Welding Tips and Tricks

During my time reading this forum I've noticed the North American fondness for 7018 rods and relitive dislike of the 6013 rods.
Down here the 6013 is THE common rod, sold everywhere, used in weld training etc.
7018 you have to search for them.
I must admit 6013 is the rod I have used the most and never had any real issues with them, if I've produced a crap weld its usually me stuffing me up not the rod.
So reading some comments from some of you blokes who weld for a living and are bloody good at it commenting you have problems with 6013 has me puzzled, why?
So in the interests of furthering my education I've tracked down some 7018's to see what the differences are.
So since I've just run out of argon for tig again, I'll be trying out the 7018's, what can I expect?

It's not as good as a 60 series rod for jumping a gap and it's harder to run down hill. If you do run down and your not careful you get slag inclusions. But it will pull a lot of impurities out if you move slow.

Nobody prefers using 7018. It wants to stick. The absence of hydrogen makes its bond with workpiece more secure.

Pros:
No special storage or preheating (drying) requirements
Cheap
Can have pretty coloured coatings
Good for stirring up Alaskan welders.

Cons:
Strength of weld is almost always less than parent metal
Full of hydrogen (cause of cold cracking in welds)
Poor penetration welds. (Try cutting up one of your welds, prepare a marco and compare to a 7018 equivalent)
Not recognised by any Australian Standard (and most other country's standards) for structural, pressure or certification welding

This means that a 6013 weld will be understrength and prone to failure due to lack of penetration and under bead cold cracking.
OK for art and maybe side gate repair at home. That kind of thing.

As far as training schools are concerned, I think you will find that 6013 is used alot at the introductory level only. This is because at this level its about the welder not the weld. Developing skills like maintaining rod angle, keeping a constant tight arc length while padding beads, that kind of thing.
None of those welds are going to be subjected to any kind of destructive or ND testing other than visual and then straight to the dumpster.
So it makes sense to use the cheapest rod the school can buy and also no chance green students will burn themselves with hot rods out of the oven while they are learning basic skills.

Once you get past the introductory stage, its more about the weld complying with standards and they will be subjected to destructive tests. 6013 would fail these tests every time.

Nothing wrong with 6013 for general purpose use.

There is even a regular poster on weldingweb that uses it for pipe welding:
http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?19742-6013-dcen

Another welder reported 7014 and 6013 being in the WPS for welding a split electrical transformer.

It's not a low hydrogen rod so it's not to be used for that of course.

You can pass a bend test with it - but not a "sledgehammer test" - so don't use it for impact loads.

I welded my slip-on tractor bucket forks with 6013 couple years ago and I'm still using them.

Every rod for it's purpose is what I'd say

In my gangely youth the the industry standard for ammonia pipework was stick (nobody used it in Oz that I knew of for ammonia pipe and I worked all over). Standard was 6011 root and fill/cap was 6013. Those welders were awesome and produced superb looking welds, rarely had leaks under pressure test. In those days, our refrigeration code (and from memory I think it was a British CB code) did not tie into any pressure piping code and hence no ndt.
These days we avoid stick work unless there is no other way due to crap inside the pipe and fire risk with EPS coldstore paneling etc. But I do now question the validity of the process in view of the better knowledge I have gained about welding.
We never had any cold cracking failure that I can remember but the weld would have been weaker than the parent metal due to the 60,000psi rods and that's my main objection in principle.
And of course these days it's all code work too, so no 6013 permitted. I still keep some 6013 on the shelf and will use them on site for brackets, but that's about it. I would not dream of using it on bucket forks. Yours might be holding but it's asking for trouble. If it breaks it will be at the weld. Let's hope it holds under load.

Coldman wrote:In my gangely youth the the industry standard for ammonia pipework was stick (nobody used it in Oz that I knew of for ammonia pipe and I worked all over). Standard was 6011 root and fill/cap was 6013. Those welders were awesome and produced superb looking welds, rarely had leaks under pressure test. In those days, our refrigeration code (and from memory I think it was a British CB code) did not tie into any pressure piping code and hence no ndt.
These days we avoid stick work unless there is no other way due to crap inside the pipe and fire risk with EPS coldstore paneling etc. But I do now question the validity of the process in view of the better knowledge I have gained about welding.
We never had any cold cracking failure that I can remember but the weld would have been weaker than the parent metal due to the 60,000psi rods and that's my main objection in principle.
And of course these days it's all code work too, so no 6013 permitted. I still keep some 6013 on the shelf and will use them on site for brackets, but that's about it. I would not dream of using it on bucket forks. Yours might be holding but it's asking for trouble. If it breaks it will be at the weld. Let's hope it holds under load.

While I appreciate the concern (I always appreciate it when someone makes a comment strictly for my safety), I've welded 36,000 psi steel with a 60,000 psi rod - I'm not too concerned for my uses

I don't mind 7018. I usually only run the 3/32 unless I've got big pipe 8in and bigger or heavy wall then I'll bump up to 1/8 or 5/32. Especially if it's slip on flanges.

Really, I don't dislike any particular rod.

Although I have very little need for 6010/11 or 7024 - but I guess I don't really dislike them.

7018 welds very nice, but I like 7014 and 6013 too.

(7014 tends to be my fav Dang near nap while running them)

I'm very biased though - I just like welding with everything, mig, tig, stick, oxy/acetylene....

Is that because your running it on an ac machine ?

Poland308 wrote:Is that because your running it on an ac machine ?

If that was for me, I used to run an AC machine most of the time in the early/mid 90's - my first job was with a cheap AC tombstone.

Now it's mostly all DC, but both are fine for me - I'll flip the machine to AC for 7014 or 6013 just 'cause I kinda like them that way sometimes.

The inherent shrinkage when weld metal cools sets up enormous tension in a large weldment. I favor a bit of ductility in filler. The James I Lincoln book Metals, and how to weld them speaks of this. The inevitable stretching that takes place upon cooling is a good thing, It relieves tension, and causes slipping in the crystals of steel that make the carbon molecules fall into voids in the adjacent crystal. This strengthens the bond between crystals. 6013 has more ductility than lots of other choices. In most cases it is strong enough.

Caterpillar recommends 7018 over 11018. Might this be the reason?

I too have used 6013 for a large variety of fabrication with success. After seeing a video of hydrogen concentration, where the cooling of molten weld causes migration of hydrogen molecules to the surface of the joint where metal stopped melting. This markedly weakens the bond. I believe the hydrogen acts like olive oil in a frying pan, preventing stick down.

7018 is less fun to use, but I never want to be the guy who kills someone when a weld fails. Often 7018 is a better choice. Be aware that moist 7018 is little better than 6013.

Our pipe welding is done with 7010 root and 7018 cap - exclusively


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/U ... /c2410.pdf

Answers to rod questions from the rod gods.

Bill Beauregard wrote:Caterpillar recommends 7018 over 11018. Might this be the reason?

Probably part of the equation there is the type of use and the required impact resistance, not just the base strenght/psi rating.

Stronger alloy types (weld filler or simply the base materials) tend to also get progressively more brittle so even though they may have a (much) higher tensile strenght they may develop cracks sooner when shock loading or plastic deformation is present in the base material. (hard-facing rods probably an example of an extreme case here..)

Depending on the use a structure designed from a lower tensile strenght material may well work better/longer than a higher rated one. It's all in matching the material to the application correctly and designing the dimensions appropriately.

Bye, Arno.

Arno wrote:

Bill Beauregard wrote:Caterpillar recommends 7018 over 11018. Might this be the reason?

Probably part of the equation there is the type of use and the required impact resistance, not just the base strenght/psi rating.

Stronger alloy types (weld filler or simply the base materials) tend to also get progressively more brittle so even though they may have a (much) higher tensile strenght they may develop cracks sooner when shock loading or plastic deformation is present in the base material. (hard-facing rods probably an example of an extreme case here..)

Depending on the use a structure designed from a lower tensile strenght material may well work better/longer than a higher rated one. It's all in matching the material to the application correctly and designing the dimensions appropriately.

Bye, Arno.

For me, a question has always been how does a heavy equipment manufacturer weld continuous seams in very heavy items, without them having internal stress, and curling up like a bananna?

For me, a question has always been how does a heavy equipment manufacturer weld continuous seams in very heavy items, without them having internal stress, and curling up like a bananna?[/quote]

Post welding heat treatment in bloody big ovens.

Pre -set, strong backs, and post weld pressing and straitening. We had a 600 ton press for this job.

Sent from my ZTE T83 using Tapatalk

you will find people will recommend 7018 regardless because it makes their welding dick larger. My boss has pulled many , i mean hundreds of 6013 fillets and 7018 fillets (he's a certified AS1796 welder) and bent/smashed them all.

The difference is not as large as you would expect. Some of the 6013/7014 welds held better than 7018, some not. We have lined up 10-15 samples, etched them and bent them an no-one at our shop could tell the difference by eye

Everyone's love affair with 7018 is getting out of hand. Welded up a workbench this morning with 6013 (35x35x2mm SHS) and copped so many "watch it crack, should have used 7018" comments i nearly beheaded myself.

I have never seen a 6013 weld crack yet. They are fine for non critical applications. If the weld is not being subject to heavy impact and torsional loads, why spend money on low-hy rods that 99% of users leave out and are no longer low-hy anyway? It would be a different story if I were welding hi-ten pressure piping, but seriously guys, for general fab, get off the d*** of 7018 for a while.

I can pull beads with a 7014 that look like mig welds........and hold better. Why would i need 7018 to make trailer boxes and gates when it is not needed in any way. There are different rods for a reason. I wonder why it is America that is so obsessed with 7018 mainly?

99% of the time 60 000psi rods are way above the parent material if you are welding mild steel. You can run into problems as well when the weld material is way harder than the parent.

I too have used lots of 6011, and 6013, and my fair share of 80TAC+, but after seeing the video showing the migration, and layer formed by hydrogen molecules under, and beside the bead, I feel 7018 is a good idea. I still use 6010 where it's warranted. Rusty steel works better with 6010, or 11.

Let's not forget that hydrogen will diffuse out of deposited weld given enough temperature and time. So if a root is done with 6010/11 and before it cools filling /capping is done with hydrogen controlled rods, much of the hydrogen in the root will have been driven off and therefore less potential problems.

American tends to be over-obsessed with 7018......but Australia is worse off being overly fond of 6013. It does fine for what i need to weld (2/3mm box n 1.6/2mm sheet) but i wouldn't mind running something different.

Just went down to the local BOC supplier, and a few fab shops locally and found 902837589753 different 6013 rods, a few packs of pipearc 6010, no 6011 (poor AC users) 793485793238 packs 7014/7024 of many different brands, and no 7018 in stock at the moment.

I wanted to see what all the fuss is about. Don't really need 7018, but if the time comes where I need to weld something critical, I would like to be able to pick some up here in Australia without a Personal Investigators license!!!

Try and independent supplier and ask for wia austarc18tc

Or online bobthewelder.com.au
INE 55B rods