A global materials engineering group explored alternative methods of applying a hard surfacing alloy at the ITSC conference in Japan.
Engineers from Wall Colmonoy Corp. discussed in a conference presentation how the properties of a hard surfacing alloy change when applied by different methods. Alloy Ni-15Cr-15W-3B-4Si-3.5Fe-0.6C is a hard surfacing alloy designed to extend the life of OEM parts that are subjected to various wear mechanisms in service. The alloy can also be used to repair/rebuild those worn parts and extend service life.
This hard-surfacing alloy can be applied by various methods, including thermal spray processes, laser cladding, PTA welding, GTAW, OFW, and GMAW. This study compared the properties of the alloy applied by different methods using various test procedures, and also included the cost/benefit ratio of each.
Test procedures included abrasion testing by ASTM G-65; erosion testing by ASTM G-76; Vickers hardness by ASTM E-92; and Rockwell hardness by ASTM E18. In addition, metallographic examples of the test specimens were prepared.
A steel producer based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, recently announced the expansion of their rolling mill, which will include a 3-MW induction furnace to heat the stock coming from the existing mill.
Steel Dynamics USA announced the expansion at their Columbia City, Indiana, location. Among other equipment being added are a 70-m conveyor connecting the existing medium section mill to the new spooler line, six housingless SHS 180 roller stands, complete with quick stand-changing table, a 6-pass Delta-type finishing block driven by a low-voltage- 2.5-MW motor and finishing services.
SDI and Danieli teams studied a temporary removable solution, steel support structure to support the existing furnace-exit roller table, allowing the execution of the Billet Welder concrete foundation with only minor impact to the MSM (Medium Section Mill) production schedule.
A western Pennsylvania heat treat provider recently completed construction of a new brazing and assembly room, built primarily to accommodate a large aluminum brazing project for a specific customer.
Bob Hill, president of Solar Atmospheres of Western PA
Solar Atmospheres of Western PA, based in Hermitage, Pennsylvania, stated that the room will also be used for other brazing and assembly work.
“During successful development and prototype runs, our customer, along with Solar management, understood that in order to bring this critical aluminum brazing project to full production a separate braze/assembly room would be needed,” said Bob Hill, president of Solar Atmospheres of Western PA. “We worked together with our customer to develop the best space that is in close proximity to the vacuum furnace being utilized.”
Main photo credit/caption: Solar Atmospheres / The inspection of critical braze joints being analyzed within Solar’s newly constructed Braze-Assembly room.
This article continues the ongoing discussion on Equipment Selection for Induction Hardening by Dr. Valery Rudnev, FASM, IFHTSE Fellow. Six previous installments in Dr. Rudnev’s series on equipment selection addressed selected aspects of scan hardening and continuous/progressive hardening systems. This post is the third in a discussion on equipment selection for one of four popular induction hardening techniques focusing on single-shot hardening systems.
Previous articles in the series on equipment selection for single-shot hardening are here (part 1) and here (part 2). To see the earlier articles in the Induction Hardening series at Heat TreatToday as well as other news about Dr. Rudnev, click here.
Single-Shot Inductors for Non-Cylinder Parts
Single-shot inductors can be successfully used for hardening not only components of classical cylinder geometries but other geometries as well. This includes workpieces of general conical shapes, such as elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic geometries—and the list can grow. As an example, Figure 1 shows induction surface-hardened ball joints (ball studs) and the single-shot inductors used to harden them. Ball studs are used in automotive, off-road, and agricultural machinery and can be different in shape and size (Compare images on the left in Figure 1 with images on the right.), requiring noticeably different hardness patterns.
Figure 1. Surface-hardened ball joints (ball studs) and single-shot inductors used for its hardening. (Courtesy of Inductoheat Inc., an Inductotherm Group company.)
In any attempt to scan harden workpieces with appreciable diameter changes, the scan coil must have a sufficient gap to clear the largest diameter. When scanning the section(s) of the workpiece with smaller diameters, an inductor-to-shaft air gap might be very large, resulting in low electrical efficiency and potentially exhibiting difficulties in load matching as well as in controlling the austenitizing pattern along the length of the part producing "cold" and "hot" spots. Additional difficulties may appear in controlling the hardness pattern in regions (e.g., near geometrical irregularities) where good control is most needed.
Thus, the substantially different workpiece-to-inductor electromagnetic coupling variations might not permit using classical multiturn solenoid coils or scan inductors. In contrast, single-shot inductors allow not only better electromagnetic coupling along the entire length of heat treated components (Figure 2) but also better address the geometrical irregularities of heat treated workpieces, producing the required hardness patterns at minimum process times with superior metallurgical quality.
Figure 2. Single-shot inductors allow better electromagnetic coupling along the length of heat treated components properly addressing the geometrical complexity of the workpiece. (Courtesy of Inductoheat Inc., an Inductotherm Group company.)
As stated in Part 1 of this series, in contrast to scan hardening, a single-shot inductor can be contoured along the length of the part properly addressing the geometrical complexity of the workpiece. Furthermore, the use of flux concentrators helps drive the current into the desired areas and allows producing a well-defined hardness profile with minimum distortion. The trade-off here is that more finesse is required in the design stage to produce the properly profiled single-shot inductor at the lowest possible cost.¹ Errors are costly since these inductors are each custom made for a given part or application and modifications can be quite costly. Thus, computer modeling is a helpful assistant as an attempt to keep the development cost down and shorten the "learning curve".
Proper hardening of such components as output shafts, flanged shafts, planet carriers, yoke shafts, sun shafts, intermediate shafts, driveshafts, turbine shafts, and some others may require extensive copper profiling, making a single-shot hardening inductor a complex electromagnetic device.
Certain geometrical features such as flanges, diameter changes, bearing shoulders, grooves, undercuts, splines, etc., may distort the magnetic field generated by an inductor, which, in turn, can cause temperature deviations, making it challenging to achieve certain hardness patterns.
For components containing fillets, it is often necessary to increase the heat intensity in the fillet region owing to the geometrical specifics. Also, the larger mass of metal in the proximity of the heated fillet and behind the region to be hardened produces a substantial thermal “cold sink” effect.¹ This draws heat from the fillet due to thermal conduction, which must be compensated for by generating additional heating energy in the fillet area.
Needed energy surplus can be achieved by narrowing the current-carrying face of the crossover segment of the single-shot inductor (Figure 3). Here is a simplified illustration of an impact of a copper profiling of the inductor’s heating face: if the current-carrying portion of the inductor heating face is reduced by 50 percent, there is a corresponding increase in current density. This will be accompanied by an increase of the eddy current density induced within the respective region. According to the Joule effect, doubling the induced eddy current density increases the induced power density roughly by a factor of four. Also, attaching a magnetic flux concentrator to certain areas of the hardening inductor further enhances the localized heat intensity.
Figure 3. Longitudinal leg sections of single-shot indicators and their crossover segments can be profiled by relieving selected regions of the copper to accommodate workpiece geometrical features. Attaching a magnetic flux concentrator to certain areas of the inductor further enhances localized heat intensity. (From V. Rudnev, A. Goodwin, S. Fillip, W. West, J. Schwab, S. St. Pierre, Keys to long-lasting hardening inductors: Experience, materials, and precision, Adv. Mater. Processes, October 2015, pp. 48–52.)
When using a single-shot inductor, it is particularly important that the workpiece is properly located in the heating position because seemingly minor dislocations may noticeably affect the heat treat pattern and metallurgical quality of hardened parts.
Traditionally designed single-shot inductors may exhibit high process sensitivity that is associated with the electromagnetic proximity effect.¹ A change in positioning of the workpiece inside the single-shot inductor attributed to excessive bearing wear of the centers, improper machining of the centers and fixtures, incorrect part loading, and other factors may produce a correspondent appreciable variation in the hardness pattern (particularly within the fillet region, undercut areas, and the part’s end zone). A reduced hardness case depth and the formation of unwanted microstructural products associated with incomplete phase transformation may be the result of that. Magnitude and distribution of transient and residual stresses might also be altered. Thus, attention should be paid to part’s reliable positioning during heating and quenching cycles.
As can be concluded, there are good reasons for using single-shot hardening, scan hardening, or continuous/progressing hardening approaches in induction hardening applications. The decision must be well thought out based on many factors such as geometry specifics, product quality, production rate, design proficiency, limitations of available equipment, reliability requirements, cost considerations, and some other factors.
The next installment of this series, “Dr. Valery Rudnev on . . . ”, will continue the discussion on design features of induction single-shot hardening systems.
Extensive wear or fatigue from friction and contact stress cause many engineering components made of ferrous or titanium alloys to fail. In this Best of the Web
Edward Rolinski,”Dr Glow”, Advanced Heat Treat
Technical Tuesday feature, Edward Rolinski, aka Dr. Glow, from Advanced Heat Treat Corp., compares “wear resistance between engineering components that were carburized vs nitrided,” originally published in his article, “Tribological Performance-Enhancing Surface Treatments for Improving Durability of Engineering Components” at AHT’s website.
An excerpt:
“The results of the tribological studies strongly suggest that for many engineering components, the application of nitriding may be more beneficial than carburizing since the nitrided layer had better wear properties than the carburized layer despite the fact that the layer was about four times as thick.”
Rolinski defines the uses, advantages, and tribological behavior of nitrided and carburized steel and provides illustrations of samples subjected to both treatments.
Main image photo credit/caption: Advanced Heat Treat Corp / Advanced Heat Treat’s Cullman, Alabama, location ion nitroding vessel, which the company says is one of the largest in the United States—”big enough for two small cars to fit inside.”
A cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) has recently been reached that has as its objective improving the process reliability of electric beam melting technology (EBM) through the use of in-situ process monitoring and closed loop control, expanding the technology to new materials systems, specifically nickel-based superalloys, and validating microstructure and properties of titanium Ti-6Al-4V materials fabricated with increased deposition rate.
GE Additive announced that it entered into the five-year CRADA with the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The agreement focuses on processes, materials, and software to drive industrialization and encourage the broader adoption of additive manufacturing technology.
The new CRADA, which covers all GE Additive equipment, materials and engineering services capabilities, focuses on developing and implementing novel additive technologies into commercial products including:
Building on existing research into process simulation methodologies and in-situ monitoring and quality control, on both EBM and direct metal laser melting (DMLM) systems
Materials modeling and development
Industrialization and commercialization of equipment and processes
Moe Khaleel, associate laboratory director for Energy and Environmental Sciences at ORNL
“Our pioneering research with GE Additive was essential to resolving scientific challenges in advanced metals manufacturing using new electron beam methods,” said Moe Khaleel, associate laboratory director for Energy and Environmental Sciences at ORNL. “We’re excited to again push the boundaries with GE and lower the barriers for widespread adoption of more efficient, low-cost manufacturing techniques.”
Daniel R. Simmons, assistant secretary for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
“By collaborating with industry partners such as GE Additive, DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory brings its multi-disciplinary expertise and capabilities to bear on real-world challenges and moves technologies into the marketplace where they will have the greatest economic impact,” said Daniel R. Simmons, assistant secretary for DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Josh Mook, innovation leader, GE Additive
“We’re really looking forward to applying the collective brainpower and expertise from both organizations to addressing the challenges around industrialization, but we also have an eye on the future,” said Josh Mook, innovation leader, GE Additive. “The next wave of additive technology is already upon us—whether that’s binder jet or rapid advances in software—so we’re excited to see where the next five years will take us.”
The agreement supersedes an existing CRADA in place since 2012 between ORNL and GE Additive Arcam EBM.
Main photo credit / caption: GE Additive / From left to right: Christine Furstoss, chief technology officer, GE Additive; Daniel Simmons, assistant secretary, US Department of Energy – Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Moe Khaleel, associate laboratory director for Energy and Environmental Sciences and Chris Schuppe, general manager, engineering, GE Additive.
During the day-to-day operation of heat treat departments, many habits are formed and procedures followed that sometimes are done simply because that’s the way they’ve always been done. One of the great benefits of having a community of heat treaters is to challenge those habits and look at new ways of doing things. Heat TreatToday’sannual 101 Heat TreatTips, tips and tricks that come from some of the industry’s foremost experts, were featured in the 2019 Heat Treat Show Edition, as a way to make the benefits of that community available to as many people as possible. This edition is available in a digital format here.
Today we offer the first Heat TreatTip from the 2019 edition: Debbie Aliya of Aliya Analytical Inc. on “Where You Measure Matters”, categorized under Materials Testing. Debbie is also one of Heat TreatToday’s featured Heat TreatConsultants. Click here for more information on our Consultants’ page.
Heat TreatTip #6
Where You Measure Matters
Eugene Gifford Grace (August 27, 1876 – July 7, 1960) was the president of Bethlehem Steel Corporation from 1916 to 1945. He also served as president of the American Iron and Steel Institute and sat on the board of trustees for Lehigh University, of which he was an alumnus. One of his famous quotes is as follows:
“Thousands of engineers can design bridges, calculate strains and stresses, and draw up specifications for machines, but the great engineer is the man who can tell whether the bridge or the machine should be built at all, where it should be built, and when.”
If you check out the additional accomplishments of Mr. Grace, you will see that he was a successful and smart person. Maybe all of us are not capable of reaching such breadth of vision as he articulated above, but as heat treaters, do we simply accept the specification given? Or do we stop to ask if the specification has been properly determined?
With modern computer added stress analysis (FEA), we have at our fingertips a way to move beyond both the “guess and test” and the “copy the historical spec” methods of determining the case depth. Within “guess and test,” of course there are scientific guesses and scientific wild guesses. If you are using a wild guess, chances are that the field is the test lab!
Figure 1. Metallurgical mount holding a cross-section of the steel gear.
Especially for carburized components, deeper case is more time in the furnace, and thus more expensive. I continue to wonder why, if even back in the 1950s, thousands of engineers were available who could calculate stresses and strains and thus set a quantitative foundation for a case depth, in 2019, so few people take advantage of modern technology to optimize the cost of their products.
If you are not ready to take this big step toward design optimization, maybe you would consider always using effective case depth, based on hardness and thus linked to tensile strength, instead of total case depth, which is not linked to any durability or strength criteria.
Figure 1 shows the metallographic cross-section that was used to measure the hardness. Each white pin point is a Knoop 500 gram hardness indentation. The cross-section of the gear was mounted in black epoxy resin. Figures 2 to 4 show the data collected to determine the effective case depths to the common Rockwell C 50 criteria.
Figure 2. Knoop 500 gram hardness data converted to Rockwell C at the tooth flank.
Figure 3. Same data but for Root position.
Figure 4. Same data as shown in Figure 3, near surface information easier to see.
The effective case depth is the depth where the hardness dips below HRC50. For Gear Tooth Flank A, that value was 0.85 mm. For another gear from the same lot, it was over 1.08 mm. But for the root areas, between the teeth—the high-stress area, the effective case depths were only 0.45 and 0.65 mm, respectively. Figure 3 shows the same data as Figure 2, but using a logarithmic scale, illustrating what’s going on near the surface layers more clearly.
In any case, there’s a big difference between the two test locations, and this shows the importance of making sure that all relevant features of the component are adequately characterized!
If you have a heat treat-related tip that would benefit your industry colleagues, you can submit your tip(s) to doug@heattreattoday.com or editor@heattreattoday.com.
A Texas-based aluminum company recently launched operations of its previously idled aluminum rolling mill with a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Texarkana Aluminum produces common alloy for the North American service center industry is a fully integrated aluminum rolling mill with casting, hot mill, cold mill, and finishing capabilities. Ta Chen International Inc, which owns Texarkana, invested $460 million to restart the previously idle rolling operation. Included in the plans are software and hardware upgrades for the rolling mill and a goal of 300 million lbs of aluminum coil production per year once the plant reaches full operation.
The event at the plan in Nash, Texas, was attended by company executives as well as local, regional and state economic and political organizations.
“This plant will be fully operational come May 2020,” said Calum Donnachie, chief operating officer of Texarkana Aluminum Inc.
Main photo credit / caption: Hunt Mercier of Texarkana Gazette / Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson speaks to Harvey Wrubel at the Texarkana Aluminum ribbon-cutting ceremony in Nash, Texas.
Ron Beltz, Bluestreak | Bright AM’s™ Director of Strategic Accounts
Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a disruptive technology trend that is continuing to influence the future of the manufacturing industry and will continue to provide additional opportunities for heat treaters going forward. The global market for 3D printing and directly related services is continuing to have significant growth each year. The 2019 Wohlers Report (which draws upon the expertise of 80 authors and contributors located in 32 countries) forecasts for 2020 $15.8 billion for all AM products and services worldwide and expects that revenue forecast to climb to $23.9 billion in 2022, and $35.6 billion in 2024. In this article, Ron Beltz, Bluestreak | Bright AM’s™ Director of Strategic Accounts, discusses heat treating, additive manufacturing, and serialization.
Additive manufacturing has been advancing rapidly over the last few years and has been used by a wide variety of companies to quickly produce working prototypes and parts. Now that the prototypes have been fine-tuned, tested, and proven in real-world situations, more and more parts are being mass-produced via additive manufacturing. In years past, plastic has been used as the primary 3D printing material, but now, other materials and combinations of materials continue to be incorporated into additively manufactured products, such as various metals, cements, wood, and even glass.
Using micrometer-thick digital “slices” generated from computer-aided design to 3D-print a solid object with metal powders is definitely not the end of the story. Just as with casting or machining metal parts, a series of post-processing heat treatments are required to reduce the part’s internal stresses, increase its density, and even help develop the final shape, finish, and necessary physical properties.
The relationship between heat treatment and 3D printing has been proven not only to be beneficial but is now a definite part-specification requirement in many cases, as the heat treatment of 3D printed projects has been shown to dramatically increase the strength and stiffness of certain parts. Also, by combining heat treatment processes with 3D printing, manufacturers are able to directly thermocouple the pieces they are producing while also improving the specific characteristics of the end product (i.e., hardness, elongation, fatigue strength, etc.).
Some type of heat treatment is absolutely necessary for most AM parts. One of the issues of additive manufacturing is the possibility of internal defects. Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) regularly produces near 100% dense parts, but to provide another level of control to help reduce part failure, hot isostatic pressing (HIP), instead of heat treating, is successfully being used by many aerospace companies and in the casting industry. As a post-additive manufacturing treatment, HIP is also used to remove internal defects and increase the overall strength of the part to help reduce fatigue failure.
The HIP process works by applying high heat and uniform pressure to fully solidify the part. NADCAP certification is a common requirement for HIP processing as these parts are typically used in aerospace applications. Many 3D-printed components that are expected to be used in nuclear, gas turbine, marine, or medical applications also require an additional HIP treatment to fully densify the metal part, eliminating pores that can lead to catastrophic failures.
Solution annealing is another heat treatment option for production-grade parts (typically aluminum) that require enhanced mechanical properties. The process heats the part to a high temperature, and then it is rapidly cooled, resulting in a change in microstructure and improved ductility. Additionally, vacuum heat treatments are frequently used for metal parts produced via additive manufacturing.
To gain an additional share of the AM market, some heat treaters are adding other in-house post-AM part processing services, such as:
Machining: Machining of surfaces, support structures, threads, etc., likely will be required to ensure dimensional accuracy of the finished part. Few AM parts meet specifications “as built,” and if nothing else, the surface of the part that was connected to the build plate will need to be finished. Most manufacturing companies already have machining systems on hand, but heat treaters should poll their customers to see if this (or the other services mentioned below) is something they need.
Surface Treatments: Surface finishing of specific parts also might be required to improve the overall quality of the surface finish¹, reduce surface roughness, clean internal channels, or remove partially melted particles on a part.
Inspection and Testing: Metrology, inspection, and nondestructive testing of parts will also be needed post-processing and possibly at multiple points during manufacturing production and post-processing. Destructive testing of a sampling of parts in a production run and analysis of test/witness coupons or tensile bars, powder chemistry, material microstructure, and more may also be needed to gather the necessary data to help with process qualification and ultimately part certification.
There are some opportunities for heat treaters to provide additional services to their existing and future customer base while increasing their value as a long-term business partner.
Regarding actual additive manufacturing part production issues, there are two related MES/QMS software products currently on the market: Bluestreak and Bright AM. Both products were developed over the past fourteen years by Throughput Consulting Inc., headquartered in Delafield, Wisconsin. The flagship Bluestreak MES/QMS software platform is being used by heat treaters and other post-processing service-based manufacturing companies such as fabrication, powder coating, surface finishing, plating, and forge. However, the Bright AM MES/QMS software system is being used by additive manufacturing production facilities, which have some unique requirements (identified in the paragraphs below). Manufacturers and OEMs may already be using a production control, work order management and quality management system designed by Throughput Consulting Inc. which allows for excellent integration between systems and makes interactive business much easier, less error-prone, and more highly automated while eliminating much of the paper documents/forms that change hands between companies today.
When additively manufacturing parts in an AM production facility, especially in mass production of repeat part builds, regardless of whether it is a captive or commercial 3D-printing facility, some challenges have surfaced that were not as much an issue with the previous Industry 3.0 subtractive manufacturing production methodologies.
As you will see in the following paragraphs, some of these challenges carry over into heat treating and testing of these parts.
Printing a myriad of parts, each with its own serial number, that have been combined or batched into the same build plate/platform (see Figure 1 below) raises the additional challenge of guaranteeing that unique serial numbers were generated for each part, then 3D-printed on each Part, and subsequently tracked by each individual serial number.
Figure 1 Multiple parts on the same build plate (courtesy of Materialise)
Similar to tracking parts through the various operating steps that comprise your various heat treat processes, AM facilities also must have real-time visibility into each step of the part-production process, tracking where each part is in the overall process (i.e., which operating step each part is on, all while integrating the necessary quality management into the mix.
When AM production facilities send many different kinds of parts (all with unique serial numbers) to heat treat facilities with some parts requiring different processing steps, the software systems need to be able to track in real-time exactly where each individual part is located within the facility. Even though the heat treater is not responsible for generating and assigning serial numbers to the parts, there still needs to be complete traceability, accountability, and auditability of every step of processing that was associated with that part, especially if it was determined that there was a part failure in the aerospace, aviation, or medical end-use application of that particular part.
Serial numbers on parts can be generated from multiple user-defined serial number formats or templates, along with the ability to specify certain characters that should be excluded from automatically generated serial numbers (such as “o”, “l”, “I”, “x”). Each company, division, or AM production facility may have a different format it wants to use, such as a combination of plant #, date, time, and printer #. Regardless of the format used, serial numbers must be unique. Additionally, the template used must be able to be individually assignable for every customer part (and the same part # might be used by multiple customers).
There are multiple ways that serial numbers can be applied to the parts before they are sent for heat treating. Both AM facilities’ and heat treaters’ production floor software must provide for detailed serial number tracking of all parts throughout the build and post processing activities, from the beginning of AM production (after the part design phase) all the way through to heat treating, finishing, testing, and shipping.
Sometimes AM parts that heat treaters receive will also have a build plate ID as an additional identifier, along with the serial number. Build plate IDs are typically platform-centric, with the appropriate process management/operating steps applied for the various parts that are to be produced on that platform or build plate. The build ID needs to connect all of the related work orders for traceability as well as electronically linking all documentation/forms associated with a particular work order and build ID. The documentation audit trail of individual processing activities needs to be kept intact when the parts are sent to an outside heat treat vendor as another one of the required operating steps for that part. In addition to this, the actual build plate can either be tracked as a separate piece of equipment (typical) or as an inventory item.
For heat treating as well as AM production facilities, an integrated equipment maintenance module needs to be tied directly to production control (on the selected piece of equipment) and part specification requirements, to ensure the build plate, 3D printers, furnaces, testing equipment, etc., are serviced, calibrated, and/or maintained appropriately for compliance and optimal use.
Along with having a work order just for the build plate, there can also potentially be one work order for each part on the build plate, and that work order can be used to generate a vendor traveler to accompany the parts to the offsite heat-treating facility. Figure 2 below gives an example of two different part-build work orders on the same build plate.
The build work order tracks the actual build process, similar to tracking every step of the heat treat process, and provides operator instructions that may include pictures, diagrams, videos, or specification requirements. Then when the various parts/coupons/test bars are removed from the build plate, they travel either within your facility or to outside vendor post-processing and are tracked on their individual work orders.
Two specific tracking/configuration possibilities need to be managed by the MES/QMS software:
All parts on the build plate following the same process/route (i.e., operation steps)
Parts/coupons/test bars that take separate processing routes from the build plate—some may be sent on to heat treating, and others may be sent to destructive testing
Very similar to heat treat processing, AM production facilities need to have the ability to define and generate new work order packages to rapidly repeat previous work order part builds with exactly the same part-build process, but also have the capability to use the latest version of processing requirements and specifications for the selected part(s). This supports the global goal for repeatability, higher quality, and fewer nonconformances in AM part production with complete, auditable historical production data that maximizes throughput and, I might add, to run as paperless as possible (Internal and external auditors hate digging through file cabinets.). Most heat treaters have done a great job of mastering the art of part process repeatability for the repeat parts their customers continue to send to them.
Even though there is a continuing goal to keep reducing the number of nonconformances in part builds, nonconformances, especially in start-up AM production facilities, do occur frequently and must be managed accordingly on the production floor. Similar to the requirements of post-processing facilities, including heat treating, shop floor software systems need to be able to show supervisors and senior management what is really happening on the production floor in real-time with greater visibility and to continuously keep track of each individual part with the appropriate documentation to back up the decisions that were made on the fly on the floor, whether it is
Nonconformance dispositioning
Customer concession granted
Applied CAPAs (corrective and preventive actions)
Quality characteristics (or data questions that must be answered by the operator)
Control plans
Part sampling plans
Customer PPAPs (production part approval process)
Additional requirements may include:
Document management with version control
Compliance and specification management and assurance of adherence
Interfacing with individual pieces of equipment (including part testing equipment)
User viewing restrictions (i.e., ITAR, EAR, etc.)
Integration with ERP systems (including the customer’s ERP system)
Real-time notifications of certain triggering events (via SMS and/or email)
Equipment maintenance per specification requirements tied directly to production processing control
Ability to use mobile devices to access the system anywhere, anytime, any device
Raw material usage tracking (with automatic reorder notifications per preset thresholds)
Visibility into what is really happening on the production floor in real-time
Ability to conduct a risk assessment (per ISO 9001:2015)
SPC (statistical process control) to spot negative trends before out-of-tolerance conditions occur
Manage the order hold process related to scrap parts, nonconformances, etc.
Facilitate outside processing (i.e., heat treat, coating, finishing, testing) via a vendor traveler
Manage real-time changes to part specifications and the sequence of processing steps
Ability to attach various media to individual operating steps in the part-build process
Automatic qualification of equipment, personnel, and vendors used in the AM part-build
Real-time splitting and combining of parts in the various operation steps within the work order to optimize the routing and scheduling of work on the production floor.
Each of these system requirements has its own set of unique functions that support processing an individual part, whether it is heat treating, surface finishing, coating or additive manufacturing, but there are some overlap and similarities of the part servicing requirements. There is also a big corporate continuous improvement quest, regardless of the type off services a company provides. A lot more can be said about the specific use of each of the bulleted items above, but since I wanted to keep this article somewhat short and to the point, those can be covered in a future article, or you can reach out to me at ron.beltz@go-throughput.com with any questions or need for clarification on any of the items. Happy heat treating of more AM parts!
Ron Beltz serves as Bluestreak I Bright AM’s™ Director of Strategic Accounts and assists in marketing strategy while managing the sales and business development activities from the company’s Tampa, Florida, location. Ron is a graduate of Control Data Institute of Technology and also received additional training from Hewlett Packard, Digital Equipment Corp., and the Dale Carnegie Management Training Series. Prior to joining Bluestreak™, Ron has functioned as director of IT/CIO for a steel company in Canton, Ohio, and technical director for a multinational consulting firm, serving as an engagement manager over teams in the U.S., Canada, India, and a nearshore solution center located in Montreal.
Ron has assisted many organizations with determining their specific requirements and packaging turnkey solutions which achieve the business/operational goals set forth. He has served on several boards, been invited to present at IT users groups, technical schools, class graduations, and was a previously elected official.
A global aluminum manufacturer of products for multiple applications, including aerospace, automotive and packaging, recently announced that its Ravenwood, West Virginia, facility has been selected by the U.S. Department of Defense for a nearly $9.5 million grant to increase throughput, quality, and performance of cold-rolled aluminum.
Constellium will perform electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic system upgrades to Ravenswood’s 144" cold rolling mill, which is critically important for the manufacture of high-performance aluminum plate for ballistic and blast protection of military vehicles.
The funding was awarded to Constellium SE by the U.S. Department of Defense’s Cornerstone OTA and will be managed by the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Constellium will use the funds to perform electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic system upgrades to Ravenswood’s 144" cold rolling mill and add state of the art automation and process controls. The mill is critically important for the manufacture of high-performance aluminum plate for ballistic and blast protection of military vehicles. Army and Marine Corps modernization programs will require an increased capacity of the U.S. industrial base to produce cold rolled plate over the next decade. In coordination with Cornerstone and ARL, Constellium will also invest in developing manufacturing processes and armor plate that will optimize the additional capacity and process controls of the upgraded mill.
Buddy Stemple, CEO of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood
"This investment by the Department of Defense will enable us to meet the increased demand for cold-rolled plate over the next 5 to 10 years and also significantly improve the performance of armor against constantly evolving threats," commented Buddy Stemple, CEO of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood. "We are very excited to have this opportunity to help protect our troops."
