Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 119

Thread: Why not use 7014?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why not use 7014?

    I have 3 sizes now of 7014 rod - 1/16", 5/64", and 1/8". I was running the 1/16" with some sheet metal last week and went up to the 5/64" for the same application. I haven't made up my mind if there is much of a benefit with the larger rod for the sheet metal coupons I was working with - they both behave very close as best I can tell, but I didn't run them side-by-side.

    I tried a few 1/8" rods today and ran them side by side with the same size 7018. I get porosity on starts with 7018. From what I've seen in some demo videos that isn't uncommon. However, I get a better weld from the start with 7014 - from the outside it's clean from the very start, no porosity.

    What I seem to not be getting is a whole lot of penetration with butt joints. I have some 3/16" strips that were cut-offs from a project last year that I used as test weld material. I butted two of them against each other at the factory edge (rounded) with a tad bit of a gap. I tacked with 6011 on the far end, then clamped it on the other. As I welded the gap closed pretty quick. However, I didn't make it past where the metal came together at the middle of the butt joint.

    On another bead I long-arc'ed the rod and slowed down. I got too much heat and blew through the metal. So I turned the amperage up and went back to a shorter arc with a moderate speed.

    The surface of the runs looks great. I don't have any undercut or porosity. It just looks like a clean weld.

    I am curious how the welds would hold up under stress testing. I have a hydraulic press so maybe I'll work up a test fixture and do some stress testing.

    Is there a reason why not to use 7014? I know 6010 and 7018 are the "code rods" (generally speaking), but there are a bazillion types of rods out there and 7014 seem to still be popular (maybe that is because they are easier to obtain than some of the other specialty pipe work type rods etc)...

    From what I can tell the 7014 is a good "lay metal down" rod. For a beveled joint of heavier metal it seems like it would be an ideal rod. Same goes for a fillet filler - maybe on top of a 6011 or 6010 root so the root has the deeper penetration.

    In the beveled edge joint (lets say its a butt joint with a bevel on both edges) - by getting the arc on top of each bevel to get a bit of penetration on each would that create a strong enough adhesion to the base metal? If the weld is laid down effectively with a thorough cleaning between layers (IE - no slag entrapment) the weld metal would essentially have full penetration of the joint - just not deep penetration in to the base metal (in to the bevels), just a fill of the bevel.

    In any event, I find the 7014's run pretty well. I'd be curious why others may suggest not using them - specifically the larger rods (say, 3/32" on up).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    7024 which is basically the same rod but with more iron powder used to be used extensively as the production rod for non dynamically loaded weldments like tanks. Flux-core has taken over a lot of the 7024 applications. 7018 is popular because it's good for welding just about anything made of mild steel.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    7014 is actually preferred over 7018 by many. it produces a great weld and has excellent penetration. it also does not require an oven like 7018.

    7014 is easier to work with because the tip does not clog.

    here is a chart for comparison from Miller

    Name:  miller chart card_.jpg
Views: 615
Size:  133.3 KB

  4. Likes FlyFishn liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder Dave View Post
    7018 is popular because it's good for welding just about anything made of mild steel.
    If 7018 is prone to bug holes on starts and 7014 isn't - why would the edge still go to the 7018? Granted, I am not using a rod oven so my porosity issue on starts may be from that. Yet, lots of folks say 7018 can be used without a rod oven for non-code work, repairs, and fabrication just fine.

    So that gets me back to my question - why would you not want to use 7014?

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    AJO, ARIZONA
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    For the average home welder 7014 is a great choice, it is similar to 7024, but overcomes the shortcomings of 7024 because it is an all position rod, 7024 is only flat, horizontal & fillet. The porosity from 7018 can usually be fixed by backing up as soon as you get the arc started and go back over the staring point. I have a lot of different rods & 7014 is probably my favorite.
    NRA LIFE MEMBER
    UNITWELD 175 AMP 3 IN1 DC MIG/STICK/TIG
    MIDSTATES 300 AMP AC MACHINE
    GOD BLESS AMERICA!
    ďFreedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
    We didnít pass it to our children in the bloodstream".
    RONALD REAGAN

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    7014 is still a rutile rod like 6013 but it's stronger and a lot easier to run. Down sides are: non hydrogen controlled, uphill sucks and penetration is not great like you found out.
    You can use 7018 unbaked, it's sucked in hydrogen so the quality and strength of the weld will be the same as 7014 but will get better penetration and better uphill performance.
    You can avoid 7018 porosity by striking 1/2" ahead, long arcing till you get back to start point and away you go with a short arc.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,575
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
    why would you not want to use 7014?
    I dunno, 50 gallons of slag from each rod, and all the joys that go with it?

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,153
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
    I have 3 sizes now of 7014 rod - 1/16", 5/64", and 1/8". I was running the 1/16" with some sheet metal last week and went up to the 5/64" for the same application. I haven't made up my mind if there is much of a benefit with the larger rod for the sheet metal coupons I was working with - they both behave very close as best I can tell, but I didn't run them side-by-side.

    I tried a few 1/8" rods today and ran them side by side with the same size 7018. I get porosity on starts with 7018. From what I've seen in some demo videos that isn't uncommon. However, I get a better weld from the start with 7014 - from the outside it's clean from the very start, no porosity.

    What I seem to not be getting is a whole lot of penetration with butt joints. I have some 3/16" strips that were cut-offs from a project last year that I used as test weld material. I butted two of them against each other at the factory edge (rounded) with a tad bit of a gap. I tacked with 6011 on the far end, then clamped it on the other. As I welded the gap closed pretty quick. However, I didn't make it past where the metal came together at the middle of the butt joint.

    On another bead I long-arc'ed the rod and slowed down. I got too much heat and blew through the metal. So I turned the amperage up and went back to a shorter arc with a moderate speed.

    The surface of the runs looks great. I don't have any undercut or porosity. It just looks like a clean weld.

    I am curious how the welds would hold up under stress testing. I have a hydraulic press so maybe I'll work up a test fixture and do some stress testing.

    Is there a reason why not to use 7014? I know 6010 and 7018 are the "code rods" (generally speaking), but there are a bazillion types of rods out there and 7014 seem to still be popular (maybe that is because they are easier to obtain than some of the other specialty pipe work type rods etc)...

    From what I can tell the 7014 is a good "lay metal down" rod. For a beveled joint of heavier metal it seems like it would be an ideal rod. Same goes for a fillet filler - maybe on top of a 6011 or 6010 root so the root has the deeper penetration.

    In the beveled edge joint (lets say its a butt joint with a bevel on both edges) - by getting the arc on top of each bevel to get a bit of penetration on each would that create a strong enough adhesion to the base metal? If the weld is laid down effectively with a thorough cleaning between layers (IE - no slag entrapment) the weld metal would essentially have full penetration of the joint - just not deep penetration in to the base metal (in to the bevels), just a fill of the bevel.

    In any event, I find the 7014's run pretty well. I'd be curious why others may suggest not using them - specifically the larger rods (say, 3/32" on up).
    Try 7016 and a short ARC. That rod will penetrate nicely.

    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    If I wasn't so.....crazy, I wouldn't try to act normal, and you would be afraid.

  10. Likes ttoks liked this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NW ON Canada
    Posts
    3,442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Porosity at the start of a 7018 bead is caused by too long of an arc at start up. Itís not the electrode, itís your technique.
    7014 isnít used for code quality welding because itís not a low hydrogen electrode.
    7014 is what I start out my kids using. Strike up and re strikes are so easy with it.
    Jason
    Lincoln Idealarc 250 stick/tig
    Thermal Dynamics Cutmaster 52
    Miller Bobcat 250
    Torchmate CNC table
    Thermal Arc Hefty 2
    Ironworkers Local 720

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Under a Rock
    Posts
    5,496
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by snoeproe View Post
    7014 is what I start out my kids using. Strike up and re strikes are so easy with it.
    Thats what was suggested to me when I got my first ac225

    I built a lot of things with 7014
    seemed to work just fine.
    Miller 211
    Hypertherm PM 45
    1961 Lincoln Idealarc 250
    HTP 221


    True Wisdom only comes from Pain.

  13. Likes VaughnT liked this post
  14. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    7,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Might be useful:

    Name:  electrode ranking chart.jpg
Views: 572
Size:  72.1 KB

    See discussion: https://app.aws.org/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=4880
    Last edited by Oldendum; 09-04-2020 at 10:08 AM.
    "USMCPOP" First-born son: KIA Iraq 1/26/05
    Syncrowave 250 w/ Coolmate 3
    Dialarc 250, Idealarc 250
    SP-175 +
    Firepower TIG 160S (gave the TA 161 STL to the son)
    Lincwelder AC180C (1952)
    Victor & Smith O/A torches
    Miller spot welder

  15. Likes albrightree liked this post
  16. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woznme View Post
    You can avoid 7018 porosity by striking 1/2" ahead, long arcing till you get back to start point and away you go with a short arc.
    Quote Originally Posted by snoeproe View Post
    Porosity at the start of a 7018 bead is caused by too long of an arc at start up. It’s not the electrode, it’s your technique.
    Those quotes above contradict each other.

    The way I start is strike ahead of the joint, about 1/2-3/4" to light, then back up to the beginning, pause and let the pool build, then continue forwards. As to arc length - I keep a medium to short arc, then once it is going, specifically with 7018, is I jam the rod in the pool and let the rod ride on the flux cup. I tune the travel speed by keeping a bit of restriction on the rod going forward, but I still keep the cup bottomed in the pool. I was half way thinking the porosity came from the slag at the early first lighting and burning that I would have been traveling back over - the rod not necessarily being able to burn through it to clean it out effectively = porosity. Maybe that isn't quite the case.

    I will try a couple more beads today and see how it goes.

    Doesn't long-arc'ing increase heat as it raises the voltage? Same amps, higher voltage = higher wattage? For reference my machine is an Idealarc 250 - transformer. AC OCV is 74v RMS, DC OCV is 102-104v and I was running DCEP, but I have seen the same porosity on AC just as well.

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NW ON Canada
    Posts
    3,442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
    Those quotes above contradict each other.

    The way I start is strike ahead of the joint, about 1/2-3/4" to light, then back up to the beginning, pause and let the pool build, then continue forwards. As to arc length - I keep a medium to short arc, then once it is going, specifically with 7018, is I jam the rod in the pool and let the rod ride on the flux cup. I tune the travel speed by keeping a bit of restriction on the rod going forward, but I still keep the cup bottomed in the pool. I was half way thinking the porosity came from the slag at the early first lighting and burning that I would have been traveling back over - the rod not necessarily being able to burn through it to clean it out effectively = porosity. Maybe that isn't quite the case.

    I will try a couple more beads today and see how it goes.

    Doesn't long-arc'ing increase heat as it raises the voltage? Same amps, higher voltage = higher wattage? For reference my machine is an Idealarc 250 - transformer. AC OCV is 74v RMS, DC OCV is 102-104v and I was running DCEP, but I have seen the same porosity on AC just as well.
    I disagree. Porosity at the start is from lack of shielding. Lack of shielding is from using too long of an arc at start up. You can light up ahead of where you want to start welding and come back without using too long of an arc. This also gives the Rod a chance to get going and time to establish a shield gas coverage cloud.
    Last edited by snoeproe; 09-04-2020 at 04:10 PM.
    Jason
    Lincoln Idealarc 250 stick/tig
    Thermal Dynamics Cutmaster 52
    Miller Bobcat 250
    Torchmate CNC table
    Thermal Arc Hefty 2
    Ironworkers Local 720

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    For most applications 7018 doesn't require an oven, however hot 7018 helps to eliminate porosity at the start. Starting porosity can be a problem with any low hydrogen type electrode. 10018D2 is especially bad of right even right out of the oven. I wouldn't say it's from a long arc as a lot of experienced welders using high end machines can still encounter starting porosity. If you're doing short welds you find that you rarely get porosity on the 2nd and later starts on the rod. Generally you strike the arc ahead of where you want the weld to start and then go back over where you struck the arc. 7014 does not have better penetration than 7018. 7014 actually runs the best on straight polarity which has the least penetration. 7014 cannot replace 7018 but 7018 could replace 7014. 7018 is designed for dynamic loading and 7014 is designed for static loading. That's the big difference.

  19. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Here are some side-by-side comparisons between 7014 and 7018. I am still not sure what to make of the porosity on 7018. I got some porosity at the end of a bead also. What was said earlier about the shielding gas building up, and lack of it at the start up, is the cause of the porosity makes a lot of sense - but at the end of a weld I am not sure. At the end would have as much shielding as anywhere along the weld.

    I can only do 5 pictures per post so I'll put these in a couple posts.

    I started with some trips of the same 3/16" mild steel. This time I ground them down to bare metal (removed the mill scale) and beveled one edge so I had a V for the joint.

    Name:  20200904_164218.jpg
Views: 489
Size:  413.5 KB



    Name:  20200904_164401.jpg
Views: 493
Size:  162.5 KB



    I tacked the far end and clamped the other.

    Name:  20200904_170605.jpg
Views: 498
Size:  183.9 KB



    First up was 7018 at about 105-110 amps DCEP (the rods are Lincolns that will run on AC, but they will also run on DCEP).

    Name:  20200904_170754.jpg
Views: 480
Size:  390.6 KB



    Then I switched to 7014 at 130-135 amps DCEP.

    Name:  20200904_173439.jpg
Views: 475
Size:  362.5 KB
    Last edited by FlyFishn; 09-04-2020 at 11:08 PM.

  20. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    I burned through the pieces on the 7014 @ 130-135 amps so I backed off the amperage to about 100-105 amps. I ran the higher amperage because the range was higher than 7018. Same size 1/8" diameter rods, but the 7014 is spec'd at more current.

    Name:  20200904_173633.jpg
Views: 504
Size:  218.3 KB



    Name:  20200904_173648.jpg
Views: 485
Size:  352.1 KB


    I used the back side of the blow out as my "tack" - I reheated it with the rod under clamp pressure to blend the joint back together flush.
    Name:  20200904_173831.jpg
Views: 481
Size:  250.1 KB


    This was starting at the opposite end (opposite the blow out, I turned the piece around).

    Name:  20200904_175315.jpg
Views: 486
Size:  97.2 KB

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    And the final results. It might be hard to see well with the glare on the table.

    Left is 7014, right is 7018. There are lots of restarts in there - that was the point. On the 7018 (right side) you can see a lot of porosity. Though, one of the restarts has a real wide bead at the beginning that didn't end up too terrible (1st restart down from the top of the picture - the top side was the first bead, then the 1st restart afterwards is directly below - the weld pool almost got to the left edge of the part it was so wide). It had a hole, but it was not nearly as bad as the rest of the restarts.

    Name:  20200904_185819 cropped.jpg
Views: 484
Size:  95.2 KB



    Name:  20200904_185838 cropped.jpg
Views: 485
Size:  86.3 KB



    For what it is worth - I freshened up the tip of the 7018 on restarts with a file. I noticed the "cup" cracked off and in some cases so did up to about 3/32" of coating up the rod. I did file the rod a bit so it was shiny on a portion. That helped a ton in restarts - but if the porosity is coming from the lack of shielding early in the start of the arc the lack of coating down at the tip is counterproductive. I am not sure how else to clean the tip of the rod. What I did the other day was I scratched the rod on concrete. The same thing happened there also - the coating crumbled at the tip but I was able to get the tip of the rod cleaned enough to strike an arc easy enough.

  22. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    2,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    I find 7018AC often is worse for starting porosity than standard 7018. Another trick you can do is short out the rod on the plate to heat it up before you start welding. You're making it a lot more difficult to learn welding than it needs to be. First all get some wider pieces and learn how to do beads and fillets before you advance to butt welds. Those thin strips are really going to mess with your heat setting. For every 4" you could probably turn your amps down 10%. Like I mentioned previous forget about any background in electronics trying to figure out welding. It doesn't matter what the machine says or the name plate or anything else. You have a good machine. Just get some decent practice coupons and figure out one rod at a time. Jumping all over the place and trying to decipher everything is not the way to learn welding.

  23. Likes kmar35 liked this post
  24. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    565
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    7014 is what I'd call a GP (general purpose) rod, its not hydrogen controlled, but it is very easy to use and fine for non critical work, however it's not hydrogen controlled, that to me makes it okay for hand rail, fencing, little projects around the house ect, but never for anything that is dynamically loaded, no trailer's, no structural ect.

    Yes yes i can hear the old guys saying now that 6010, 6013, 7014, 7024 ect isn't hydrogen controlled and has been used for this and that forever, but knowledge and technology improve all the time.

    the porosity on start's of 7018 is easy to deal with with some experience, you strike the are IN THE WELD ZONE 1/2-3/4 of an inch ahead of where you actually want to start, drag the rod back to your intended starting point with a short arc and then weld over the porosity to get rid of it, 7018 straight out of a sealed pack (the lincoln sahara packs are especially good) is as good as baked rods in terms of hydrogen levels, but even if your 7018 rods have never seen a rod oven but have been stored well in a dry place they're order's of magnitude better than rutile and cellulose based rods of hydrogen content which will be far more prone to cracks than 7018 or 7016 in dynamically loaded joints.

    If you want an easier to run hydrogen controlled rod for critical work try 7016, 7016 is my favorite rod to run, and I think produced a nice bead, this is vertical up with it.



    This is a 7018 vertical I did the same day, they're about the same but I find the 7016 easier.



    But as for why should YOU use something other than 7014? only you can answer that/ you have to make the decision what rods suites your application best, and if you value the ease of use of 7014 over the ductility of 7018/7016 for a structural application you have to weigh that up for yourself, if you dont do critical welding perhaps for you there is no good reason to use 7018, I personally always lean towards to side of caution and use hydrogen controlled rods for anything that could potentially hurt/maim/kill someone if it were to fail, I'll use a 6013 with non critical work because that's the only non hydrogen controlled rod I keep in my shed.
    Last edited by ttoks; 09-05-2020 at 04:16 AM.

  25. Likes FlyFishn liked this post
  26. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Excellent info, excellent post. This is the best depth of knowledge of response I've come across, in other threads or responses here. An explanation is what I was ultimately after. I am not sure why that is not common place in replies and answers here, but sometimes you have to do a lot of weeding. Thanks for pulling all the weeds back and giving the bottom some clear water to view through.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttoks View Post
    7014 is what I'd call a GP (general purpose) rod, its not hydrogen controlled, but it is very easy to use and fine for non critical work, however it's not hydrogen controlled, that to me makes it okay for hand rail, fencing, little projects around the house ect, but never for anything that is dynamically loaded, no trailer's, no structural ect.

    Yes yes i can hear the old guys saying now that 6010, 6013, 7014, 7024 ect isn't hydrogen controlled and has been used for this and that forever, but knowledge and technology improve all the time.
    I presume cracking under load is where I would run in to issues with the 7014. That is good to know and will be really important down the road. Most of what I weld is stuff that gets "loaded" - brackets, mounts, etc. As to how critical - unless something instantly explodes, fixing a cracked weld isn't a problem if it ever happens. So far I've never had a weldment break in use (poor initial welds prior to use, yes, and I've ground out and rewelded for that reason) and I've stuck things together with welding on and off going back probably 25 years now (flux core, which has been my only process until just recently, I didn't do any other processes myself until I got to college, then afterwards I did some stick and rare mig). That may not be saying much to the Internet Gods that weld day in and day out here, but I at least must be doing something not terribly terrible - the same theory as what you refer to old-timers saying about 6010, 6013, 7014, 7026, and the like. People have stuck a lot of things together and I bet some pretty nasty gorilla welds that would shock the observer may still hang on better than anyone expects. I'm not saying that is right or would pass the sniff test - but I, for one, have seen some pretty scary welds on farm equipment that's held.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttoks View Post
    the porosity on start's of 7018 is easy to deal with with some experience, you strike the are IN THE WELD ZONE 1/2-3/4 of an inch ahead of where you actually want to start, drag the rod back to your intended starting point with a short arc and then weld over the porosity to get rid of it,
    So it sounds like I need to burn more rod in the early lighting of the rod - so I can burn through that cracked off coating zone as I get to the start of the weld.

    That bothers me - reason being is I am putting down weld material in that initial launch zone. To avoid that I have been moving rather fast with a longer arc. Since the 7018 doesn't penetrate real well I feel like that "laying down metal" ahead of the start of the bead is only going to make my start of the weld worse - it blocks the penetration that I do have in to the base metal, and even messes it up (slag entrapment and other contamination introduced as the weld begins).

    With what you say, though, once the rod is "going", good and hot, with the coating burning off giving the shield gas around the weld - I should be able to burn through that initial "heating up" zone and get adequate penetration?

    If that's the case I almost feel like going out past an inch so I can keep the arc burning hot but travel faster to lesson the material deposited by the rod, but it still be there.

    If it were 6010 or 6011 I wouldn't worry about the deposited metal and contaminants ahead of the weld, but there again both those rods you can start where you strike (I've used stubs of 6010 and 6011 for tack welding just for that reason).

    Quote Originally Posted by ttoks View Post
    7018 straight out of a sealed pack (the lincoln sahara packs are especially good) is as good as baked rods in terms of hydrogen levels, but even if your 7018 rods have never seen a rod oven but have been stored well in a dry place they're order's of magnitude better than rutile and cellulose based rods of hydrogen content which will be far more prone to cracks than 7018 or 7016 in dynamically loaded joints.
    Good info.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttoks View Post
    If you want an easier to run hydrogen controlled rod for critical work try 7016,...

    But as for why should YOU use something other than 7014? only you can answer that/ you have to make the decision what rods suites your application best, and if you value the ease of use of 7014 over the ductility of 7018/7016 for a structural application you have to weigh that up for yourself, if you dont do critical welding perhaps for you there is no good reason to use 7018, I personally always lean towards to side of caution and use hydrogen controlled rods for anything that could potentially hurt/maim/kill someone if it were to fail, I'll use a 6013 with non critical work because that's the only non hydrogen controlled rod I keep in my shed.
    It sounds like I'll have to get some 7016 to try it.

    Either way, 7016 and 7018 do make sense - from a structural perspective - from what you describe.
    Last edited by FlyFishn; 09-05-2020 at 07:01 AM.

  27. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NW ON Canada
    Posts
    3,442
    Post Thanks / Like

    Why not use 7014?

    From your photos, I can see your very inconsistent with with your travel speed and arc length throughout the entire weld. Those need some work.
    That material looks pretty thin for a 1/8"'7018'electrode. A 3/32" electrode would serve you much better and be more forgiving for welding that thickened of material it just gets too heat soaked too quickly.
    Jason
    Lincoln Idealarc 250 stick/tig
    Thermal Dynamics Cutmaster 52
    Miller Bobcat 250
    Torchmate CNC table
    Thermal Arc Hefty 2
    Ironworkers Local 720

  28. #22
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Pitman PA
    Posts
    485
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by Welder Dave View Post
    I find 7018AC often is worse for starting porosity than standard 7018. Another trick you can do is short out the rod on the plate to heat it up before you start welding. You're making it a lot more difficult to learn welding than it needs to be. First all get some wider pieces and learn how to do beads and fillets before you advance to butt welds. Those thin strips are really going to mess with your heat setting. For every 4" you could probably turn your amps down 10%. Like I mentioned previous forget about any background in electronics trying to figure out welding. It doesn't matter what the machine says or the name plate or anything else. You have a good machine. Just get some decent practice coupons and figure out one rod at a time. Jumping all over the place and trying to decipher everything is not the way to learn welding.
    Best advice ive heard yet

  29. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    1,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    It is preference

    When doing a lot stick welding I keep number of types to 3. E6013 low pen, E7018 med pen and E6010/E6011high pen. This was due to type of work I doing at time (metal buildings).

    Work that does not sepcfations it is only preference.

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by FlyFishn View Post
    I have 3 sizes now of 7014 rod - 1/16", 5/64", and 1/8". I was running the 1/16" with some sheet metal last week and went up to the 5/64" for the same application. I haven't made up my mind if there is much of a benefit with the larger rod for the sheet metal coupons I was working with - they both behave very close as best I can tell, but I didn't run them side-by-side.

    I tried a few 1/8" rods today and ran them side by side with the same size 7018. I get porosity on starts with 7018. From what I've seen in some demo videos that isn't uncommon. However, I get a better weld from the start with 7014 - from the outside it's clean from the very start, no porosity.

    What I seem to not be getting is a whole lot of penetration with butt joints. I have some 3/16" strips that were cut-offs from a project last year that I used as test weld material. I butted two of them against each other at the factory edge (rounded) with a tad bit of a gap. I tacked with 6011 on the far end, then clamped it on the other. As I welded the gap closed pretty quick. However, I didn't make it past where the metal came together at the middle of the butt joint.

    On another bead I long-arc'ed the rod and slowed down. I got too much heat and blew through the metal. So I turned the amperage up and went back to a shorter arc with a moderate speed.

    The surface of the runs looks great. I don't have any undercut or porosity. It just looks like a clean weld.

    I am curious how the welds would hold up under stress testing. I have a hydraulic press so maybe I'll work up a test fixture and do some stress testing.

    Is there a reason why not to use 7014? I know 6010 and 7018 are the "code rods" (generally speaking), but there are a bazillion types of rods out there and 7014 seem to still be popular (maybe that is because they are easier to obtain than some of the other specialty pipe work type rods etc)...

    From what I can tell the 7014 is a good "lay metal down" rod. For a beveled joint of heavier metal it seems like it would be an ideal rod. Same goes for a fillet filler - maybe on top of a 6011 or 6010 root so the root has the deeper penetration.

    In the beveled edge joint (lets say its a butt joint with a bevel on both edges) - by getting the arc on top of each bevel to get a bit of penetration on each would that create a strong enough adhesion to the base metal? If the weld is laid down effectively with a thorough cleaning between layers (IE - no slag entrapment) the weld metal would essentially have full penetration of the joint - just not deep penetration in to the base metal (in to the bevels), just a fill of the bevel.

    In any event, I find the 7014's run pretty well. I'd be curious why others may suggest not using them - specifically the larger rods (say, 3/32" on up).

  30. Likes FlyFishn liked this post
  31. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Hi I have never heard of 7016 rods I even tried to look them up on the internet and couldn't find them.

  32. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    257
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why not use 7014?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttoks View Post
    Yes yes i can hear the old guys saying now that 6010, 6013, 7014, 7024 ect isn't hydrogen controlled and has been used for this and that forever, ...
    Just another thought -

    6013 I've heard of as being the rod that if someone doesn't have anything else they just run 6013 - whether that be personal preference or just "what they have". That is also the rod that I have heard is the easiest to learn on and is more forgiving than others. However, from an integrity perspective in a structural joint I've heard too many negatives about it to feel comfortable with it. I agree - a lot of people will say how much they have stuck together with 6013 and have had it hold. The other side of that coin is a lot of people that say they've had trouble with it - that rod putting down brittle welds for one (granted, some rods may be better than others, that is of the same type - different manufacturers, etc). For the reason of the negatives that's why I won't normally run it. I do have a box of 3/32" 6013's to try, mainly for sheet metal or some other non-critical thing that needs to get stuck together, but it will never be used for a bracket or mount of any kind.

    That is what I was trying to get the picture of when I started the thread for the 7014 - why not use it? It not being a low-hydrogen rod makes it not a good candidate for weldments that will be loaded. So that's the answer to my question. However, it is an easier rod to run and it freezes well with a good appearance (ripple pattern, easy slag removal) so for weldments that aren't load-bearing it might be a great rod to stick metal together with - perhaps better than 6013.
    Last edited by FlyFishn; 09-05-2020 at 12:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,603,989,367.98021 seconds with 15 queries