If I'm understanding you correctly, you touch on the point that I (probably badly) tried to make - by slowly cooling it during heat treatment, you can post-weld treat it to remedy issues that the HAZ introduces. I'll try to explain it again because I've probably also confused others.
For example, when I deal with the castings I procure, we mandate that the supplier either repairs them prior to the heat treatment stage or they must be fully heat treated again after weld repairs. This helps resolve the otherwise brittle HAZ. You can do this, because castings are usually quench-and-tempered, which is a relatively slow process.
Welding stuff like Bis, Weldox, etc. requires both pre- and post- heat treating in order to let the weld form and also address the HAZ properly afterwards to restore its strength. You can do this because the processes to heat treat it are traditional and relatively slow. This lets you get (somewhat reduced compared to the parent metal) structurally sound levels of strength out of the weld locality. Because of it, Weldox and Bis both see widespread use in truck bodies, crane arm trusses, etc.
This is in constrast to flash bainite, which relies on it being a very fast process. By virtue of it being a fast, tailor-made process you can't just do it to a complex geometry. By welding it, you dump heat into the weld which then air-cools slowly as the weld cools, completely running counter to the flash bainite process that is necessary to produce the strength. That's why you see a halving in UTS in the mil report I linked in source 3 of my first post - you simply can't recover from the slower heat-and-cool process without doing the whole treatment again, and you can only do that on easy geometries (it seems).
As said, if I understand what you're saying we're essentially saying the same thing, but I think I phrased it quite badly in my post. Not that you disagree with me, but it just made me realise that I don't think I worded it well and wanted to clarify.
Yep we are in 100% agreement. To rectify my own lack of clarity, the sort of parts I am talking about are largely prismatic with a handful of holes and pockets, or for the more complex geometry, not more than around 300x300x300 in total envelope, so definitely not large.
For reference, bainite has completely replaced 8630 in all ranges of quenching and tempering as a material for us, and I'm currently in the process of phasing out most of our Hardox parts in lieu of bainite as well. Haven't used Bisalloy plate for years due to its even-worse-than-expected machinability.
Also as a curiosity I've successfully heat treated bainite stock that was mistakenly supplied raw with a butane torch, an infrared thermometer and a water bath. The end result was slightly softer and slightly tougher than the parts heat treated at the foundry at time of casting.
Basically it is a fantastic material and I want to marry it.
For example, when I deal with the castings I procure, we mandate that the supplier either repairs them prior to the heat treatment stage or they must be fully heat treated again after weld repairs. This helps resolve the otherwise brittle HAZ. You can do this, because castings are usually quench-and-tempered, which is a relatively slow process.
Welding stuff like Bis, Weldox, etc. requires both pre- and post- heat treating in order to let the weld form and also address the HAZ properly afterwards to restore its strength. You can do this because the processes to heat treat it are traditional and relatively slow. This lets you get (somewhat reduced compared to the parent metal) structurally sound levels of strength out of the weld locality. Because of it, Weldox and Bis both see widespread use in truck bodies, crane arm trusses, etc.
This is in constrast to flash bainite, which relies on it being a very fast process. By virtue of it being a fast, tailor-made process you can't just do it to a complex geometry. By welding it, you dump heat into the weld which then air-cools slowly as the weld cools, completely running counter to the flash bainite process that is necessary to produce the strength. That's why you see a halving in UTS in the mil report I linked in source 3 of my first post - you simply can't recover from the slower heat-and-cool process without doing the whole treatment again, and you can only do that on easy geometries (it seems).
As said, if I understand what you're saying we're essentially saying the same thing, but I think I phrased it quite badly in my post. Not that you disagree with me, but it just made me realise that I don't think I worded it well and wanted to clarify.