EXPLORE THE NEW TRENDS AND ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES IN THE HEAT TREATMENT EQUIPMENT INDUSTRY
Ask for a free consultation Ask for technical supportTel
WhatsApp/WeChat
Contact Us
All products are customizable, leave message immediately, we will reply as soon as possible.
In the R&D and production of ceramics, powder metallurgy, electronic materials and other industries, sintering furnaces are core equipment that affect product quality and costs. However, due to unclear process requirements and misunderstandings of equipment parameters, many enterprises often fall into pitfalls such as "overpaying for inappropriate equipment", "redundant functions" and "insufficient capacity". This article sorts out 8 common pitfalls in the selection process and provides targeted strategies to help accurately match equipment with needs.
Clearly ask manufacturers for "effective temperature zone dimensions" and request temperature uniformity test reports (e.g., 300×300×300mm effective temperature zone at 1600℃ with temperature difference ±3℃);
Reserve a safety margin: The actual sintering temperature should be 50-100℃ lower than the maximum temperature of the effective zone to avoid component aging caused by long-term full-load operation.
Select furnace types based on "production scale": Choose batch-type (box, tube) for daily output <500 pieces; choose continuous-type (pusher, mesh belt, roller hearth) for daily output >1000 pieces;
Pilot test verification: Before mass production, conduct test sintering with medium-sized furnaces (5-10 times the capacity of laboratory furnaces) to confirm temperature uniformity and capacity matching.
Request manufacturers to provide "sealing performance test reports", focusing on sealing structures of leak-prone parts such as doors, flanges and observation windows (e.g., double O-rings + water-cooled sealing);
Select gas purity on demand: 99.99% purity suffices for conventional powder metallurgy parts; only semiconductor and aerospace materials require 99.999%+ purity.
Select heating methods based on "material conductivity": Induction heating for conductive materials (metals, cemented carbides); resistance or microwave heating for non-conductive materials (ceramics, glass);
Balance "efficiency and cost": Microwave heating is most efficient but expensive; resistance heating furnaces are preferred for small-to-medium batch production.
Match vacuum degree to "material needs": Low vacuum (10⁻¹-10⁻²Pa) for ordinary powder metallurgy parts; high vacuum (10⁻³-10⁻⁵Pa) for active metals (titanium, tantalum); ultra-high vacuum (<10⁻⁵Pa) for semiconductor materials;
Pay attention to "vacuum recovery speed": Prioritize equipment with vacuum pumping time <30 minutes to improve production efficiency.
Calculate "total lifecycle cost": Including procurement price, energy consumption, wearing part replacement, and maintenance costs (based on 5-year service life);
Prioritize equipment with "generalized wearing parts": Using standard-size silicon-molybdenum rods and O-rings to reduce replacement costs.
Evaluate "manufacturer's service network distribution": Prioritize brands with local or nearby service centers;
Clarify after-sales commitments: Require signed agreements specifying fault response time (e.g., on-site within 24 hours) and spare parts supply cycles.
Prioritize "standardized + modular" equipment: Meet needs through simple modifications like replacing furnace liners or adjusting brackets;
"Step-by-step verification" for complex customization: First produce small prototypes for test sintering to confirm stability before mass production.
Demand First: Clarify three core needs—material properties, production scale, and performance indicators—without blindly pursuing "high-end configurations";
Parameter Verification: Request manufacturers to provide test reports for key parameters like temperature uniformity, sealing performance, and vacuum degree, rather than relying solely on manual specifications;
Comprehensive Evaluation: Balance procurement costs, O&M costs, service capabilities, and equipment stability to choose the "best cost-performance" rather than the "cheapest" option.