Ceramic Manufacturing Council - Kilns and Firing: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 11, Issue 11/12

161 Pages·1990·13.098 MB·English

Ceramic Manufacturing council
A collection of Papers Presented at the
92nd Meeting
Annual
George Fryburg
President
April 22-26, 1990
Dallas,
TX
Kilns and Firing
A Collection of Papers Presented at
Various Meetings throughout the
U.S.
Gregory Powhida
Manager of Continuing
Education
ceramic society
The American
Published by
The American Ceramic Society, Inc.
757 Brooksedge Plaza Drive
Westerville, OH 43081-6136
Copyright@1 990, The American Ceramic Society, Inc.
ISSN 0196-6219
I
1
Executive Director & Publisher Edilor
W. Paul Holbrook John B. Wachtman
Director of Publicdwns Produdion Manager
Linda Lakemacher Alan Hirtle
S.
1 I
Committee on Publications: David W. Johnson, Jr., chair; Ronald E. Loehman;
Richard E. Tressler; Robert J. Esgan, er officio; W. Paul Holbrook, ex oficio;
Waltraud M.K riven, a o4fi-cb ; John B. Wachtman, a: oficw.
Editorial and Subscription 0 ices: 767 Brooksedge PlaGa Drive, Westerville, Ohio,
43081-6136.S ubscription 09 a year; single copies $16 (postage outside U.S. $6
additional). Published bimonthly. Printed in the United States of America. Allow
four weeks for address changes. Missing copies will be replaced only if valid claims
are received within four months from date of mailing. Replacements will not be
allowed if the subscriber fails to notify the Society of a change of address.
I
CESPDK Vol. 11, NO, pp.
11-12, 1791-1947, 1990
~~ The American Ceramic Society assumes no responsibility for the statements I
and opinions advanced by the contributors to its publications, by the speakers
or
at its programs.
Copyright 0 by the American Ceramic Society. Permission to photocopy
1990,
for personal internal use beyond the limits of Sections and of the
or 107 108 U.S.
Copyright Law is granted by the American Ceramic Society for libraries and other
users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, provided that the fee
of
$2.00 per copy of each article is paid directly to CCC, Congress Street, Salem,
21
MA The fee articles published before is also per copy. This
01970. for 1990 $2.00
consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such copying for general
as
distribution, for advertising promotional purposes, for creating new
or or
collective works. Requests for special permission and reprint requests should be
addressed to the Reprint Dept., the American Ceramic Society
(0190-0219/89
$2.00).
Each issue of Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings includes a collection of
technical articles in a general area of interest, such engineering ceramics,
as glass, and
refractories. These articles are of practical value for the ceramic industries. The
issues are based on the proceedings of a conference. Both The American Ceramic
Society, Inc., and non-Society conferences provide these technical articles. Each issue
is organieed by an editor who selects and edits material from the conference. Some
issues may not be complete representations of the conference proceedings. There is
no other review prior to publication.
I I
Table of Contents
....................
Reduction to Commercial Practice .1791
R. A. Alliegro
Efficiency or EPA Compliance-What is the Effect on
.............................
the Ceramic Industry .1796
E C. Gilbert
.............................
Pressure Slip Casting ,1797
Edward G. Blanchard
...........
The Ceramic Industry in the Regulatory Arena ,1804
Charles G. Marvin
................
The New, Improved Process Patent .1813
US.
Roger W. Parkhurst
Presentation and Panel Discussions on Size Reduction:
Vibrating Mills, Stirred Media Mills, Fluid Energy
.............
Mills, and Rumbling Mills-A Panel Session .1826
J. Becker, J. Dubianski, T. Newton, D. Eddington, and
Scott Switzer
................................
Stirred Ball Mills .1827
John E. Becker
Latest Design Considerations for Spray Drying
..............................
Advanced Ceramics .1838
F. V. Shaw
Quality Assurance at an Alumina Calcination
................
Facility: A Continuously Growing Task .1839
A. H. Wood
Evaluation of an Atmosphere-Controlled Belt
..........
Furnace for the Sintering of Nitrogen Ceramics .1840
Heslin, D. A. Norris, S. K. Fukuda, and H. Crayton
M. R. P.
Furnace Design Considerations for Processing
........................
Advanced Ceramic Materials .1845
Charles W. Finn, Paul J. Timmel, and Elliot D. Thompson
......
High-Temperature Hydrogen Sintering of a Ceramic ,1846
J. Breunissen, H. Ramaswamy, and J. S. Hetherington
Dynamic Analysis of TemperatureStress Fields
..........
During Pressureless Sintering and Hot-Pressing ,1848
D. Orlicki, Majorowski, J. k Puszynski, and Hlavacek
S. V.
Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Furnace Design
................................
and Manufacture .1849
B. Shibe and J. Conybear
.......
Fluid-Bed Furnaces for Ceramic Powder Processing .1850
C. W. Miller, Jr. and T. E. Pontacoloni
...........
Radiant Methods of Temperature Measurement ,1851
Thomas D. McGee
Measurement and Control of Furnace Atmospheres
............................
for Ceramic Processing .1867
Luann M. Farreli
Advanced Magnetic Power Control for Resistive
.........................................
Loads 1879
D. D. Burt, J. A. kith, and P. D. Ownby
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Furnace
....................................
Installation .1880
J. Scheiza and F. Bestell
Investigation on the Structure and Control System of
.....
the Pre-Drying Zone of a Ceramic Roller Hearth Kiln .1881
Ling-Ke Zeng, Xiao-Su Cheng, Bi-Xuan Wen, and
Liang-Bing Zeng
Bringing Existing Kilns to State-of - the- Art
....................................
Technology .1.891
C. G. Harmon, Jr.
..............
An Overview of Continuous Electric Kilns .I897
Daniel A. O’Brien
..............................
Low Mass Kiln Cars .:L902
William C. Thornberry
The Role of Pyrometric Cones and Temperature in
................................
the Firing Process 1905
Milan Vukovich. Jr. and Dale A. Fronk
.......
Heating Element Materials for the Ceramics Industry 1922
Robert Watson. Roy Mudway. and Mark Sidoti
....................................
Author Index 1935
...................................
Subject Index 1942
Foreword
The inaugural sessions of the Ceramic Manufacturing Council were
held in Dallas at the 1990 Annual meeting. A one-day session by the
CMC and a one-day joint session with the Material and Equipment
Division generated many informative papers of interest to the Manufac-
turing sector of the Society.
In an effort to capture the value of these talks, the Society taped
and transcribed the sessions, and several authors submitted manuscripts.
Where it was feasible, the transcriptions have been put into the form of
a paper. In other cases, due to technical and other difficulties, abstracts
have been included.
It was the goal of the CMC to develop a forum to increase commu-
nications and information flow within the manufacturing arena of the
Society. Therefore, contacting the individual authors is encouraged
where clarifications may be required.
The Ceramic Manufacturing Council wishes to thank the authors,
session chairmen, Society staff members, Materials and Equipment
Division, and all others who helped in the Sessions and publication.
George A. Fryburg
President 1989-1 990
Ceramic Mfg. Council
Ceramic Engineering &Science Proceedings
John 6.W achtrnan
Copyright 0 1990, by the American Ceramic Society
Cersm. Eng. Sci. Proc. pp.
11[11-121 1791-1795 (1990)
Reduction to Commercial Practice
A. ALLEGRO
R.
Norton Company
Worcester, MA
Introduction
What does it take to "reduce to commercial practice," or make
technology commercial? The first step is invention. Idea generation
and technical feasibility take about 1OYo of the total cost of the project
and incur about 10% of the risk. The second step, product develop-
ment, takes 90% of the cost and 90% of the risk. Commercialization is
the outcome of these two steps. Product development begins with
process development, goes through material development, manufacture,
and getting the material to the customer. This process continues until
we achieve reduction to commercial practice.
To win in the world market, technology has to be translated into
saleable goods. Why does Japan seem to do this more effectively than
the United States?
Companies in the U.S. tend to be creative, focus on new technology,
have Ph.D.-driven scientific bases, are oriented to a career path, and
have a manufacturing vacuum. Plants and equipment are not as heavily
invested in as in Japan. Success is measured by short-term sales and
profit, mediocre quality, and market shares. However, customer service
is improving.
In the last 20 years, changes in our professional societies, educa-
tional institutions, and industries have contributed to our weakened
position. We've deemphasized the engineer, engineering, and by
association, manufacturing. The definition of engineering is the
application of science and mathematics by which the properties of
matter and sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in
structures, products, systems, and processes. So during the last 20
years, we have educated material scientists and have overlooked
engineers and their part in factory organization. Sales and marketing
have glamour, research and development have prestige, but a manufac-
turing engineer is just there to do the job. We need to turn this around,
Japan, on the other hand, is highly innovative. The Japanese have
the ability to create saleable goods from an invention. The Japanese are
1791
characterized by reduction to commercial practice, engineers in the
factory, Ph.D.s running product introduction and pilot plants, product
process patents, and technology teaming. Any working group in a
Japanese plant is a team, from the top manager to the least engineer.
Success is measured by long-term sales and profits, market shares, and
product quality. Quality is extended to include service to the customer.
Getting It Out of the Lab
Here are some quotes from an article I read several years ago:
"Japan will keep winning the battle until we learn that speed to market
is absolutely critical." "Companies," as one corporate research director
has said, "have not yet learned that speed to market is absolutely
critical." "The U.S. does more basic research than anyone else, but other
people have found more effective ways to turn US.-born scientific
knowledge into products, goods, and services. And quite simply that's
the measure of R&D success today." "And take ceramics. The Japanese
know what is important to the end customer is not grain size or process
characteristics, but a product that can withstand so many degrees for 50
hours or something you can bang on 50 times a day. That's the
technology leverage, not the grain size."
High-Tech Marketing
High-technology companies can make a successful transition from
being innovation-driven to being market-driven only by effectively
linking the R&D and marketing efforts. High technology requires a
strong scientific technical base because new technology can quickly
make existing technology obsolete. new technologies develop, their
As
applications create market and demand. If we take the lower-section,
innovated-driven, high-tech companies, we're pushing technology into
the marketplace. This is the classic technological push. Marketing has
to respond and give feedback to R&D and this happens through an
interface. In a market-driven operation, the marketing group is the
eyes and ears of business and passes to R&D the request for products.
They determine market need and they translate this to R&D. R&D then
has to respond to marketing. What happens is that there is an interface
between these two organizations that can be either solid or transparent.
What we must do in the United States is make sure there is no interface
between marketing and R&D, and that information flows readily back
and forth to respond to the customer.
1792
Many facturing
The other part of this is manufacturing, which we must include.
Capturing new product opportunities is dependent upon capability
balance. We need to have market access to determine the needs and
trends, we need to have the technical capabilities now and in the future,
and then we have to have the manufacturing capabilities to support
those two entities. This must be within corporate company strategy and
it must be within the capability of the total organization. We will
succeed most dramatically when all three forces come together to
respond to new products.
Three Product Examples
Let’s take three product examples and see what common elements
exist that make them successful.
The first is a clear market; an immediate need, requiring technolog-
ical scale-up in the process; and manufacture with a high degree of risk.
In 1964 at Norton was being conducted in materials suitability for
R&D
lightweight ceramic armor. It was soon determined that boron carbide
was the prime candidate and would provide the highest system. Boron
carbide, however, was not an easy material to fabricate, requiring hot-
pressing of special powders at under pressure of 1500-5000 psi.
2200°C
In 1965 when the requirements for Vietnam were growing, the largest
curved tile of boron carbide measured approximately 4 in. x 4 in. Some
chest protectors had been made and evaluated in early 1965 that utilized
14 plates, diamond-edge ground, and cemented to a fiberglass backup.
Based on this limited development, a commitment to accept an order for
500 sets of three sizes of fronts and backs was made and a
$425,000
order received. Norton received the order at the end of June 1965, with
first deliveries to start in September, and the final shipment in January.
What I failed to mention was that no manufacturing plant existed.
Process engineers, plant engineers, and industrial engineers were
assembled from the Worcester complex, and a schedule of implementa-
tion created to meet the contract needs. A project manager was named
to cross all functions, and in this case was the technology champion. He
was supported by financial resourcing and control; a full- time planner
to do critical pathing; a multifunction team, ownership, or a whatever-
it- takes attitude; process engineering, and weekly team meetings with
action minutes. Using this organization, we could respond to the needs
of the marketplace and satisfy all the dates that were required to fulfill
the contract. Each lot had to be sampled and shot at with 30-caliber
4%
armor-piercing bullets at muzzle velocity. New products were added
and technology progressed, evidenced by a one-piece vest produced
as
1793
by the end of 1966. The back protector, measuring 1-1/2 ft tall, 14-in.
wide, was hot-pressed in one piece. And, of course, we had the
satisfied customer. As we look at what happened to boron carbide
armor, we see a typical product life cycle. In 1965 it was embryonic.
From 1966 to 1968, armor vests and helicopter kits gained popularity
for Vietnam and business went from half a million dollars to $8 million
in a couple of years. From 1968 to 1968, helicopter seats and crash-
worthy seats were added to provide a regrowth of the business. 1986 to
1990 was a period of maturity, and now we're really into a period of
aging. Unless new helicopters or systems are developed, the business
will either decline or maintain a fairly low level of production.
The second case is an interesting material in search of a market.
This is probably the toughest to market, and requires faith, persistance,
and luck as constant companions. We needed a marketing commitment
to customers for prototypes and production orders, and a financial
commitment for scale-up and negative cash flow performance for an
indefinite period. CRYSTAR, as the material is called, was developed
in Norton's Chippawa labs in 1954 to be used as a rocket nozzle. The
material was transferred to Worcester in 1957 and bumped along as a
novelty, good for rocket nozzles but little else. In 1967, a marketing
expert was assigned to to commercialize the interesting material.
R&D
Working with the researchers and those who piloted the product helped
to create a team committed to success. Three years passed before the
90% application faiiure rate turned around to 90% application success
rate. The product came close to extinction several times, but per-
sistence prevailed. By 1971, the product reached a breakeven point.
Today the family tree of products from this technology is broad. It
includes structural products in nature, beams, posts, and fir trees,
mostly servicing the ceramic industry. A low-mass kiln furniture
system was developed in the late 1970s, providing substantial gains in
the ratio of ware to kiln furniture. Other products for the electronics
industry evolved that were not even envisioned at the start, providing
a much more dynamic market for the technology, This is an important
point: keeping your marketing eyes open for opportunity behind the
original product offerings usually results in the most significant growth
for new businesses.
The third case study is that of a "me-too" product, igniters. This is
characterized by a strong market position, the need for related
technology, but lacking in pilot-prototype-manufacturing. Whirlpool
came to us in late 1970 and asked if we could use our hot rod heating
element technology to develop an igniter for their gas dryers because
they were locked into a single source. After superficially examining the
requirements, we felt the development period shouldn't exceed six
months. Three and one half years later, we received our first order.
1794