516 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.

4, 2009

Cold Cracking of Flux Cored Arc Welded Armour

Grade High Strength Steel Weldments
G. Magudeeswaran1)† , V. Balasubramanian2) and G. Madhusudhan Reddy3)
1) Metal Joining Research Center (MJRC), Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College, NGGO Colony-Post, Coimbatore-
641 022, Tamilnadu, India
2) Centre for Materials Joining & Research (CEMAJOR), Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Annamalai
University, Annamalai Nagar–608 002, Tamilnadu, India
3) Metal Joining Section, Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL), Kanchanbagh (P.O.), Hyderabad–
560 058, Andhra Pradesh, India
[Manuscript received February 25, 2008, in revised form August 27, 2008]

In this investigation, an attempt has been made to study the influence of welding consumables on the factors
that influence cold cracking of armour grade quenched and tempered (Q&T) steel welds. Flux cored arc welding
(FCAW) process were used making welds using austenitic stainless steel (ASS) and low hydrogen ferritic steel
(LHF) consumables. The diffusible hydrogen levels in the weld metal of the ASS and LHF consumables were
determined by mercury method. Residual stresses were evaluated using X-ray stress analyzer and implant
test was carried out to study the cold cracking of the welds. Results indicate that ASS welds offer a greater
resistance to cold cracking of armour grade Q&T steel welds.
KEY WORDS: Quenched and tempered steel; Flux cored arc welding process; Weld cold crack-
ing; Implant testing

1. Introduction austenitic stainless steel (ASS) weld metal. The tem-

Quenched and tempered (Q&T) steels offer a num-
ber of advantages, which make them popular where
high strength to weight ratio is important. These
steels have extremely high strength and high hard-
ness. In addition, they possess good ductility and
notch toughness[1] . Armour grade Q&T steels are
welded by all conventional processes. Flux cored arc
welding (FCAW) process is also one of the processes
to weld armour grade Q&T steels. Several techno-
economic advantages are associated with the flux-
cored wires, for which the usage has been increas-
ing rapidly[2] . The popularity of FCAW process grew
because it offered several advantages including high
deposition rates, deep penetration characteristics of
the weld metal and high operator factor. Fumes pro-
duced during welding have higher volumes than that
of shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process, thus
creating an effective shield of the weld metal. More-
over, FCAW process produces superior operator fac-
tor (ratio of actual arc time for joining and total time
to do the welding operation) (50%–70%) than SMAW
process (25%–50%)[3] .
Weld cold cracking of Q&T steels is the most seri-
ous of all the welding problems and is the major cause
for expensive repairs during fabrication. This has
a major significance when welding structural steels
used in construction of combat vehicles. Weld cold
cracking is one of the major problems that needs to
be addressed during welding of armour grade Q&T
steels as they hinder the ballistic performance when
they are used in armour applications[4] . Three meth-
ods of controlling weld cold cracking in high hardness
Q&T welds are: (1) temperature control method, (2)
isothermal transformation method and (3) the use of
† Corresponding author. Ph.D.; Fax: +91 422 2461080;
E-mail address: magudeeswaran@yahoo.com
(G. Magudeeswaran).
perature control method depends on holding the weld
at an elevated temperature, in particular above which
hydrogen by diffusion is accelerated. The isother-
mal transformation method prevents weld cold crack-
ing by controlling the cooling rate of the heat af-
fected zone (HAZ) so that it transforms to softer
(non-martensite) structure. During welding of Q&T
steels, it is not possible to use preheating temperature
greater than 150◦ C. Hence the temperature control
method is severely restricted and isothermal transfor-
mation method can not be used. The only choose is to
use welding consumable, which virtually prevents the
introduction of hydrogen in HAZ and produces a mi-
crostructure insensitive to hydrogen. This is achieved
by austenitic weld metal deposited by fusion welding
process[5] .
ASS welding consumables are traditionally used
for welding of high hardness Q&T steels as they have
higher solubility for hydrogen in austenitic phase.
These stainless steel consumables are known for their
good resistance to cold cracking and hot cracking due
to higher solubility for hydrogen in austenitic phase[6] .
Recent investigations reveal that cold cracking per-
sists in the HAZ of high hardenable ferritic steels even
with austenitic stainless steel (AWS E 312) welding
consumable[7] . Thus alternative to ASS consumable
is always very much appreciable in many ways. To
conserve strategic metals like Ni and Cr, the use of
costly ASS consumable for non-stainless steel base
metal must be avoided. In recent years, low hydro-
gen ferritic steel (LHF) consumables, that contain no
hygroscopic compounds, are used for welding of Q&T
steels[8] .
The above practice paved a new way for cost effec-
tive consumable selection to meet our requirements to
avoid cold cracking due to hydrogen during welding
of armour grade Q&T steels. However, the extent for
resistance against weld cold cracking and the amount
of diffusible hydrogen content in the weld metals of
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009 517
Table 1 Chemical composition of base metal and weld metal (wt pct)
Type of material Notation C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni Fe
Base metal BM 0.315 0.239 0.53 0.018 0.009 1.29 0.451 1.54 Bal.
(closely confirming to AISI 4340 grade)
Austenitic stainless steel FA 0.073 0.93 6.04 0.014 0.001 19.854 0.005 8.36 Bal.
(closely confirming to AWS E307T1-1)
Low hyrogen ferritic steel FF 0.042 0.280 1.23 0.009 0.009 0.54 0.51 2.21 Bal.
(AWS E110T5-K4)

Table 2 Mechanical properties of base metal and all weld metals

Type of weld 0.2% yield strength Ultimate tensile strength
/MPa /MPa
Base metal/BM 1200 1290
Flux cored arc welded austenitic stainless steel weld (FA) 565 600
Flux cored arc welded low hydrogen ferritic steel weld (FF) 680 760

Table 3 Optmised welding conditions and parameters

Type of weld Pre-heating CO2 gas flow rate Filler diameter Current Voltage Heat input
Temperature/◦ C /(l/min) /mm /A /V /(kJ/mm)
Flux cored arc welded austenitic 100 — 2.4 260 35 105
stainless steel weld (FA)
Flux cored arc welded low 00 12 1.6 220 30 1.3
hydrogen ferritic steel weld (FF)

The weld fabricated using ASS consumable is referred

Fig. 1 Microstructure of the base metal
the above mentioned consumables namely ASS and
LHF are very much essential. Three factors that in-
fluence cold cracking in Q&T steel welds are: (1) level
of diffusible hydrogen present in welds; (2) tensile
residual stresses and (3) susceptible HAZ microstruc-
ture. Welding consumables have significant effect on
the above factors. Hence, in this investigation, an
attempt has been made to study the effect of flux
cored welding consumables on the weld cold cracking
of armour grade Q&T steel weldments using implant
testing.
2. Experimental
2.1 Base metal and welding consumables
The base metal used in this investigation was Q&T
steel, closely confirming to AISI 4340 specification.
The microstructure of the base metal exhibits acicular
martensite (Fig. 1). ASS and LHF welding consum-
ables were used to make the welds by FCAW process.
as FA weld. Similarly, the weld fabricated using LHF
consumable is referred as FF weld. Vacuum spectrom-
eter (ARL: 3460) was used to study the weld metal
and base metal chemistry. Sparks were ignited at var-
ious locations on the base metal and weld metals and
their spectrum were analyzed for estimation of respec-
tive alloying elements. ASME, Sec IIC (2006) and
ASTM E8M-06 guidelines were followed for evaluating
the mechanical properties of all weld metals and base
metal. The tensile test of the base metal and all weld
metal was carried out in a 100 kN, electro-mechanical
controlled universal testing machine (UNITEK-94100,
FIE-Bluestar, India). The specimen was loaded at the
rate of 1.5 kN/min so that tensile specimen undergoes
uniform deformation. The specimen finally fails after
necking and the load vs displacement was recorded.
The 0.2% offset yield strength was derived from the
diagram. The percentage of elongation was also de-
termined. The chemical composition and mechanical
properties of the base metal and both weld metals are
presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The weld-
ing process parameters used to fabricate the joints
are given in Table 3, which were selected based on
the guidelines detailed in literature [5–7].
2.2 Diffusible hydrogen measurements
The diffusible hydrogen levels in the weld metal
of the welding consumables were experimentally de-
termined by mercury method as per the guidelines
dictated in literature [9]. The diffusible hydrogen
content of the weld metal sample was made to col-
lect over mercury at room temperature for a sufficient
time (72 h). The amount of hydrogen thus released
was measured by volumetric method using a diffusible
hydrogen measuring meter that had an inbuilt gas bu-
rette for collecting the diffused hydrogen. The baro-
metric pressure as well as the precise temperature was
recorded. The volume of diffusible hydrogen per 100 g
of the deposited weld metal was calculated according
518 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009

Table 4 Diffusible hydrogen levels

Weld type Diffusible hydrogen content (DH ) Mean diffusible hydrogen content
/(ml/100 g) (DH )
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 (ml/100 g) ppm∗
Flux cored arc welded 2.81 2.79 2.83 2.80 2.72 2.79 3.09
austenitic stainless steel weld (FA)
Flux cored arc welded low 2.92 2.99 2.98 2.89 2.97 2.95 3.27
hydrogen ferritic steel weld (FF)
Note:∗ 1 ppm=1.11 ml/100 g of weld metal deposited

Table 5 Lower critical stress (LCS) values

Weld type Lower critical stress/MPa
Flux cored arc welded austenitic 470
stainless steel weld (FA)
Flux cored arc welded low hydrogen 370
ferritic steel weld (FF)

Fig. 2 Schematic diagrams of implant test system: (a) dimensions in millimeters, (b) test block (base plate),
(c) implant specimen (dimension in mm)

to the following expression:

DH = [Vg (B − H)/760] × [273/(273 + TR )]×

[100/(M2 − M1 )] (1)
where DH is volume of diffusible hydrogen in
mL/100 g of deposited weld metal at NTP (0◦ C and
760 mmHg); Vg is volume of gas in burette in ml after
72 h; B is barometric pressure (mmHg); TR is room
temperature (30◦ C) when Vg is measured; H is head
of mercury in mm when Vg is measured; M1 is mass
of the sample in g before deposit of the weld metal;
and M2 is mass of the sample in g after removal from
hydrogen meter.
Five trials were carried out for each consumable
and the measured diffusible hydrogen values are pre- Fig. 3 Implant test results of stress vs time to failure
sented in Table 4. plot with the corresponding LCS values. Hori-
zontal arrows indicate the specimen did not fail
2.3 Implant testing

The implant test was conducted using an implant
testing machine (ISHA 27105, India) as per the guide-
lines given in literature [10, 11] and with modifica-
tions in base plate dimensions as detailed in litera-
ture [12]. An implant test system (Fig. 2) was em-
ployed to evaluate the susceptibility of the mater-
ial to hydrogen induced cracking. In this test sys-
tem, a helical threaded specimen (fabricated from the
base metal) was embedded in a single bead weld in
a 14 mm-thicked base plate. A single pass weld was
deposited so that a portion of the notch section was
located in the HAZ. The sample was subjected to the
desired stress under constant load within 5 min post-
welding. This arrangement enabled the coarse grained
HAZ of the specimen to experience the load. The
time required for the implant specimen to fail under
each stress was noted and a plot of stress-time was
obtained. Three specimens were tested at each stress
level and the average of time to failure was used for
plotting stress-time curve (Fig. 3). From this plot,
lower critical stress (LCS) below which no failure oc-
curs, was obtained as presented in Table 5.
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
Table 6 Microhardness (Hv) variation across the weld (0.5 kg load)
Weld type Weld Region close to the
region weld/HAZ interface in the interface boundary
weld region side
Flux cored arc welded 245
Austenitic stainless steel weld (FA)
Flux croed arc welded low 294
hydrogen ferritic steel weld (FF)
2.4 Microstructure and hardness
The implant specimen that did not fail after 72 h
was subjected to microstructural examination to re-
veal the presence of microcracks. Few implant speci-
mens were interrupted after 1000 min of loading and
were subjected to microstructural examination to re-
veal the crack path. The microstructure analysis of
the weldments was carried out using an optical mi-
croscope (OM, ML7100, MEIJI, Japan). The spec-
imens were etched with 2% nital reagent to reveal
the microstructure of the weld region of LHF weld,
base metal and HAZ regions. Aquaregia reagent was
used to reveal the microstructure of the ASS weld
region. A Vickers0 s microhardness testing machine
(HMV-T1, Shimadzu, Japan) was employed for mea-
suring the hardness in the weld metal region, fusion
boundary, the region close to the fusion boundary on
weld metal side and HAZ region. ASTM E 384-05a
guidelines were followed for measuring the microhard-
ness and the values are presented in Table 6. The frac-
tured surface of the implant specimen was analyzed by
scanning electron microscopy ( SEM, 5610LV, JEOL,
Japan) at higher magnification.
2.5 Residual stress
The residual stress measurement was carried out
using X-ray stress analyzer (XStress3000, Stresstech
OY, Finland) employing CrKα radiation in a single
pass weld as the same deposited for implant test-
ing. Residual stresses were evaluated in this ana-
lyzer with multiple exposure sin2 Ψ technique based
on the diffraction from (300) planes in ASS welds
and from (211) planes in ferritic welds. The resid-
ual stresses experiment comprises of several measure-
ments of lattice spacing over a range of Ψ orientations
(−45◦ to +45◦ ) to the surface of the specimen. Resid-
ual stress measurements were carried out across the
weldment (i.e., perpendicular to the welding direc-
tion). The accuracy of the measurements was approx-
imately ±20 MPa. For computation of stresses from
strain data, appropriate X-ray elastic constants were
used. Prior to the measurements of stress, the sur-
faces were cleaned with acetone solution. Following
this, the spots were elctro-polished using elctro pol-
ishing kit with 20% perchloric acid in ethanol, cooled
to 0◦ C prior to measurements.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Diffusible hydrogen level
In this study, the diffusible hydrogen levels of the
two consumables were determined by mercury method
and the results are presented in Table 4. The FA weld
metal had a diffusible hydrogen level of 2.79 ml/100 g
519
Weld/HAZ HAZ region Base
adjacent to metal
(fusion boundary) fusion boundary
320 405 425 455
380 415 430 455
of metal deposited while the FF weld metal recorded
2.95 ml/100 g of metal deposited. The diffusible hy-
drogen level did not show larger variations in the
above weld metals. However, the FA weld showed
relatively lower level of diffusible hydrogen level than
FF weld.
3.2 Lower critical stress
It has been reported that there were microcracks
in those specimens that did not fail under implant
conditions even after 72 h[12] . In this study, the im-
plant specimen that did not fail after 72 h was sub-
jected to metallographic examination to reveal the
presence of microcracks. From Fig. 4, it is inferred
that no microcracks were found in the interface of all
the welds. Hence, LCS was taken as the stress below
which no microcracks were present and also the high-
est stress at which the fracture did not occur (after
72 h). From Table 5 and Fig. 3, it could be inferred
that the welds made by ASS consumable showed a
higher LCS values than the LHF welds.
3.3 Optical micrographs
The implant specimen that did not fail after 72 h
loading was subjected to metallographic examination.
The metallographic examination revealed that there is
no microcracks (Fig. 4). The fusion zone (weld-HAZ
interface region) in FA welds reveal a grain boundary
phase (GBP) (Fig. 4(a)).The fusion zone microstruc-
ture of FF welds consist of un-tempered martensite
(Fig. 4(b)). In all the two joints, the HAZ region
in close proximity to the interface invariably consists
of un-tempered martensite (Fig. 4(c) and (d)). How-
ever, the FF welds have a relatively fine un-tempered
martensite (Fig. 4(d)) than FA welds (Fig. 4(c)).
The micrographs of weld metal regions of the
joints are displayed in Fig. 5. The FA weld ex-
hibits much widely spaced delta ferrite in a plain
austenitic matrix (Fig. 5(a)) whereas FF weld metal
shows polygonal ferrite matrix (Fig. 5(b)).
The micrographs taken at the fusion zone of the
interrupted (at 1000 min) specimen are displayed in
Fig. 6. It is evident that the crack is developed in the
interface of the weld/HAZ region and it is directed to-
wards the HAZ region, which is characterized by high
hardness untempered martensite invariably in all the
welds. In FA welds, the crack is developed in the grain
boundary (white phase) phase region (Fig. 6(a)). The
crack is predominately located in the region of coarse
un-tempered martensite in the weld/HAZ interface re-
gion of FF welds (Fig. 6(b)).
3.4 Hardness
The values of hardness across the weld cross sec-
520 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009

Fig. 4 Optical micrographs of weld /HAZ interface of unfailed (after 72 h) implant specimen revealing non-
existence of microcracks. GPB: grain boundary phase; UTM: untempered martensite

Fig. 5 Microstructures of weld region: (a) FA joint, (b) FF joint

tion are presented in Table 6. The hardness of the un-
wedded base metal is 455 Hv. The FA weld exhibits
a hardness of 245 Hv in the weld metal region, while
FF weld recorded 294 Hv. Similarly, the hardness
in the region adjacent to the fusion boundary in the
weld metal side (cracked region) are 320 and 380 Hv
for FA and FF welds, respectively. The hardness of
the fusion boundary of FA weld is 405 Hv while the
FF welds exhibit a hardness value of 415 Hv. The
hardness in the HAZ region of the FA and FF welds
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009 521

Fig. 6 Optical micrographs of weld/HAZ interface of interrupted (at 1000 min): (a) FA weld, (b) FF weld,
implant specimen revealing existence of cracks in the fusion boundary. GPB: grain boundary phase; TM:
untempered martensite

Fig. 7 Fractographs of the implant specimen: (a) FA weld, (b) FF weld

are found to be 425 and 430 Hv, respectively. Thus
the FA welds made using ASS consumables have a
lower hardness in the weld region, close to the fu-
sion boundary (where cracks are found) region, fusion
boundary and the HAZ region than FF welds made
using LHF consumables.
other hand, quasi-cleavage type of fracture is featured
in the fractured surface of the FF implant specimen
indicating brittle fracture (Fig. 7(b)). The fracture
surface analysis indicates that a higher energy frac-
ture occurred in FA welds under implant conditions
than FF welds.

3.5 Weld metal strength 3.7 Residual stress

The mechanical properties of the base metal and
both weld metals are presented in Table 2. It is in-
ferred that the base metal has 1200 MPa of yield
strength and 1290 MPa of ultimate tensile strength.
The yield strength of the FA and FF weld metals is
565 and 680 MPa, respectively. The ultimate tensile
strength of the FA and FF weld metals is 600 and
760 MPa, respectively. Thus, the FF weld exhibits
higher strength than FA welds.
3.6 Fractured surface
The fractured surface of the failed implant speci-
men is displayed in Fig. 7. An intergranular fracture is
featured in FA implant specimen (Fig. 7(a)). On the
The transverse residual stresses measured from the
weld center are displayed in Fig. 8. From this figure,
it is inferred that the transverse residual stresses of
FA and FF welds are 310 and 360 MPa, respectively
in the weld center. Similarly the transverse residual
stress at the fusion boundary for FA and FF welds are
460 and 490 MPa, respectively. Moreover, FA welds
imparted a lower transverse residual stress in HAZ
region. Thus a lower transverse residual stress is fea-
tured in FA welds than FF joints across the weld.
4. Discussion
Hydrogen is carried to the atmosphere by shielding
gas, or surface contamination in Q&T steels welds.
522 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
Fig. 8 Residual stress distribution
This hydrogen is converted to atomic or ionized state
and readily dissolves in weld metals. As the weld
metal cools, it becomes supersaturated in hydrogen,
which diffuses into the austenitized HAZ. Under rapid
cooling, the hydrogen is retained in the austenite in-
stead of escaping, and the austenite persists to low
temperature, at which it transforms to martensite or
low bainite. The atomic hydrogen is virtually in-
soluble in the martensite lattice. The hydrogen is
trapped in martensite and thus is at a high energy
level in lattice. The stresses generated by external re-
straint and by volume changes due to transformations
act with the hydrogen to enlarge the lattice disconti-
nuities to crack size. The hydrogen may contribute
to cracking by lowering the cohesive strength of the
lattice or by adding to localized stresses at the dis-
continuity. Crack growth carries the crack tip away
from the hydrogen concentration and therefore may
be interrupted until the hydrogen diffuses to the new
tip location. Hence, the time-dependent behavior of
the cracking phenomenon occurs due to hydrogen in
welds[13] . In the present investigation, the results in-
dicate that the welds made using ASS consumables
have higher LCS and thus they offer greater resistance
to weld cold cracking than the welds made using low
hydrogen ferritic steel consumables. Thus the welding
consumables have a significant effect on cold cracking
of armour grade Q&T steel welds and a detailed dis-
cussion is presented in the following sections.
4.1 Diffusible hydrogen levels
The hydrogen gets introduced into the weld metal
during fusion welding processes in many ways includ-
ing moisture in flux and atmosphere, organic sub-
stance in flux, hydrogen in core wire steel, extra
hydrogenous material such as moisture, grease, or-
ganic compounds, paint etc[14] . Most of the hydrogen,
which is trapped in weld metal, is in supersaturated
solid solution in weld metal. Hydrogen dissolved in
a steel matrix is diffusible, thereby causing hydrogen
embrittlement. One practical method of greatly re-
ducing or eliminating cracking caused by hydrogen is
to use low- hydrogen type consumables. Such weld-
ing consumables have mineral covering that is very
low in hydrogen producing constituents[15] . The type
of coating of the covered electrodes and flux cored
wire is one of the major contributing factors of lower
diffusible hydrogen level. The flux-cored wires used
in this investigation are made up of basic type of flux.
Basic electrodes and cored wires have calcium carbon-
ate or other basic carbonate based covering. They
also contain fluorspar, which encourages fluidity of
the slag. Because of its basic character, this type of
covering in welding consumables provides good pro-
tection, for all types of steels and hence, leading to
good density of the weld metal and good mechanical
properties. Because of the nature of products, basic
coverings require storage, drying and handling to en-
sure the lowest possible hydrogen content. It is only
subject to these conditions that the use of these con-
sumables is recommended to avoid cold cracking in
welding of steels[16] . Hydrogen levels of 1–3 ml/100 g
of the weld metal are attainable for electrodes and
cored wires after carefully controlled storage, baking
and shielding procedures are followed[17] .
The flux cored wires are manufactured by form-
ing a band into a tube, filled with a powder mix, and
drawing the tube to the correct size. After the draw-
ing operation, the band has reduced in thickness and
at the same time the diameter of the wire has de-
creased due to compaction of the powder inside the
tube. The particles in the compacted powder stick
together and to the sides of the tube rather well, pre-
venting the powder mixture falling out of the tube.
The filling in the core can either be mainly iron pow-
der, with alloying elements and some deoxidants, giv-
ing a metal cored wire, or minerals similar to those
used for coating of covered electrodes, giving a flux-
cored wire. There are two main types of flux-cored
wires: rutile and basic. They behave much the same
as their equivalent covered electrodes. One impor-
tant difference is that no silicates are needed for bind-
ing the grains together in the cored wires. Thus, the
moisture content is much less and cored wires usually
give very low hydrogen. Hydrogen levels less than
5 ml/100 g weld metal can be obtained from basic
flux cored wires[18] .
The flux in the ASS and the LHF flux cored wires
has no hygroscopic compounds, which will absorb
moisture when exposed to atmosphere. The flux is
present inside the cored wire and its exposure to at-
mosphere is minimum and the metal core acts as a
protective cover to the flux. Carbon dioxide gas was
used as a shielding gas during welding with LHF flux
cored wire, which also prevents the weld pool from
the moisture in the atmosphere. The protective cover
for the flux from atmospheric exposure and use of
CO2 as shielding gas for making welds are the sig-
nificant reasons for lower diffusible hydrogen levels
in FF welds. However, the austenitic stainless steel
flux cored wire is a self-shielded wire, which contains
no hygroscopic compounds, and no shielding gas was
used for making FA welds. Proper handling of the flux
cored wires before welding (storage) and during weld-
ing (use of shielding gas for LHF cored wire) as per
the manufacturer0 s recommendations and absence of
hygroscopic compounds in the basic flux used in the
flux cored wires are the main reasons for the lower
level of diffusible hydrogen levels in all the welds.
The amount of diffusible hydrogen level is not only
lower for FA welds but also for FF welds. The dif-
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
fusible hydrogen level in the two weld metals are found
to be within the acceptable criteria. For armour grade
Q&T steels, the weld metal should have a low hy-
drogen content in the weld, i.e. <4 ml/100 g of de-
posited metal irrespective of the consumable used[14] .
As per the American Society of Mechanical Engineer0 s
(ASME), boiler pressure vessel codes the maximum
permissible diffusible hydrogen level in low alloy fer-
ritic low hydrogen ferritic steel electrodes and flux
cored wires is 4 ml/100 g of deposited metal and it
corresponds to H4 (lower level) optimal supplemen-
tal diffusible hydrogen level designator[19] . Thus the
diffusible hydrogen levels for the two flux cored wires
are within the acceptable criteria. It is evident from
the above discussion that low hydrogen ferritic flux
cored consumables can also be used for welding ar-
mour grade Q&T steels as they have very low level of
diffusible hydrogen in weld metal.
There is no appreciable variation (nearly constant)
in the level of diffusible hydrogen in all the four welds.
The consumables were selected specifically to attain
a lowest possible diffusible hydrogen level in the weld
metals. In Q&T steels, where the problem of cold
cracking due to hydrogen is extremely significant,
cracking susceptibility has been correlated both with
material hardness and strength and with specific mi-
crostructures in various regions of the welds. High
strength welds are more susceptible to cold crack-
ing than low strength welds. Steels that transform
martensitically are particularly susceptible, especially
the higher-carbon alloys with twinned martensitic
structure[20] . It is evident from the above facts that
weld metal chemistry, microstructure, hardness and
weld metal strength have a significant effect on hy-
drogen induced cracking (HIC) of armour Q&T steel
welds.
4.2 Effect of weld metal chemistry, microstructure
and weld metal strength
The weld metal chemistry plays a major role in
the formation microstructure of the welds and hence
it has a direct influence on the HIC. Weld microstruc-
tures has a significant effect on the HIC and can not
be ignored. It is always preferred to avoid martensitic
structure in any form that is susceptible to hydrogen
induced cold cracking leading to a catastrophic failure
during welding. Carbon is recognized as the alloying
element with the greatest influence on the hardenabil-
ity and cold cracking susceptibility of steels, but other
alloying elements such as Mo and Cr have also strong
influences on hardenability. While Ni also increases
the hardenability of steels, it has been shown to reduce
the cold cracking susceptibility[21] . Ni in weld metal
plays an important role in microstructural control.
However, there is no general agreement regarding the
amount and combination proportion ratios of Ni and
other alloying elements in weld metal[22] . The higher
Ni content improves the toughness in two ways: Ni re-
duces the ferrite content of the weld metal (magnetic
microsturctural phase and more brittle than austen-
ite), and Ni addition increases the toughness in fully
austenitic compositions. A secondary benefit is that
Ni stabilizes austenitic structure against the forma-
tion of martensite (another magnetic microstructural
phase)[23] . In the present investigation, FA weld metal
523
has 8.36 wt pct Ni and FF weld has 2.21 wt pct Ni.
Higher Ni content promotes the formation of greater
proportion of austenitic phase in ASS and hence the
solubility of diffusible hydrogen in SA and FA welds
are much higher than that of SF and FF welds.
In the present work, the weld metal microstruc-
ture is a significant factor that governs cold crack-
ing susceptibility of armour grade Q&T steel joints.
The hydrogen diffusion coefficient of austenitic phase
in weld metal is much lower than that of the ferritic
phase. But the solubility of hydrogen in austenitic
phase is much higher than that in ferritic phase. Thus,
an austenitic phase in weld metal can store high hy-
drogen content that cannot move fast enough to the
fusion boundary due to low diffusion rate of hydro-
gen in austenite phase. The diffusion coefficient of
monatomic hydrogen at room temperature is approxi-
mately five orders of magnitude lower in austenite ma-
trix than in ferrite matrix. Thus diffusion of hydrogen
is more rapid in ferrite than that in austenite, but the
solubility of hydrogen is approximately thirty times
higher than that of ferrite at room temperature[24] .
Thus austenitic phase acts as barrier to hydrogen es-
cape. The ductility of austenite is also high, thereby
providing an ability to overcome restraints. More-
over, austenite has an ability to tolerate heavy dilu-
tions without risk of forming a martensitic structure,
which is susceptible to weld cold cracking[25] .
The FA welds exhibit much widely spaced delta
ferrite in a plain austenitic matrix (Fig. 5(a)) in
the weld metal region. The larger austenitic phase
and widely spaced delta ferrite morphology is one of
the contributing factors for higher resistance to cold
cracking of FA welds. The FF weld exhibits fully
polygonal ferrite morphology (Fig. 5(b)). As already
stated, the solubility of hydrogen in austenite is high
and the diffusivity of hydrogen in austenite is low.
The greater solubility of hydrogen in austenitic stain-
less steel weld metals offers an advantage over ferritic
weld metals in reducing the occurrence of cold crack-
ing due to hydrogen.
HIC is not sensitive to composition but to the
strength of base metal and weld metal. The strength
will also affect the inherent resistance of the weld
metal to the cracking effects due to hydrogen. The
resistance to cold cracking is inversely related to
strength: lower strength metals being more resistant
to cold cracking[26,27] . From Table 6, it is revealed
that the FA weld has a lower hardness in the weld
metal region than FF welds, and hence it offers higher
resistance to cold cracking. Also, it is evident from
Table 2 that the FA welds has lower yield strength
and tensile strength than FF welds. Thus the higher
yield strength of the weld metals is also one of the
major influencing factors for lowering the resistance
of FF welds. Thus, lower hardness in weld region and
lower yield strength of weld metal are the contribut-
ing factors for enhancing resistance to cold cracking
in FA welds.
4.3 Effect of fusion zone characteristics
The HAZ adjacent to the weld is raised to high
temperature during welding, and subsequent rapid
cooling (quenching) by the surrounding parent metal
causes hardening. Close to the fusion boundary, the
524 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
HAZ is raised to a sufficiently high temperature to
produce a coarse grain region. This high tempera-
ture region, because of its coarse grain, is not only
more hardenable but also less ductile than the re-
gions further away from fusion boundary. It is the
region, where the greatest risk of cracking exists. In
case of quenched and tempered steels, the harder the
microstructure, the greater the risk of cracking. Soft
structure can tolerate more hydrogen than hard mi-
crostructure before cracking occurs[16] .
In case of similar welds, the microstructures of the
weld metals and HAZ will be unique and essentially
the zone adjacent to the fusion boundary is a charac-
teristic feature of the base metal and weld metal. But
this is not true in dissimilar welds. The fusion bound-
ary microstructure in dissimilar welds often possesses
some unique features. Normal epitaxial nucleation
during solidification along the fusion boundary gives
rise to grain boundaries that are continuous from the
base metal into weld metal across the fusion bound-
ary. These boundaries are roughly perpendicular to
the fusion boundary and have been referred to as
“Type I” boundaries. In dissimilar welds, where an
austenitic weld metal and ferritic base metal exist,
the second type of boundary that runs roughly par-
allel to the fusion boundary is often observed. This
has been referred to as “Type II” boundary[28] . These
boundaries typically have no continuity across the fu-
sion boundary to grain boundaries in the base metal.
Several investigators have reported that hydrogen-
induced disbonding typically follows Type II grain
boundaries[7, 28–30] .
The fusion zone microstructure of the ASS welds
(FA) exhibits a soft grain boundary phase (white
phase) of the interface similar to that of the type II
boundaries as described above. The region of white
phase and fusion boundary are located in close prox-
imity distance to each other. The micrographs of the
interrupted implant specimen revealed that the crack
was developed in the grain boundary (white phase)
phase region (Fig. 6(a)) in the FA welds. The forma-
tion of the white phase (rich in carbon and Cr) in the
FA welds is due to the diffusion of carbon from base
metal region to weld metal region and migration of
Cr from weld metal region to base metal region and
it depends upon the weld thermal cycle employed for
fabricating the joints[7] . On the other hand, the fusion
zone microstructure of the FF has a hard untempered
martensite and no type II boundary exists adjacent to
the fusion boundary. The crack followed this region of
untempered martensite (Fig. 6(b)) in FF welds. The
microhardness values (Table 6) reveal that FA weld
has a softer (grain boundary phase) region compared
to FF joints adjacent to fusion boundary, which are
much harder than their respective weld center.
The results have shown that hydrogen introduced
during welding can lead to HIC in dissimilar joints
(FA) and also similar joint (FF). Hydrogen in the
welding arc is detrimental in two ways: (1) it increases
dilution by the carbon steel base metal, increasing
the amount of un-tempered martensite formed, and
(2) it interacts with untempered martensite under
stress to cause cracking[21,30] . The most susceptible
microstructure (untempered martensite) forms in the
vicinity of the fusion boundary. The cracks are found
in the regions near to the fusion boundary invariably
in all cases and also the implant specimens failed in
the fusion boundary invariably in all cases.
The hardness and microstructure in fusion zone
(i.e. grain boundary phase in ASS welds and region
of untempered martensite in LHF welds) are the most
influencing factors that contributes for greater LCS
values and higher resistance to cold cracking. The
hardness in the fusion zone is inversely proportional
to the critical stress (LCS)[7] . The lower the hard-
ness in the fusion zone, the higher the LCS, and the
greater the resistance to cold cracking. Thus, lower fu-
sion zone hardness of the FA joints is one of the major
contributing factors for higher LCS values compared
with that of FF joints. Thus, FA joint has a greater
LCS values (470 MPa) and it offers greater resistance
to cold cracking.
4.4 Effect of HAZ microstructure
Several factors affect the susceptibility of the ma-
terial to weld cold cracking such as strength, mi-
crostructure and alloy composition. It is difficult to
separate the effects individually because these factors
are interrelated[27] . The nature of the fusion zone and
the HAZ has a significant effect on the HIC suscepti-
bility of armour grade Q&T steel. Microstructure (in
the HAZ adjacent to the fusion boundary) is prob-
ably the most important variable in controlling the
susceptibility of weld cold cracking. The suscepti-
bility of steels to weld cold cracking increases with
strength of the weld and is also usually associated
with hard microstructures. However, at the same
hardness, different microstructures can have different
susceptibilities for weld cold cracking. For example,
low carbon martensite/bainite structures have greater
susceptibility for cold cracking than fine grained aci-
cular ferrite at equivalent hardness levels. Further,
it is generally accepted that un-tempered, twinned
or dislocated lath martensite are the most suscepti-
ble microstructures, while the preferred substructure
combines a well-tempered martensite or bainite with
an ausworking process to produce a refined packet
size and a uniform dispersion of carbides[31] . It is ev-
ident from the micrographs of HAZ region in close
proximity (Fig. 4(c) and (d)) to the fusion bound-
ary consists of invariably untempered martensite in
all cases. However, due to the smaller difference in
the heat input of the welding process, the hardness
in this region shows minor variations. The hardness
in the HAZ region of the FA weld metal is relatively
lower than that in FF weld. In general, hard HAZ mi-
crostructure is more susceptible to cold cracking than
soft (coarse) microstructures. FA weld shows rela-
tively lower hardness in the HAZ region compared to
other welds. Thus, lower HAZ hardness is also one of
the contributing factors for improved resistance of FA
welds against cold cracking.
4.5 Effect of residual stress
Owing to localized heating during the weld-
ing process and subsequent rapid cooling, residual
stresses can arise in the weld and base metal. Such
stresses are usually of yield point magnitude. Resid-
ual stresses attributed to welding pose significant
problems in the accurate fabrication of structures
 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
Fig. 9 Macrostructure of the single ‘V’ butt joints revealing no evidence of delayed cracks due to HIC: (a) FA
joint, (b) FF joint
because those stresses heavily induce brittle fracturing
and degrade the buckling strength of welded struc-
tures. These residual stresses are developed in the
vicinity of a weld during arc welding. A weldment
is locally heated by most welding processes. There-
fore, the temperature distribution in the weldment
is not uniform, and metallurgical changes take place
as welding progresses along the weld. Therefore, the
welding residual stress is sometimes called restraint
stress[32,33] . These stresses can give rise to distor-
tion and under certain circumstances even to pre-
mature failure. Recent investigations by Reddy and
Mohandas[34,35] revealed that the magnitude of the
residual stress was found to vary with weld thermal
cycle. Their findings suggested that higher heat input
welds were associated with lower residual stress.
The residual stresses play an important role
as far as the quality and reliability of a welded
construction[36,37] and is of greater significance in pro-
moting cold cracking in high strength steel welds. Lee
et al.[38,39] revealed that the occurrence of cold crack,
was caused by a complex interaction of the diffusible
hydrogen supply, susceptible microstructure, and ten-
sile residual stress. The risk of cold cracking is greater
for welds with higher magnitude of residual stresses.
Thus, lower residual stresses are much beneficial to of-
fering greater resistance to weld cold cracking due to
hydrogen[40] . In this work, the FA welds have a lower
residual stress than FF welds (Fig. 8). Hence, lower
residual stress in FA welds is also one of the contribut-
ing factors for greater resistance to cold cracking.
It is evident from the above discussion that the
LHF flux cored consumables can also be used for weld-
ing armour grade high Q&T steels as they have very
low level of diffusible hydrogen in their welds and ac-
ceptable LCS values under implant conditions. Single
‘V’ butt joints (14 mm in thickness) was fabricated
using the above consumables and as per the welding
conditions given in Table 3. The macrograph of the
joints in Fig. 9 shows that there is no evidence of de-
layed cracking (due to HIC). Thus, the LHF flux cored
consumables can be accepted as an alternative to the
conventional ASS consumables. However, all the nec-
essary precautions like proper storage of wires, and
525
maintaining the appropriate preheating and interpass
temperatures during welding of armour grade Q&T
steels are prerequisites that must be strictly followed
to achieve defect free welds[41] .
5. Conclusions
(1) The flux cored arc welding consumables have
significant effect on weld cold cracking of armour
grade Q&T steel welds.
(2) The welds made using ASS consumables (FA)
offered a greater resistance to weld cold cracking than
FF welds made using LHF consumables.
(3) The presence of widely spaced delta ferrite in
a large plain austenitic matrix, lower diffusible hy-
drogen level, lower weld metal strength, lower fu-
sion boundary and HAZ hardness, softer grain bound-
ary phase, and lower residual stress are the factors
that contribute for the greater resistance of FA welds
against cold cracking compared with FF joints.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Armament Research
Board (ARMREB), New Delhi for funding this project
work (Project No MAA/03/41), M/s Combat Vehicle
Research Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi,
Chennai for providing base material, Department of Man-
ufacturing Engineering, Annamalai University for provid-
ing implant testing facility and M/s Defence Metallurgical
Research Laboratory (DMRL), Hyderabad for providing
the facility to carry out metallurgical characterization fa-
cility for this investigation.
REFERENCES
[1 ] N. Yurioka: Mater. Design, 1995, 6(4), 154.
[2 ] R.S. Parmar: Welding Processes and Technology, 3rd
edn, Khanna Publishers, New Delhi, 1999, 53-61.
[3 ] Y. Matsusita, T. Maruyama and S. Nishiyama: Kobe
Res. Develop., 1995, 45, 21.
[4 ] F. Ade: Weld. J., 1991, 70, 53.
[5 ] F.R Coe: Welding Steels without Hydrogen Cracking,
1st edn, Abington Publishing, Cambridge, 1999, 220.
[6 ] G. Madhusudhan Reddy, T. Mohandas and G.R.N.
 526 J. Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol.25 No.4, 2009
Tagore: J. Mater. Process. Technol., 1995, 49, 213.
[7 ] G. Madhusudhan Reddy, T. Mohandas and D.S.
Sarma: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 407.
[8 ] P. Deb, K.D. Challenger, and D.R. Clark: Mater. Sci.
Eng., 1998, 77, 157.
[9 ] Standard Methods for Determination of Diffusible-
Hydrogen Content of Martensitic, Bainatic and Fer-
ritic Steels Produced by Arc Welding, American Weld-
ing Society Guidelines, Section 4.3, 1986, 1-30.
[10] Destructive Tests on Welds in Metallic Materials-Cold
Cracking Tests for Weldments, Arc Welding Processes,
Part 3: Externally Loaded Tests, ISO 17642, 2005, 1-
24.
[11] IIS/IIW-447-73: Weld. World, 1974, 1(2), 9.
[12] V. Ramasubbu, S.K. Albert, V. Guruprasad and A.K.
Bhaduri: Proc. National Welding Seminar, ed. A.K.
Bhaduri, Indian Institute of Welding, Chennai, India,
2006, 342.
[13] R.D. Stout: Weldability of Steels, 4th edn, Welding
Research Council, New York, 1987, 204.
[14] B. Basu: Proc. National conf. on Welding-
Productivity & Quality, ed. A.K. Shah, Naval Ma-
terials Laboratory, Ambernath, India, 2007, 73.
[15] S. Lampman: Weld Integrity and Performance, 3rd
edn, ASM International, USA, 1997, 212.
[16] H. Granjon: Fundamentals of Welding Metallurgy,
2nd edn, Jaico Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1994,
224.
[17] R.E. Dobly: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2000, 5, 341.
[18] N. Bailey: Weldability of Ferritic Steels, 3rd edn,
Ambington Publishing, Cambridge, 1994, 76.
[19] ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel: Code II C–SFA 5.29,
2007, 641-686.
[20] L.E. Svensson: Control of Microstructures and Prop-
erties in Steel Arc Welds, 4th edn, CRC Press, 1994,
212.
[21] M.D. Rowe, T.W. Nelson and J.C. Lippod: Weld. J.,
1999, 78, 31s.
[22] J.D. Parker and G.C. Stratford: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 1999, 4, 29.
[23] T.A. Siewert: Weld. Des. Fabr., 1978, 1, 87.
[24] R. Kacar: Mater. Design, 2004, 25, 1.
[25] V.S.R. Murti, Y.R. Sastry and G.M. Reddy: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 1993, 37, 759.
[26] R.J. Pargeter: TWI, UK Rep. No.46, 1992, 47.
[27] R.K. Dayal and N. Parvathavarthini: Sadhana, 2003,
28, 431.
[28] K. Asami and T. Sakai: ISIJ Int., 1995, 21(6), 2.
[29] F. Matsuda and H. Nakagawa: Trans. JWRI, 1984,
13(1), 159.
[30] N. Bailey: Welding of Dissimilar Metals, 2nd ed, TWI,
UK, 1996, 34.
[31] J.M.B. Losz and K.D. Challenger: Proc. of First
United states-Japan Symp. on Advances in Welding
Metallurgy, Yokohama, Japan, 1999, 207.
[32] S. Kou: Welding Metallurgy, 2nd edn, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1987.
[33] P.C. Brand, T.H. De Keijser and G. Den Ouden: Weld.
J., 1993, 72, 93s.
[34] G.M. Reddy and T. Mohandas: Proc. Nat. Weld.
Seminar, Indian Institute of Welding, 1993, 33.
[35] G.M. Reddy and T. Mohandas: J. Mater Sci. Lett.,
1996, 15, 1633.
[36] N. Yurioka and H. Suzuki: Int. Mater. Rew., 1990,
35(4), 217.
[37] P.H.M. Hart: Weld. J., 1986, 65(1), 14s.
[38] H.W. Lee, S.W. Kang and D.S. Um: Weld. J., 1998,
77(12), 503s.
[39] H.W. Lee, S.W. Kang and J.U. Park: Weld. J., 2001,
80(6), 137s.
[40] P.V. Ramana, G.M. Reddy and T. Mohandas: Non-
Des. Testing Evaluation, 2007, 6(1), 33.
[41] G. Magudeeswaran: Fatigue and Fracture Toughness
Behaviour of Armour Grade, Quenched and Tem-
pered, High Strength Steel Welds, Ph.D. Thesis, An-
namalai University, India, 2008.