Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
“No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.”
The words of Henry David Thoreau, the 19th century American essayist, poet
and philosopher, ring true around the 21st century heat-treatment industry.
The heat treatment of metals in order to change their physical properties is one
of the oldest industrial processes, with Iron Age man understanding the benefits
of heating and quenching his weapons. With the up-issue of AMS 2750 to
Revision D, however, proof has become a precious commodity more than ever
before. The Nadcap pyrometry audits to the specification AMS 2750D are
demanding that heat-treatment suppliers to the aerospace industry provide
proof of compliance, leaving many companies facing a list of non-compliances
and expensive changes to working practices.
The auditor will be looking for evidence that these operations are carried to the
letter of specification and that all operations have been carried out within the
correct period of time.
http://www.industrialheating.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_1000000000000... 4/2/2009
Page 2 of 5
For test instruments, the principle change in revision D is that all must be
digital. For controlling, monitoring and recording instruments, if paper chart
recorders are used, Tables 4 and 5 of revision D specify the chart speed, print
speed and temperature-resolution requirements for furnace chart recorders
purchased later than one year after the release of revision D. All digital
controlling, monitoring and recording instruments must have a calibration
accuracy of ±2°F (±1.1°C).
TUS
The TUS is the most expensive intervention required by AMS 2750D, with a
typical survey downtime of at least one day resulting in a loss of productivity in
addition to the cost of the survey itself. However, there is a risk of a far higher
cost that can be incurred through a failed TUS or the failure to carry out a TUS
http://www.industrialheating.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_1000000000000... 4/2/2009
Page 3 of 5
within the allotted time. A failure to carry out a successful TUS within the
frequencies stated on Tables 8 and 9 of AMS 2750D can lead to the auditor
requiring that furnace loads be scrapped or even recalled.
The up-issue from revision C to D has increased the TUS frequency for certain
combinations of furnace class and instrumentation type, meaning that the
supplier needs to pay close attention to TUS planning. A summary of these
changes for parts furnaces – classes 1-4 – is shown in Table 2. Along with
changes to the initial frequency come changes to the reduced TUS frequency
that can be applied when the conditions of section 3.5.7.1 are met.
Meeting the conditions of 3.5.7.1 can have a rapid positive financial impact. As
shown in Table 3, a class 1 or 2 parts furnace with type A instrumentation
requires 12 surveys per year. If a reduced frequency is applied, the number of
surveys falls to four in the first year and two in subsequent years (moving from
monthly to semiannually after two successful surveys). While reducing the TUS
frequency brings immediate financial advantages in terms of increased furnace
productivity and reduced direct survey costs, it increases the risk of a survey
failure. This can be mitigated through the use of high-quality, well-tuned
instrumentation with long-term stability and features such as overshoot
inhibition. Another way to reduce risk is by running a program of pre-TUS
checks such as:
SAT
As with the TUS, the requirement for SAT is dependent on furnace class and
instrumentation type. In AMS 2750C, the maximum allowable SAT interval for
any Class 1 parts furnace could be increased to monthly or quarterly if certain
criteria are met (section 3.4.1.2). In revision D, however, the maximum
allowable interval is dependent on furnace class and instrument type and can
be as low as weekly in the case of 1D and 2D furnaces. The higher the
instrument type, where type A is the highest, the longer the maximum
allowable SAT interval.
Both revision C (section 3.4.1.1) and revision D (section 3.4.3) permit an SAT
waiver in the case of certain criteria being met. It is worth noting that revision
D requires two recording load sensors in addition to the sensors required by the
instrument type.
Proof of Compliance
http://www.industrialheating.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_1000000000000... 4/2/2009
Page 4 of 5
Conclusion
With TUS and SAT regimes determined by furnace class and instrument type,
the decision on instrument type becomes strategic to the heat treater. An
increased initial investment in instrumentation leads to greater calibration
requirements but in turn reduces the longer-term cost of TUSs and SATs.
Whatever the decision, the correct choice of control and data-monitoring
instrumentation can provide the heat treater with the furnace control, recording
and traceability required to pass the Nadcap pyrometry audit. IH
Additional related information may be found by searching for these (and other)
key words/terms via BNP Media SEARCH at www.industrialheating.com: AMS
2750D, systems accuracy, temperature uniformity, digital test instruments,
http://www.industrialheating.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_1000000000000... 4/2/2009
Page 5 of 5
Richard Bolton
Eurotherm, Worthing, United Kingdom
http://www.industrialheating.com/copyright/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_1000000000000... 4/2/2009