Super-Ingenuity (SPI)

CNC Machining & Injection Molding — DFM/Moldflow Support, CMM Inspection, Prototype to Production Solutions.

ISO 9001 & IATF 16949 CERTIFIED
+(86) 0769 8166 7180 / [email protected]
24h Quote · Free DFM/Moldflow Feedback · CMM Inspection Reports · Global Shipping
Get Instant Quote

CAD Ready: STEP, IGES, STL supported

Heat Treatment Verification Template

Heat Treatment Inspection Report Template for Mold Components Before Assembly Release

Use this heat treatment inspection report template to verify outsourced heat-treated mold components before assembly release. It applies to inserts, cores, cavities, slides, and wear components that require traceable incoming verification before fit-up or final sign-off.

The form records required vs. actual hardness, nitriding depth, inspection methods, test locations, furnace batch traceability, and final engineering release status to ensure compliance beyond a basic hardness slip.

injection molding checklists, tables, and templates hub →
Heat treatment verification form with mold components on a clean inspection workstation

Release Evidence Required Before a Mold Component Is Approved

Why a Basic Hardness Slip Does Not Support Component Release

In precision toolmaking, a generic “pass” slip from a heat treatment vendor does not support component release. Surface hardness alone is insufficient; without recorded effective case depth, nitrided white layer thickness, and furnace batch traceability, the buyer cannot verify wear life, core support, or brittle surface risk.

To meet injection mold validation standards, the inspection report must record actual hardness, effective case depth, nitrided white layer thickness where applicable, and the linked furnace batch number for each released component.

Which Mold Components Need Full Verification Records

High-wear, shut-off, and alignment-related mold components require more than visual inspection. Core inserts, cavity blocks, sliding cores, lifters, and shut-off inserts must have documented verification whenever treatment affects wear resistance, fit, sealing, or dimensional stability.

The resulting inspection record must be cross-checked against the mold components FAI sheet for pre-assembly verification.

Required Approval Evidence

Approval Evidence Required by Buyers and Tooling Engineers

To support approval-ready release, the inspection report must convert raw treatment data into verifiable evidence:

  • Hardness Validation: Required vs. actual hardness based on 3-point Rockwell checks across the molding surface, with no single reading below the specified minimum.
  • Geometric Stability: Measurement of post-treatment distortion or bowing on long slides or thin inserts against defined datum or fit surfaces.
  • Surface Integrity: Confirmation of coating adhesion for PVD or DLC surfaces and visual confirmation that no oxidation spots or local peeling are present.
  • Chain of Traceability: The record must link Part ID, supplier process lot, furnace batch chart, and treatment date to the tool history card for each component.

Download Formats for the Heat Treatment Inspection Report Template

Available

PDF Version for Controlled Release Records

Controlled PDF format for archived inspection records, engineering sign-off, and supplier CoC attachments. Includes all core traceability and hardness fields.

Download PDF Form →
On Request

Excel Version for Editable Incoming Inspection Logs

Editable spreadsheet format for internal QC logging of multiple readings and deviation review. Contact engineering for log customization.

Request XLSX Access
Development

Web-Based Traceability Form Workflow

Digital traceability workflow for shared record entry between supplier and buyer teams. Currently in pilot phase for high-volume programs.

Feature Details Only

What the Verification Package Includes

The verification package records the release-critical fields required for outsourced heat treatment and surface treatment review:

  • Component ID to supplier batch traceability mapping
  • Required vs. actual hardness record
  • Effective Case Depth (ECD) validation
  • Coating thickness & adhesion results
  • Post-treatment dimensional recheck
  • Furnace batch & process logs
  • Non-Conformance Report (NCR) logs
  • Engineering final release sign-off

For outsourced processing control, link this report with the subcontract processing routing and acceptance form. This documentation also aligns with our quality documents, PPAP, and FAI deliverables framework and mold components FAI sheet requirements.

What Fields Must a Release-Ready Heat Treatment Report Include?

Field 01

Part ID, Drawing Revision, and Project Traceability

Record the part ID, drawing revision, mold number, and project reference so each component is tied to the correct engineering release and not mixed with legacy revisions.

Field 02

Steel Grade and Required Engineering Targets

Define the steel grade (e.g., H13, S136) and required targets, including target hardness range, effective case depth, or approved mold steel selection treatment conditions.

Field 03

Hardness: Required vs. Actual Readings

Record the required range against verified 3-point Rockwell or Vickers readings. The record must confirm that no single measurement falls below the specified release limit.

Field 04

Layer Depth or Coating: Required vs. Actual Values

For nitriding or PVD/DLC treatments, record the required and actual case depth or thickness, alongside the specific validation results for release review.

Field 05

Inspection Method and Post-Treatment Recheck

Record the inspection method, test location, and post-treatment dimensional results, including distortion rechecks on shut-off faces or other datum-based fitting surfaces.

Field 07

NCR, Rework History, and Release Disposition

Document any NCR (Non-Conformance Report), rework history, deviation closure, and the final engineering release disposition before the component is cleared for assembly.

Release Acceptance Criteria by Treatment Type

This section defines the measurable release thresholds used to review heat-treated and surface-treated mold components before assembly approval. These criteria should be read together with the mold steel and surface treatment guide.

Vacuum Hardening Release Checks: Hardness, Distortion, and Soft Spot Control

  • Hardness Validation: Record required vs. actual hardness by 3-point Rockwell (HRC) check, with a maximum 2 HRC spread and no single reading below the specified minimum.
  • Distortion Re-verification: Re-verify shut-off flatness and sliding fit clearances against drawing-defined fit-up references after treatment.
  • Surface Condition: Confirm zero oxidation or localized "soft spots" on critical molding surfaces.
Reference: Steel Selection Chart by Hardness & Resin Risk.

Nitriding Release Checks: Effective Case Depth, White Layer, and Surface Brittleness Control

  • ECD Recording: Record Effective Case Depth (ECD) by micro-hardness profiling whenever nitriding depth is part of the approved release requirement.
  • Compound Layer Control: Record compound layer (white layer) thickness and confirm it remains within approved limits to avoid surface brittleness.
  • Post-Process Finish: Verify the absence of "nitriding burrs" and record changes in surface roughness (Ra) on shut-off faces.
Aligned with the Injection Mold Validation Guide.

PVD Coating Release Checks: Layer Thickness, Adhesion, and Local Peeling Control

  • Thickness Verification: Record required vs. actual coating thickness in microns using XRF, Calo-test, or the approved inspection method for the specific coating route.
  • Adhesion HF Rating: Record the adhesion rating by Rockwell indentation or scratch testing and confirm the result meets the approved HF1-HF4 release range.
  • Visible Condition: Confirm no visible color inconsistency, edge shadowing, or localized peeling on high-aspect-ratio features.

Hard Chrome or Plating Release Checks: Thickness, Edge Build-Up, and Assembly Fit Control

  • Fit-up Surface Check: Verify coating or plating thickness on mating surfaces so edge build-up does not create assembly interference or clearance loss.
  • Dimensional Integrity: Monitor "dog-bone" buildup on sharp corners or external radii to ensure post-plating dimensional compliance.
  • Hydrogen Embrittlement: For high-strength steels, record the mandatory post-plating baking cycle so embrittlement control remains part of the traceable release file.

Pre-Assembly Release Verification for Treated Mold Components

Check 01

Hardness Verification: Method & Grid

Record hardness by the approved method: Rockwell (HRC) for vacuum-hardened steels and Vickers (HV) for thin layers. Measure at 3+ approved points, avoiding sharp edges.

Check 02

ECD Verification Action

For sliding components, record Effective Case Depth (ECD) via micro-hardness profiling on a witness coupon to confirm diffusion layer durability.

Check 03

Coating: Thickness & Adhesion

For PVD/DLC components, record microns and adhesion rating. Use XRF or Calo-test to ensure wear protection within assembly fit windows.

Check 04

Fitting Surface Recheck

Re-verify shut-off faces and datum-based surfaces. Once confirmed, move to the assembly checklist.

Check 05

Required Supplier Return Docs

Final release is granted after checking the subcontract package contents:

  • Record: Original hardness slip or Vickers profile.
  • Chain: Furnace log, supplier process lot, and date.
  • Cert: Supplier CoC linked to part ID.
  • NCR: Closure records for any abnormal handling.

What the PDF Verification Form Includes

A structured review of release-critical fields and traceability evidence captured in our controlled verification documents.

Preview of heat treatment verification form with traceability and release fields
Document Control Checkpoints
  • Revision-linked Header
  • Required vs Actual Hardness
  • Nitriding Depth (ECD) Log
  • PVD Adhesion HF Rating
  • XRF Coating Thickness
  • Post-HT Distortion Recheck
  • Furnace Batch Traceability
  • QA Release Sign-off

Common Documentation Gaps That Trigger Supplier Validation Failure

Missing data points in heat treatment reports create release risk, traceability loss, and root-cause blind spots. Use this list as a supplier screening checklist before treated mold components are accepted into the release file.

Specification Control

Writing “heat treatment” without measurable targets

Ambiguous instructions allow the supplier to choose the wrong treatment route. The report should define the treatment type, target hardness range, and any case depth or coating thickness field needed for release review.

Data Continuity

Recording only “Pass” instead of actual values

Pass/fail-only reporting does not support trend review or batch comparison. Actual readings are required so repeated treatments can be compared and drift can be identified before release problems accumulate.

Traceability Control

Missing furnace number or supplier batch number

Without supplier batch ID, furnace number, and process date, root-cause analysis cannot be tied back to the actual run. This breaks the traceability chain for the released component.

Verification Control

No inspection location for hardness data

Hardness can vary across complex geometries. The report should identify the approved test point location, such as shut-off face or side wall, so the reading can be evaluated against molding area integrity.

Dimensional Control

No dimensional recheck after treatment

Do not release hardened parts without re-measuring shut-off, fitting, and datum-based surfaces. Dimensional movement from quenching can create assembly interference or seal loss.

Release Control

No abnormal closure after supplier rework

If a part is re-tempered or re-coated, the report must include the updated inspection results, disposition, and responsible sign-off. Rework without formal closure leaves the release file incomplete.

Integrity Control

Merging nitriding and coating into one record

Nitriding requires case depth profiling, while PVD requires adhesion checks. These routes should not be merged into one generic record because each has unique release criteria and failure modes in the routing chain.

When a Master Lifecycle Record Is Better Than Separate Supplier Slips

One Component with a Multi-Stage Outsourced Treatment Route

For complex mold inserts that go through vacuum hardening followed by nitriding or PVD coating, one master lifecycle record should track each treatment stage, its required targets, and actual results. This one-part-one-record approach ensures that later stages are not approved without reviewing earlier treatment results recorded in the tool history card.

Why Separate Supplier Slips Create Part ID and Revision Traceability Gaps

Separate supplier slips often omit the component ID, supplier lot, or drawing revision needed to keep the treatment history traceable. Without a master form, hardness data from Vendor A cannot be reliably correlated with coating reports from Vendor B, creating significant traceability gaps in the subcontract routing chain during final release review.

When Linked Source Records Are Still Required

A combined report is the master controlled record, but it does not replace original source evidence. For high-tolerance aerospace or medical mold components, the master record should reference original furnace charts, supplier batch logs, vendor-specific CoCs, and any process certificates.

Where rework, abnormal closure, or repeat treatment occurred, the master record must also link to the related NCR or re-inspection source file. This dual-layer structure keeps the release file readable at the master-record level while preserving the evidence needed for root-cause review and audit defensibility.

Example Verification Records and Abnormal Closure Logic

Example Record: Required vs. Actual Results by Component

Below is a sample verification table showing how required specifications are recorded against actual measured results in a controlled inspection record.

Component ID Process Type Target Spec Actual Result Test Location / Method Status
CAV-INS-01 Vacuum Hardening 48 - 52 HRC 50.5, 51.0, 50.8 Shut-off face / Rockwell C Accepted
SLI-CORE-B Gas Nitriding ECD: 0.15 - 0.25mm 0.18mm (Avg) Witness coupon / Micro-HV Accepted
CAV-INS-04 Vacuum Hardening 48 - 52 HRC 45.0 HRC (Under) Molding Surface / Rockwell C Rejected - NCR

Abnormal Closure Workflow & Release Recovery

If a component fails adhesion testing or falls outside the hardness range, the record must continue through formal recovery steps to close the release file:

01 Detection

Component CAV-INS-04 measured 45 HRC at the approved test point (Drawing Requirement: 48-52 HRC).

02 Action

NCR #HT-2024-08 issued. The component was dispositioned for supplier re-tempering and re-submission via the subcontract routing chain.

03 Closure

Post-rework re-inspection verified 49.5 HRC. The component was recorded as acceptable for assembly release with updated closure status and sign-off in the tool history card.

What Makes a Record Release-Ready Instead of Supplier-Only

A release-ready record is a controlled inspection file that can be reviewed and audited without additional clarification. It must link furnace batch data, approved test locations, and abnormal closure records directly back to the component ID.

This level of record control supports traceability and audit readiness, as detailed in our injection mold validation guide and our framework for PPAP and FAI deliverables.

Release and Documentation FAQ for Buyers, QA, and Tooling Engineers

What should a mold component heat treatment report include?

A controlled inspection record must include the Part ID, Drawing Revision, and Mold Number for identification. It should record the material grade, treatment route, required vs. actual hardness readings, furnace batch number, approved test location, and the final release status used for assembly approval. For surface-treated components, ECD or coating thickness results must be recorded where the route requires them.

When is a simple hardness report not enough?

A simple slip is insufficient for critical-to-function components such as slides, lifters, and core inserts. A full report is required when the component needs ECD verification for nitriding, coating adhesion results for PVD, or furnace batch traceability for regulated or high-control programs. This is mandatory when the supplier return package must support a full traceability review.

How do you verify nitrided depth on a mold insert?

Nitrided depth is verified by micro-hardness profiling using Vickers measurements, typically performed on a witness coupon processed in the same furnace batch. Hardness is measured at progressive depths until it returns to core specification. The measured ECD result must be entered into the release record and linked back to the same batch log to confirm the diffusion layer meets engineering requirements.

Can one combined lifecycle record cover heat treatment and surface treatment?

Yes. A combined lifecycle record is preferred for high-precision components passing through multiple treatment stages (e.g., hardening followed by PVD). It keeps the entire history under the same component record so traceability and release review remain controlled. While the lifecycle record is the master file, original source evidence such as furnace charts and supplier CoCs must be retained as supporting evidence in the tool history card.

Need a Review of Your Mold Component List, Steel Grades, and Incoming Inspection Fields?

Submit your mold component list, steel grades, treatment route, and current incoming inspection form. Our engineering team will review and identify missing hardness, case depth, coating, and traceability fields to ensure your records are ready for supplier approval and final release.

Request Field Mapping Review Review our full framework for quality documents, PPAP, and FAI deliverables.