Welding Tips and Tricks

So having a weird issue with some rods I have had for a while.

The rods in question are Filarc 76S E7018-G, compared with some ESAB 55.00 E7018-1H4 R 1/8" rods I got a sample pack of. The Filarc rod runs pretty badly, the arc is not settled at all and seems to be quite aggresive, and leaves an odd residue which sometimes exhibits a kind of dampness, not sure if watery or oily really. The ESAB rod had a smooth arc with no residue on the toes of the weld. Both are actually made by ESAB, and although they have different classifications are similar AC/DC rods.

Pretty certain the rods are no good, just wanting to see if anyone had run into anything similar? Not really anything critical, and no easy access to the required destructive testing, just very curious!

First pack of Filarc, unsealed; Sample pack of ESAB, unsealed; Second, different, pack of Filarc, sealed; All of the rods, same order; Notes;

The residue is the very black area from the toes out to the parent material of the Filarc rods. The ESAB rod has clean metal from the toes until the smoke residue. The spatter seen in the ESAB weld is predominately from the final Filarc weld. You can also see a distinct difference in bead profile and the slag is far easier to release on the ESAB. All were run as close to identically as possible.

I would say the flux is contaminated or otherwise compromised. Either use them or not. Not much you can do short of trying to re-bake them at 700-900°F.

just looking at the rod specs shows they are quite different rods, they are not similar at all.
i would not call it good or bad due to comparing it with a different rod.

you really need to compare it to another G rated rod.

Like Tweake says. There a special version of 7018 designed for low temp applications of the finished product.

Oscar wrote:I would say the flux is contaminated or otherwise compromised. Either use them or not. Not much you can do short of trying to re-bake them at 700-900°F.

Figured contamination was a possibility, just odd that they exhibit this straight out a vacpac. Tried them baked out then left to settle around 110 degrees celsius, no difference. Not using them now, don't run well enough even for practice in my opinion.

tweake wrote:just looking at the rod specs shows they are quite different rods, they are not similar at all.
i would not call it good or bad due to comparing it with a different rod.

you really need to compare it to another G rated rod.

Yeah, you do make a good point, may run into another brand's rods one day.

Still feel the Filarcs shouldn't be giving the residue I can get, or have such a rough arc. No 7018 I have run, regardless of the sub-classification, has been similar.

Poland308 wrote:Like Tweake says. There a special version of 7018 designed for low temp applications of the finished product.

Closest rod to how these run, to me, is a xx10 / xx11...

FWE wrote:

tweake wrote:just looking at the rod specs shows they are quite different rods, they are not similar at all.
i would not call it good or bad due to comparing it with a different rod.

you really need to compare it to another G rated rod.

Yeah, you do make a good point, may run into another brand's rods one day.

Still feel the Filarcs shouldn't be giving the residue I can get, or have such a rough arc. No 7018 I have run, regardless of the sub-classification, has been similar.

have you run G rods before?
just having a quick look, G rods seam to be for marine steel. i know boats can have some very specific steel grades used. i'm guessing the rods are made for that type of steel.

those beads don't look anything like cellulose rods.

If you look at the specs for g rated 7018 rods you will see they are for marine or for a final product where the steel will be exposed to extremely low temperatures-40c. Or even colder. Being a 7018 they will have the same tensile strength as regular 7018. They are probably adding different things to the flux to either protect the weld puddle from the environment there designed to run in, or to give the weld a slightly different metallurgy so it can withstand the stresses of low temp conditions it will be in when it’s finished.

tweake wrote:those beads don't look anything like cellulose rods.

Suppose I meant that they have a very punchy and aggressive arc.

tweake wrote:have you run G rods before?
just having a quick look, G rods seam to be for marine steel. i know boats can have some very specific steel grades used. i'm guessing the rods are made for that type of steel.

Poland308 wrote:If you look at the specs for g rated 7018 rods you will see they are for marine or for a final product where the steel will be exposed to extremely low temperatures-40c. Or even colder. Being a 7018 they will have the same tensile strength as regular 7018. They are probably adding different things to the flux to either protect the weld puddle from the environment there designed to run in, or to give the weld a slightly different metallurgy so it can withstand the stresses of low temp conditions it will be in when it’s finished.

Aye, interested to try another brand of G rated rod, see if it runs similar. The Filarc ones I have just seem off, or maybe I just need to try more odd rods..

Next question then, anyone here run 7018-G before?

Poland308 wrote:If you look at the specs for g rated 7018 rods you will see they are for marine or for a final product where the steel will be exposed to extremely low temperatures-40c. Or even colder. Being a 7018 they will have the same tensile strength as regular 7018. They are probably adding different things to the flux to either protect the weld puddle from the environment there designed to run in, or to give the weld a slightly different metallurgy so it can withstand the stresses of low temp conditions it will be in when it’s finished.

the spec sheet showed it most certainly gives a different metallurgy.
i would guess they have something in the flux for dealing with salt and moisture.

Well been having a look, seems that AWS A5.5 lists EXX18-G electrodes as general low-alloy steel, and the E7018-1 H4 R electrode is from AWS A5.1, for carbon steels, so they are indeed different enough to not be directly comparable.

Still, to fuel the fire... The Lincoln Kryo 1, a 7018-G, datasheet shows them as suitable for the standard structural steels in my area, up to E10025 S460, nothing special. ESAB lists their OK 55.00, a 7018-1, as suitable for certain ship steel grades, same as the Kryo 1. The main metallurgical difference I see is more Nickel than E7018-1, not really much else is nominally different, some subtle differences, though you would see these changes batch to batch of the same rod. Still kin!