Is this what you're talking about Al?
"Beware of electrode coatings with more than
.20% moisture. Welding releases
hydrogen, hydrogen promotes cracking..." Or these paragraphs?
"Steel's ability to absorb hydrogen increases with temperature. Molten steel absorbs more than
.0024% hydrogen, and at 2,600oF, when the steel is austenitic, the
hydrogen solubility is about
.0001%. When the metallurgical structure is ferrite at 1,600oF, the
solubility of hydrogen falls to about
.00025%, and at a normal 70oF,
.0002%. Because weld deposit hydrogen content from standard electrodes runs from
.0001 to .002%, there is a significant risk of generating sufficient levels of
hydrogen to supersaturate the molten weld from the core wire alone. The operator must reduce the available hydrogen in the coating for quality welds.
When steel is heated above its critical temperature (the point of temperature where there is a transformation from one metallurgical phase to another phase) and fully austenitic is cooled slowly it converts to a hard brittle martensitic structure.
Cooled rapidly enough the austenite will not transform into martensite. The retained austenite
now changes very slowly to martensite at temperatures from 400oF to room temperature.
During the delayed transformation, the metal microcracks and fissures. If other stresses are present, cracking becomes aggravated and is easily detected. The defect may appear in the weld, at the weld interface, or in the parent metal, depending on how the hydrogen moves or where it becomes trapped.
Besides eliminating stress raisers, other precautions include reducing the retained austenite through carbon control, cold-working and holding the heat treating temperatures to close limits. Other defects, such as porosity, inclusions and notches should be eliminated, as they exacerbate hydrogen effects. It is not known for sure whether hydrogen causes porosity, but it does influence the amount of porosity in the weld."
Carbon and carbon equivalency wasn't discussed in the article and I agree that it should have been included because the author only implies steel yet, doesn't elaborate what type of steel, and I believe should have been more precise especially when throwing around all those decimals and other details... My guess is that the author probably
ASSumed (You know what happens when this thought is applied) that most people would assume he/she was implying about mild steel but then again, that's only my guess so in summary, I would have to agree that there should have been if any at all, more careful attention to details and accuracy in this article.
Respectfully,
Henry