can't get a 6013 weld on a t join. complety gone bonkers!!

just when i thought i had my 6013 flat welds looking great I started
trying T joints. I get two parallel beads on each plate but no joint.
Oddest thing ive ever seen. I was using 3/32 6013's on 1/8inch mild
steel. No matter what i do I cant get a decent weld bead with 6014
here. I can do it ok with 6011. Is it my amps? i was using i think 110
amps dc.
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
Rod: At that amperage, it sounds like your using DCEP. Using a positive electrode puts more heat on the electrode causing less penetration of the joined pieces, which matches what you have said. Try AC or DCEN. You should be able to reduce that current also.
Rod Ryker... The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
Reply to
Rod Ryker
You should get a really good fillet with 3/32nd-inch (2.5mm) 6013. Max. current of 2.5mm 6013 is 90Amps. But you will get a small fillet-corner lack-of-fusion defect - certainly when welding 1/4-inch (6mm) plate. Should be almost an academic point - tiny defect revealed on break test - with good technique.
In UK there is a culture taught in vocational colleges of using 2.5mm (3/32nd-inch) 6013's at 120A to 130A on a for root run. "There is no other choice to get full penetration" - which is the standard which has to be met (bit unrealistic?). No other electrodes exists. 6011 if suggested isn't acceptable - that is a pipe-welding electrode *only*, so no, that suggestion is not acceptable. I cannot recommend the 2.5mm 6013 @ 120A to 130A approach - no-one has proved that the violation of the 90A max. current recommendation has no detriment to weld quality in this specific circumstance of running a fillet root-run. By the way; if you do this, you get a slag adherence which you wish you had a small pneumatic chisel to get rid of - it's really really adherent. 6013 slag should be self-peeling...
For full fillet-corner fusion, use 6011 (or 6010?) at 70A (its max. current limit). Hold open arc, just as you would for 6013 or xx18. You usually have to slightly whip the rod backwards and forwards by about half to a full core wire diameter, to get well-formed (not broken) weld pool and a nice flat root fillet with negligible if any undercut. Search for other posts s.e.j.w. on this topic. "drag" the rod and you for sure get very fulsome corner fusion but a humped weld bead with slag-traps down the two sides - not a good option.
Good 6011 root then cap with a 6013 is v. good fillet-weld option.
On 1/8th plate (3mm), will have no need or room for a cap. Suggest 6013 at 90A, and do a slightly larger bead to compensate for any putative corner defect. 1/4inch (6mm) fillet face width is the "ideal" when welding 1/8th-inch plate - so slightly larger than that by a mm (1/32nd-inch) or so and you have a weld which as strong and fit for purpose as any can be.
[Everyone - am I saying this right???]
With 6013 root - which is honestly a totally reasonable choice for handrails and frankly even structural things - as all fillet welds even if fully fused have a "corner defect" with that "crack" represented by where the upright plate rests on the base plate - I can think of a couple of reasons for what you are getting. Are you running too slowly, so slag is being running forward of the weld and being entrapped under the weld with slag standing firm in the corner? Your run-out should be about the rod length. Can be a bit shorter, but not hugely so. And your rod angle. Your rod slope is a drag angle of about 70deg to 60deg to the plate (20deg to 30deg off vertical)? So the arc is pushing the slag back off the weld-pool front as it fuses along the plate... Your tilt is 45deg into the corner, equally bisecting the T-joint angle.
In summary, you should get a really nice fillet bead with 6013. Hope you find the conditions and they start coming out nice.
Richard Smith
Reply to
Richard Smith
Done bit of math regarding run-out length.
(* 6 3 (/ 1.0 2)) 9.0 ; this is the calc. for fillet c.s.a.
(* pi 2.5 2.5 (/ 1.0 4)) 4.908738521234052 ; this is the rod c.s.a.
So at least 9mm of weld cross-sectional-area and only 5mm of rod cross-sectional area.
So to go to adequate fillet size in one run, your run-out (the lenght of weld you deposit) must be about half the rod length. That's a bit too slow.
You want a a run-out about the rod length with 6013.
So need a root run and a cap.
So could do 3/32nd (2.5mm) 6011 root and 2.5mm 6013 cap or 2.5mm 6013 root and 2.5mm 6013 cap.
In both cases, need to weave for cap. Arc into corner between root run and plate - jump from top to bottom juntions, with the pause being on while above the junction. Slight "C" motion so sweep "backwards" as crossing - but only ever so slightly. Rod tilt can stay at 45deg to plate.
Will keenly look for follow-up advice and corrections...
Richard Smith
Reply to
Richard Smith
Sorry that should be square-millimetres.
9 square-millimetres of fillet c.s.a. and 5 square-millimetres of welding rod c.s.a.
Reply to
Richard Smith
"Albie" wrote in news:1128130672.106933.324530
The beginning of my 3/32" 6013 fillet beads look the same a lot of the time. I thought it might be because it was crappy rod but I guess not.
From my (limited) experience and attempts at solving this problem you need to lower the amps to around 90. Sounds like the puddle is too molten and the slag is getting ahead and into the corner forcing the metal to the sides. Assuming the rod angle is correct, make sure the rod is dragging in the corner so the metal goes where it's supposed to. Run it as you would 7014 rod. There should be no weaving on that first bead.
hope this helps, jumper
Reply to
In addition to the advice from others, here's another .02 --
6013 can run beautifully, but it can also be a royal pain, at least in my (hobby weldor) experience. The problem is that if you ever get slag ahead of the direction of travel, it makes the weld puddle run off like ink off of crayon--and once the problem starts, it seems to perpetuate itself. So the trick is not to let the slag get ahead of you.
One of the most important things, I find, is to get the rod tip right down at the joint -- if you hold even a slightly long arc, you invite the slag to run ahead. Also, sometimes I find that it is harder to avoid this problem if the amps are too low -- but as others have mentioned, your amps sound outrageously high. Of course, different machines very often are marked differently -- 90 amps on one machine may be 75 amps on another -- but FWIW, for that sort of joint in 1/8 steel, using 3/32 rod, I would be running at 75 to 85 amps on my machine. OTOH, when I had a 110v buzz box, I had trouble getting enough heat even at its max setting (100 amps). You're not using a 110v machine, by any chance?
One other issue is joint fitup. If you have very much of a gap between the pieces to be joined, it can trap the slag, and again the weld puddle just peels off on either side. Highly frustrating when it happens ...
Hope this helps! Let us know how it goes ...
Reply to
Andrew H. Wakefield
Well I tried it again, using suggestions, I am sad to say that nothing has changed, I tried AC , dcep, dcen, 65 to 100 amps. Spend a good 2 hours experimenting. All with no real noticable differences other than what you would expect with lower voltage. I tried dragging, weaving like I do with 6011, I even did this. I laid the T joint exactly like a V in a vice so the weld puddle would supposedly lay perfectly. But it still did the same thing. Either bead on the upper piece or bead on the lower piece but no luck. I then broke out my trusty 6011 and went DCEP as usual and fixed the problem ! Problem is now solved as far as I am concered. I threw away my 6013 and will stick with what I know, 6011. Thanks for suggestions though.
Reply to
I'm just about forbidden to use 6011 for root. It's amazing that is the standard technique in N.Am. yet here in UK, have instructors coming around saying don't want to see you using 6011 for root again. Get good results, better pen. and and good bead shape, but technique not recognised. Anyway, harked on about this before, so I will put some tape over my mouth and get back to 6013 root...
Richard S.
Reply to
Richard Smith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.