Rod question

I had to go to a sheet metal fab shop today. While there, I smelled the
familiar odor of welding rods burning. As I walked past the welder, I said,
"7018?" and he said "No, 6013." He was welding 1 1/2" x 1/4" angle. I
thought that a bit odd of a rod choice.
I have welded a ton of 6010 and 7018 reverse polarity, but then, most of
mine was heavier structural and pipe. I did do a bunch of 6011, straight
polarity. I haven't welded a lot of 6013, but remember it in the book as
being quoted as a "sheet metal rod". I did weld a tiny bit of it while
trying to master repair welding of .065" tubing in the field. But I found
that 6011 worked very good.
What is the deal on 6013? Is it a low medium or high penetration rod? Is
it for thin stuff or thicker stuff? Was the welder using the right rod?
Steve
Reply to
SteveB
Loading thread data ...
6013 is a nice rod for low to medium pentration, clean metal. Orignially designed for thinner stock. It runs well on low open circuit AC welders (your basic buzz box) and it works well for low experience operators. With just reasonable practice you can get downhand weld beads where the slag just peels off about 12" behind where you are welding. Your basic easy to use for the newbie rod, what more would you like?
Was it the BEST rod for 1/4" structural parts? Probably not. 6011 or 7018 will give you better penetration. If they were just knocking together some bench frames, it was just fine plus it will look better.
SteveB wrote:
Reply to
RoyJ
If the edges are correctly prepared, penetration is not an issue.
Reply to
Ecnerwal
It was the best rod for getting the job done efficiently. As you know '18 has frequent bad starts and is not an ideal rod to do short welds since the flux is so fragile. E 6013 is easy striking and gives a nice bead. The flux knocks off easily. You can use it on AC to avoid arc blow. It does a decent bead downhill. There is minimal spatter to clean. The electrode has a rutile flux coating. You don't need a low hydrogen electrode to prevent underbead cracking because your material is so thin plus it is just regular old angle rather than a high yield alloy. The 70,000 psi rod is overkill for the 60,000 angle. Randy
Reply to
Randy Zimmerman
Fully agree. But I'd doubt that the body shop prepped the edges of the angle, probably just burned it in. I doubt that they would have even knocked the mill scale off.
Ecnerwal wrote:
Reply to
RoyJ
I guess I shoulda added they were making AC "jacks", which are triangular stands to put AC units on slanted roofs. Nothing really critical, meant to hold 400-800#.
Steve
Reply to
SteveB
Hi
Here in UK, lots more use of 6013 (rutile). The majority rod by a long way if you go to technical college, and in a lot more circumstances of welding. Quite different to N.Am.
When tried using xx11's and xx10's to run "normal" joints, told "they are not used in this way" - that only use is the "specialist" pipe-welding method, as would do if say replacing the heating system in a public building. So totally different to N.Am. practice where freely use 6010's and 6011's for "gates and park-benches".
xx13 is rutile with potassium in binder. Talking with Lincoln Electric about weld penetration & fillet corner-fusion, they do make a "6012" which is rutile with sodium (so is in relationship as 6010 to 6011) and is slightly "harder" rod - but no-one has ever even heard of one - (and apparently will only run on AC!).
Rutile is good for making fillet welds, so long as you accept there won't be fillet corner-fusion (???) - there will be a defect of about 0.5mm (20thou of inch) non-fusion in an "L" at the corner, even with ground-to-silver plate edges. For sure, you will get a beautifully smooth weld fillet (bead) with self-peeling slag. So for many applications, like the one mentioned (the bracket for the transformer), is ideal.
Then there's more.
Pure rutile has absolutely zip penetration (ie. very little - just about none!). One popular brand here in UK is called "Satinex", evoking image of a satin-smooth bead-surface. And self-peeling slag. But only to be used as a second pass if you give a damn' about penetration / fillet corner-fusion. The other rutile is rutile-cellulose, with a few percent cellulose just to give the thing some penetration. These would typically be called "rutiles" too, with operators having no idea of the distinction apart from that they are rods which are somehow better for the first run. So you would do the fillet-corner with a 2.5mm (about 100 thou of inch) rutile-cellulose rod for corner-fusion (still rarely perfect!) then cap with a 3.25mm (about 130 thou of inch) pure rutile. Even the rutile-cellulose run will self-peel, so fast to do two runs.
But full-penetration butt welds, including pipe-welds. Folk will tell you it can be done with 6013's (rutiles), and I am sure it is so, but generally (???) it is a polite fiction for the fact that there will be either "icicles" or lack-of-penetration defects all along the underbead.
When I tried it (once - I had mastered keyholing with cellulosics) - you ground to a very small root-face and had slightly wider root gap, all done very carefully to make it uniform, then struck an arc, ran as smoothly as possible and just accepted what you got. I got either fall-through with icicles or a "channel" of unmelted root prep remaining - never perfect pen.
If you have to stick-weld (eg. you are in the field, walking in with a welding machine in one hand and a bag of rods in the other), cellulosics give you huge control of root fusion using "keyholing", and you can ride it, keeping uniform resultant weld with rough-ground weld-prep including varying root-gap and root-face thickness.
Finally, just to put you in the picture - one instructor at the college had never used any stick welding rods apart from 6013's and taught everyone all joints with 6013's. And that didn't stand-out. The other instructor showed root-running the butt weld with 6010/6011. Was being me, and tolerated as being me, when using 6011 to get fillet corner fusion in lap and T-joint weld samples.
My adventures here:
formatting link
wishes.
Richard Smith
Reply to
richard.smith.met
RIchard, My dad taught me to weld when I was in the 6th grade, he always used either 6013 or 6011. Not that he couldn't use anything else, he had rods for everything in his shop and held 13 certifications for aircraft gas turbine welding. I too use these rods and have never had a problem in the past 40 years even as a shop owner. One thing about the 11's is that they are hard to strike sometimes and give a novice ideas of giving up trying to weld. They are also good for the times that you can't get the base metal clean.
Reply to
hhrj
Fast deposition on horizontal welds
Reply to
Ignoramus30945
Titania is a common name for Titanium dioxide, or TiO2. Also referred to as rutile, a naturally occuring mineral formation of Titanium dioxide.
formatting link
Reply to
Todd Rich
7014 can be run on AC. And it looks good, better than 6013. Farmers like it. It's easy to start too. Another reason farmers like it. Doesn't penetrate as well as 6013 so welding on dirty metal with 7014 doesn't work as well. I've seen 7014 welds on a rusty trailer just peel off. Like the weld stuck to the thick rust and not the good metal underneath. Eric
Reply to
etpm
7014 is extremely fat, compared to 7018, you really ought to buy a few lbs of each and try.
i
Reply to
Ignoramus27831
I use 6013 and 7018 only, but I always wanted to try 7014. I have perhaps 50 lbs of it.
i
Reply to
Ignoramus27831
"Ignoramus27831" wrote in message news:-eydnWmW8c1GHZnMnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com...
formatting link

Reply to
Jim Wilkins
6013 and 7014 can both be used with limited input power AC buzzbox transformer welders. This is why they are the classic "farmer rods". 7014 is an all position rod that is run using the same technique as 7018. It produces a smooth weld bead with good appearance. 7014 is similar to 7024 (often called "jetrod") which has even more iron powder in the coating. 7028 is the low-hydrogen equivalent of 7024 but IMHE is harder to run without porosity. XX2X = flat and horizontal fillets. Wire feeders have replaced most 7024 and 7028 use.
I have personally never found a need for 7014 as I have always used better welding power sources, IMHO 7018 is a better choice when a full powered welding power source is available. I do not use a lot of 6013 but do keep and use it in larger sizes (1/8 & 5/32") on DCRP when I want "fast follow" for welding sheet steel and in smaller sizes (3/32 & especially 6/64") on DCSP when I need low penetration when welding thin material in the field with a CC - DC welder.
YMMV
Reply to
Private
Never used a 7014 - is in same family as 6013 - sort of a cousin of? - which have used
7018 has very good mechanical properties. Can use for serious structural. Both strong and tough. Takes a massive amount of sledgehammering to break 7018 weld apart - way up there and out there in properties.
If 7014 is anything like 6013 (surely is?), isn't in same league for properties
But is reputedly very easy to use - burns smooth. Ideal for some jobs - right rod for the right job - ask folk here or look back in archives - plenty have commented on this...
6013 and 7014 flux based on rutile - titanium oxide - titania is oxide of titanium
7018, and all xx15, xx16, xx18, etc, are based on limestone - calcium carbonate - completely different flux system with completely different properties - how it burns, how you use it, properties it gives, etc, etc.
Thicker coating on 7014 like 7018? Believe so - is that right?
Reply to
<void

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.