heat treat community. As heat treaters read and implement the applicable changes to their organizations, these changes will be appreciated by them as well.”
“The 3rd Edition of the document was already very good. But, I think the most appreciated change will be the even greater amount of guidance and the improved clarity of requirements within the document,” says Rahe.
Ed Rahe Heat Treatment Engineer – Metals Group Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Vander Woude writes, “I think the most appreciated change will be the guidance portion of the element questions. This provides clarity, definition, and better understand to some questions that could be quite useful to many users.
Ferry’s appreciation lies in the pyrometry section, “The improved clarity of the requirements along with explanations, definitions of terms, and examples in the Pyrometry section.”
Kaknjo states, “I think the most appreciated change will be that document is now more user friendly as it is easier to use and follow due to the formatting changes that are done on this revision.
Rydzewski not only commends the formatting improvements for clarity and guidance, but also gives kudos to the reference illustrations. “I think the improvements to the formatting of the Heat Treat System Assessment Section 1-3 questions will be greatly appreciated. Question ‘Requirements’ and ‘Guidance’ are now cited separately.” He continues, noting that this change make it “much easier to effectively capture each requirement and to determine the expectations of each question specifically in terms of objective evidence. . . . [also] nearly every reference illustration in the document was updated/improved. Personally, I think they all look fantastic.”
What is something in the 4th Edition of CQI-9 that an organization should make sure they don’t overlook or misinterpret?
Rahe and Ferry both mentioned the importance of the Process Tables. Rahe states, “An organization should not overlook the specific requirements of the various Process Tables. They are an excellent “cookbook” type guide designed to produce best in class heat treated parts for OEM’s.”
Bob Ferry Vice President Engineering & Quality – FPM Heat Treating
“There was more attention put on the quenching section of the Process Tables with added requirements for quench media process controls including quench delay times, liquid quench controls, and gas quench controls. The intent is not only to control furnace temperatures but to also control cooling rates for consistency of quench and heat-treated product,” says Ferry.
Kaknjo advises, “An organization should not overlook that AIAG CQI-9 HTSA requirements are subordinate to Customer-specific requirements. This is not new for revision 4, but something that often gets overlooked.”
Jake Sloan Product Development Manager AmeriTi Manufacturing
Sloan cautions not to overlook the pyrometry section. “I would say do not overlook the new pyrometry section. The requirements have not only been improved, but it is also a great reference for when it comes to how to comply. Also, as Medina was saying, this document is subordinate to Customer requirements, which works both ways. This document allows exceptions to be given but, remember, there must be approval from up the supply chain.”
Socrates said, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Rydzewski shares this mindset as he highlights utilizing the glossary. “The ‘Glossary of Terms’ in CQI-9 is an outstanding resource that should NOT be overlooked or undervalued. In my opinion, the real key to mastering CQI-9 starts with ‘definition.’ When there is not a firm understanding of the terms being used, confusion and/or compliance issues are almost certain. So, for the 4th Edition, our team dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to enhancing the clarity and guidance provided by the ‘Glossary of Terms.’”
John Vander Woude, Metallurgist Automotive Division Benteler Automotive Group
Vander Woude concurs, saying, “Like previous edition, this edition not only focuses on heat treatment, but also on many areas that support heat treatment. Overlooking areas such as maintenance, training, document control, and testing (to name a few) may lead to difficulties ensuring compliance.”
“The examples in SAT section that are below the illustrations should not be overlooked. These examples provide guidance of what to measure and how to calculate. Use these examples and compare to your current reporting, it will help ensure compliance for your organization,” relays Hawthorne.
What advice would you offer an organization preparing to implement the 4th Edition of CQI-9?
What is the consensus of the experts when it comes to implementing this 4th edition? Read it. Digest it. Use it. It’s a powerful tool that has been a game changer to the automotive industry. Here are the experts’ final recommendations.
Ed Rahe: “My advice would be to read the document thoroughly and take advantage of the many, many years of heat treatment experience that are captured as best practices in this document. The knowledge base of those involved in the creation of this document is really quite impressive.”
Justin Rydzewski Director of Sales & Market Development Controls Service, Inc.
Justin Rydzewski: “Buy the document, read it carefully, and make notes. Big changes are going to standout, capturing those willbe easy. But, by and large, most changes made were minor or were merely intended to add clarity or guidance. Comparatively, these sorts of changes can be easily missed. And, invest in training where necessary. Now is a perfect time to do so. Invest in yourself and your team. If your organization outsources pyrometry services, lean on your service provider for guidance and expertise. Allow them to help. This is where the true value of a good partnership can be measured.”
[blocktext align=”left”]”The best advice I can give is to read the document. Several items were modified to make it easier to interpret and implement CQI-9.” – Rick Metcalf, Materials Engineering – Valvetrain PMT, General Motors Company [/blocktext]
Medina Kaknjo: “My advice would be to use the document as opportunity, as a tool of summary of best practices, lessons learned of many industry leaders to prevent heat treat process related issues that are often associated with significant cost.”
John Vander Woude: “Don’t underestimate the document. With the reformatting and “break out” of sub-requirements for many questions, I think organizations will find they are not compliant in areas they once thought they were compliant. The 4th Edition forces added scrutiny to questions that were often overlooked. Specifically, where many “shall” statements were once made within the same question in the 3rd Edition. In the 4th Edition, these “shall” statements are now separated and denoted individually. This approach makes it much easier to capture and provide appropriate objective evidence for each requirement.”
Rick Metcalf: The best advice I can give is to read the document. Several items were modified to make it easier to interpret and implement CQI-9. We also included more illustrations and a greater glossary in the 4thEdition to make it easier to interpret requirements and implement CQI-9.
Jake Sloan: “Like most people are saying, definitely read the document in its entirety so that your company has a full understanding of the requirements. Also, like Medina said, treat the document as a guide to improve on or maintain best practices. It is a great tool for doing internal reviews so that things don’t slip by the wayside between required assessments. Take advantage of the new format to give clear evidence of compliance instead of just treating it as a checkbox.”
Bob Ferry: “Read the Pyrometry section and make a list of the requirements that apply to your operation from thermocouples to instruments to periodic testing requirements. Set up your system for periodic testing and documented evidence, and then perform a complete CQI-9 HTSA Audit to identify and correct any shortcomings.”
James Hawthorne: “Use the Process Tables, Glossary, and the Job Audit as intended to ensure compliance while documenting your effective evidence in to the HTSA. Each section of this document is an invaluable tool that will help the heat treater remain compliant and effectively provide the objective evidence required.”
Twice a month, Heat Treat Today publishes an episode of Heat Treat Radio, a unique-to-the-industry podcast. Whether it’s AMS2750 or CQI-9, these episodes will boost your knowledge about all things heat treat. Listen to these four episodes to gain confidence in compliance. Enjoy this original content, and happy listening!
