In my experience you may want to bump up your amps.
I run 1/8" 6013 at 125-135 amps.

Whip and pause, circles, "e", straight drag, side to side - only matters based on what the puddle is doing - in my opinion,

I find with the right amps it is as easy as 7018. Runs pretty similar.
7014 is still the king of "so easy I can nap while welding" though - in my opinion.

 

.
only reason i was running 5/32 6013 around 130 amps is i was welding 2x2 angle 3/16 thick steel and close to burning through. when you stop arc and weld is yellow white hot and bright to look at and it takes well over 15 seconds to cool below red heat and weld puddle has got the oval not round shape due to high travel speed you are at max limit
.
i was practicing high speed welding with 6013. the welding handbook says at least 3/16 dia rod at over 200 amps when metal is over 1/8" thick. i was trying 5/32 rod on purpose welding only 3/16 thick steel and running at as high of amps and as fast travel speed i could handle. i had tried 145 amps and it was more than i could handle especially at end of weld at edge of 3/16 thick steel
.
i was traveling around 200% faster than i would if i was using 3/32 7018 and 300% faster than if using 3/32 6011
.

 

I don't take a lot of pics, so here is a 3 pass 6013 run on AC from a few years ago.
It's from this scrap built quicky project:
http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?289001-slip-on-tractor-forks-light-med-duty&highlight=

 

I don't take a lot of pics, so here is a 3 pass 6013 run on AC from a few years ago.
It's from this scrap built quicky project:
http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?289001-slip-on-tractor-forks-light-med-duty&highlight=

View attachment 1369831

.
my point is welding handbook says 3/16 dia 6013 rod at over 200 amps if just over 1/8 thick steel. when it gets to 1/4 thick steel they talk about using 7/32 or 1/4 dia 6013 rod
.
big size rod is much harder to control the high travel speeds without burning through. basically book says you can make weld in one pass and get at least 12" or more of weld using 12" of welding rod. just need really big rod

 

How about some pictures of this 6013 endeavor WNY TomB?

 

.
i do not have a digital camera. call me old fashioned

 

Besides easy arc strike and re-strike 6013 has always been a hard rod for me. I struggle to identify what the puddle is doing at times.

I think 6013 must have been the hot setup back in the day. Some old timers swear by it. I have seen some nice 6013 welds. My Great Uncle was a welder in WWII he could lay feet of 6013 beads that looked like flawless tig weld. Wish I would have taken a pic.

 

.
the point is some welders cause of lack of experience do not realize that for same metal thickness you can run a much bigger diameter 6013 rod and weld faster without burning through.
.
the main point is low penetration means use rod size or 2 or 3 bigger and not burn through and weld much faster. 6013 works best if you try to use a welding rod size close to thickness of metal being welded
.
1/8 diameter rod on 1/8 thick steel
5/32 rod on 5/32 thick steel
3/16 rod on 3/16 thick steel
1/4 rod on 1/4 thick steel
.
tight fillet weld are easier than butt and lap joints as melting through is easier on butt and lap joints

 

I would not run 5/32 at less than 175A. Slag inclusions are usually caused by too low current.

 

.
you are missing the point. 6013 is not like other rods like 6011 or 7018. it is best to use as BIG a diameter rod as a welder can handle on THIN metal and use faster travel speeds and you can always use a bigger 6013 rod for same metal thickness compared to other rod types like 6010 or 7018 because it has lower penetration
.
obviously 5/32 6013 rod is usually run at 130 to 180 amps and you run on max side when flat welding unless burning through thin metal then of course you can reduce amps because the weld puddle is plenty hot. i am saying is if you are running 6013 rod at maximum recommended amps then you should use BIGGER rod size and slightly higher amps. i purposely did not use 1/8 6013 rod at 120 amps but deliberately chose 5/32 6032 rod at 130 amps to weld FASTER and still have a hot puddle and no slag problems on 3/16 thick metal butt welded and lap welded joints
.
you know puddle is hot when you break arc and metal is yellow white hot and hurts the eyes to look at still hot metal and the slag takes easily over 10 seconds to cool below red hot. i was welding 3/16 thick 2x2 angle basically butt and lap welding. obviously at 130 or more amps you can easily not finish weld to edge but burn through. thus why metal is white hot hurts the eyes to look at for many seconds it is so bright just after breaking arc.
.
i find it takes more skill to use BIG diameter 6013 rod and weld faster and control puddle. obviously it is easier with 3/32 7018 or 3/32 6011 as the vastly slower weld travel speed and lower amps is easier to control. the welding handbook says i should use 3/16 diameter rod on 3/16 thick butt and lap joints but i am not yet able to handle the super high fast travel weld speeds. i was using reverse polarity dc. if i used straight polarity i probably could have used 140 amps instead of 130 amps and been able to handle butt and lap joints on 3/16 thick steel

 

i got nothing against 6013. i prefer it for welding pipe handrails and i run it downhill and hot. other than manipulating rod angle it takes no skill whatsoever.

 

Man it is great for that and same as I do.

 

I like the Hobart 6013 rods from tractor supply. I usually run about 30 amps on the high side and seem to get better penetration since lack of penetration is a major complaint of this rod. I've heard them called the farm rod several times but don't know of any farmers who use them. 6011 and 7018 seem to be the farm rods around here.

 

.
oddly welding store did not carry 5/32 rod in 5 and 10 lb sizes and so i went to tractor supply and they had 5,10 and 25 lb containers of 5/32 6013.
.
welding store clerk gets the look like nobody uses 6013 and wanting to sell me $2000. mig welder. i purposely am learning how to use big 6013. it seems to be a lost art. welders that can use big size 6013 rod and be able to handle the high travel speeds.
.
often 200 to 300% faster weld travel speeds with big 6013 rod instead of 3/32 7018 or 6010...... and of course if i used 7024 rod i probably could have welded 400% faster..... but i was using 6013 that day

 

You're missing the point

The disadvantage inherent with 6013 is the lack of admixture/penetration/fusion. You may be getting the base metal hot enough to burn through, but your weld deposit will still lay on TOP of the parent metal, and thus subject to pullout.

A weld failure with 6013 will exhibit a crystalline surface at the base/root of the weld. The failure will generally not be in the filler material itself. It will be at the juncture between weld bead, and the base material. This is a pullout failure. The weld simply didn't fuse with the base metal.

7018 will completely fuse with the parent metal, and indeed...the base material will become part of the weld. This is "admixture", or in simpler words.....an alloy. This provides for ductility in the weld. Failures of 7018 welds usually occur adjacent to the weld in the HAZ zone, or simply in the adjacent metal which has a lower tensile strength (not always a heat problem, but a notch problem, or simply inadequate strength in the base metal for the load applied)

Case in point........ .357 Mag, 105gr semi wadcutter cast lead bullet, 8gr HP-38 powder. Around 1400fps at the muzzle.

The target, when built, was rated for standard velocity loads. Some fatigue was present from repeated spanking with .45ACP rounds Less than 6 mag rounds caused an immediate failure. BUT THE LESSON HERE IS THE FAILURE. Look at where it failed! Not the weld, but the surrounding metal. 7018 in all its glory my friend 6013 would have failed at the root of the weld most likely, or across the face of the weld.

You're also seeing a notch failure here, but that's beside the point. It's a design "flaw" if you look at it as a "flaw".......the target was never intended for mag loads. The mass of the target plate was centered in the arm for balance purposes. Hence the cutout. Redesign will be more robust:laugh: Sorta fun to tear this stuff up anyways.

I have some pics that illustrate pullout when using 6013, have to look for them later today. It will show what I'm talking about. :waving:

 

You're missing the point

The disadvantage inherent with 6013 is the lack of admixture/penetration/fusion. You may be getting the base metal hot enough to burn through, but your weld deposit will still lay on TOP of the parent metal, and thus subject to pullout.

A weld failure with 6013 will exhibit a crystalline surface at the base/root of the weld. The failure will generally not be in the filler material itself. It will be at the juncture between weld bead, and the base material. This is a pullout failure. The weld simply didn't fuse with the base metal.

7018 will completely fuse with the parent metal, and indeed...the base material will become part of the weld. This is "admixture", or in simpler words.....an alloy. This provides for ductility in the weld. Failures of 7018 welds usually occur adjacent to the weld in the HAZ zone, or simply in the adjacent metal which has a lower tensile strength (not always a heat problem, but a notch problem, or simply inadequate strength in the base metal for the load applied)

Case in point........ .357 Mag, 105gr semi wadcutter cast lead bullet, 8gr HP-38 powder. Around 1400fps at the muzzle.

View attachment 1371651

The target, when built, was rated for standard velocity loads. Some fatigue was present from repeated spanking with .45ACP rounds Less than 6 mag rounds caused an immediate failure. BUT THE LESSON HERE IS THE FAILURE. Look at where it failed! Not the weld, but the surrounding metal. 7018 in all its glory my friend 6013 would have failed at the root of the weld most likely, or across the face of the weld.

You're also seeing a notch failure here, but that's beside the point. It's a design "flaw" if you look at it as a "flaw".......the target was never intended for mag loads. The mass of the target plate was centered in the arm for balance purposes. Hence the cutout. Redesign will be more robust:laugh: Sorta fun to tear this stuff up anyways.

I have some pics that illustrate pullout when using 6013, have to look for them later today. It will show what I'm talking about. :waving:

.
6013 welds are very similar to mig welds. they get reputation as not penetrated or fail easy when normally it is more not welded properly with big enough rod at high enough amps
.
if you weld a plate same as doing a 7018 certification test with 6013 and it bends a full 180 at a reasonable radius which it usually does it is normally more than good enough. i think you are missing the point
.
A36 structural steel is listed as tensile strength of 58,000 to 80,000 psi........ kind of basic is if i use a welding rod like 6013 which is rated 60,000 that failure point if rest of steel is higher / stronger (like 70,000 to 80,000 psi) will be at the weld or near weld. obviously 7018 or 8018 would have a better chance of holding up and matching the strength of A36 steel (which A36 is rated up to 80,000 tensile)
.
as long as it bends a reasonably radius bend at 180 and it holds 60,000 psi tensile strength it is good enough. I have never had a 6013 weld break in 40 years as long as weld is big enough for the load. obviously usually if welds are not stressed at more than 1/5 capacity it will hold the load. 500% safety factor or higher is common. loads subject to repeated shock need to have any notch or sharp corner rounded to avoid stress raisers at the spot. that is basic knowledge for welders
.
typical 6013 welds are as note this is 74,000 psi tensile strength at 30% 2" elongation (anything over 20% is good) and 7018 welding rod often gives welds of 80,000 psi tensile strength so 6013 is not as strong as 7018 (kind of obvious) but more than strong enough if used properly. also 6013 is rutile flux same as 7014 and 7024 but 7014/24 has iron powder and usually gives better weld properties like strength. if worried which i am not, i would use 7014 obviously if i wanted to match the tensile strength of A36 steel better
.
Typical Mechanical Properties (AW):
Tensile Strength (psi) 74,000 (514 MPa)
Yield Strength (psi) 67,000 (463 MPa)
Elongation % in 2” (50mm) 30%

 

I found the pics

A LOT OF PICS:laugh: Way too many to clog up your thread with.

Amble on over to my site to see the post http://www.farmersamm.com/

This is the real deal. I like to back up my talk with some evidence of what I'm talking about. I hope it's helpful. I don't mean to be adversarial, but merely would like to point out why I feel that filler material selection is important in this context.

VERY IMPORTANT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU SHOULD NOTE THAT THE FAILURE WASN'T IN THE METAL, IT WAS IN THE WELD. Design was fine, but the filler material wasn't. You're looking at 12 lineal inches of weld there:laugh: The repair weld underwent the same stress as that which broke the original weld, and all was fine, and continues to be fine.

 

.
sorry your 6013 welds failed..............my 6013 welds in 40 years have not failed yet. tubing weld i have done for 40 years and have seen where a poor fitup was tried to be filled but not done well. basically if you got 1/4 thick wall steel tubing with 1/8 gap the welds need to be 3/8 or bigger. or 1/4 welds above the point where weld joint is first closed up or filled. i remember arguing with my boss who comes by with weld gage saying my welds are too big and i am taking too long to weld, i had to remind him if given a 3/16 gap if i put only a 1/4 weld there it would have not had enough strength to it. did not matter if using 6010 or 7018 or any other rod. big welds cause i started with a big gap at joint
.
also if heavy structural load i would take the time to get good joint fitup and clean surface of rust and mill scale for best results. tubing and this is basic is usually like A36 structural steel and thus usually has a tensile strength of up to 80,000 psi (50,000 to 80,000 range) which is higher than 6013 rod rating. another reason to use big welds
.
i not saying 6013 is the strongest welding rod to use. i am saying properly done it holds more than good enough which when you go outside the USA the welding rod type most used and most popular is 6013. the rest of the world has somehow managed to learn to use 6013

 

Can't argue with 40yrs I guess

Guess it all depends on the application

[video=youtube;olT3PMtig64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olT3PMtig64[/video]

The burned area on the arm is the repair weld later on that week. I honestly don't think 6013 is up to this kind of abuse. This is one of the smaller trees, and I'd guestimate it was on the order of 1200lbs, and pulled against a huge amount of leverage. I always grasp the tree at one end, or the other, it's the way the grapple was designed to work. Huge amount of force on that weld there......the tree acts as a 30 foot breaker bar:laugh:

 

.
i do not think it is a 6013 problem....... i have seen a lot of farm equipment and back hoes and other heavy equipment overloaded where things break. sometimes at weld sometimes in middle of a piece. ........ often that equipment is far stronger than it can handle at times
.
often when repaired i put bigger welds and or add brace or other strength reinforcement at where it broke the first time
.
also and this is basic often tubing and other steel is not normal steel but a high strength steel which requires a low hydrogen rod like 7018 or 8018. i have often welded stuff and was told it was regular steel then i seen the signs permanently on the backhoe do not weld (ductile iron parts) or (alloy steel). for example common A500 square steel tubing is suppose to be welded with low hydrogen rod like 7018. both 6010 and 6011 and 6013 and 7014 and 7024 are not low hydrogen rods
.
i would double check what steel you actually have. 4140 and other steel alloys require different welding rod. i have seen a lot of alloy steel on farm equipment and you might get lucky with 7018 and it holds barely strong enough.

 

Had a hell of a time figuring out how to imbed a video:laugh:

 

I'm pretty sure it's mild steel, because I built it:laugh:

A500 structural tubing, which is the same as mild steel. http://weldedsteelpipe.over-blog.co...com/astm-a500-carbon-steel-cold-formed-welded-and-seamless-structural-tube.html Welds the same. A500 does not have to be welded with LO HY, although it's advisable, as I've pointed out. A500 is an ASTM designation, not a properties designation. Yield is about the same as A36

Anything below, or at, around 60,000 yield strength can be welded with non LO HY rods. Depends on the application, and what it will be exposed to during it's life. 60xx is non Charpy rated as far as I know......meaning it's not suitable for high shock loads. 60xx stuff doesn't do well with high fatigue cycles as far as I know. And non Charpy rates stuff doesn't do well in low temperatures when subjected to shock. Don't wanna use this stuff in Outer Space :laugh:

Was a time when 7018 didn't exist. Choke, cringe, spread arms to the heavens, cringe in absolute fear.......:laugh: Somehow, we muddled through The Liberty Ships won the war..........all welded with non LO HY filler. They did have a tendancy to crack in the middle, and sink, at the onset. But the failure was found to be the steel........wasn't alloyed to be weld friendly........thus came into being A-36, and it's cousins. The low carbon steels. (now, I'm painting this with a broad brush, but it's on track)

Now, you get into the "A10" steel, and you're talking a different dog. Preheat, different fillers, a royal PITA for the average doooood. See a lot of it on trailers nowdays (semi trailers)......but still weldable with proper procedures.

I used to staunchly defend my use of 6013 (Hell, even my FEL on the Allis was stuck together with the stuff), but I found that I needed the insurance policy that 7018 offered..........medium penetration........ductility........Charpy rating.

Now.....to the case at hand......the failure of the weld. If you look, and most people don't, here on the Interweb The base metal was not damaged. The design was well within the yield point of the steel used. The weld failed because it was not the proper filler material. 6011/6010 would have produced better results. But, to avoid any of the probable problems, 7018 would have been the best choice. My bad. But it gives the readers a real look at a problem, not just a bunch of verbage with no real background/experience.

I mostly do this to pass on my knowledge. I'm 60yrs old, and won't be above ground for terribly much longer. I pass along what I can while I'm still lookin' at the sunshine

 

Liberty ships didn't have a very good safety record, but we made a lot of them so it worked out. Mistakes in the past are what led to the creation of the electrodes and metals we have today. Hasn't it pretty much been proven and debated enough, that 7018 beats the non charpy impact rated electrodes like 6013 & 7014 time and time again? That's not to say those electrodes don't have their advantages and applications. All things being equal...if one wants to use 6013 or 7014 on something critical or subjected to heavy abuse and cold temperatures, you better put down more weld to make up for their weaknesses. For example: if you could get by with a 1/4" weld with 7018, by all means use 6013 but run it hot and apply a 3/8" weld instead. There is a reason these mild steel electrodes (non low hydrogen) are not charpy rated, they can't pass the test! 7018 is stronger every time. 6013 & 7014 still have there place in non critical low abuse, and sheet metal applications but give me 7018 when th I ngs really NEED TO stay together.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

6013 is the most popular welding rod world wide. somehow the rest of the work (Germans and rest of Europe) manage to have the skill to use it and not have stuff fall apart.
.
i myself have never had a 6013 weld go on me in 40 years. tubing joints like i said if there is a gap the weld needs to be bigger, if 1/4 thick tubing joint has a 1/8 gap and you put only a 1/4 weld there it is a weak weld. i always if i start with 1/8 gap and spec is 1/4 weld then i put a 3/8 weld there.
.
i have met many welders and machinist who "blame" stuff that they are having problems with. maybe you out to practice welding some more. like i said the rest of the world chooses 6013 as the most popular rod and i do not hear thousands of European welders blaming the 6013 rod.
.
i will not debate whether dry low hydrogen 7018 rod properly used will give a slightly higher strength weld as well as other properties. i am saying it does take skill to use 6013 rod and have strong welds. if your welds are failing maybe you need to practice or learn how to use 6013 better.
.
i have had 6010 and 7018 small welds fail before. i never "blamed" the rod type. it was strictly welds not big enough for the application

 

6013 is the most popular welding rod world wide. somehow the rest of the work (Germans and rest of Europe) manage to have the skill to use it and not have stuff fall apart.
.
i myself have never had a 6013 weld go on me in 40 years. tubing joints like i said if there is a gap the weld needs to be bigger, if 1/4 thick tubing joint has a 1/8 gap and you put only a 1/4 weld there it is a weak weld. i always if i start with 1/8 gap and spec is 1/4 weld then i put a 3/8 weld there.
.
i have met many welders and machinist who "blame" stuff that they are having problems with. maybe you out to practice welding some more. like i said the rest of the world chooses 6013 as the most popular rod and i do not hear thousands of European welders blaming the 6013 rod.
.
i will not debate whether dry low hydrogen 7018 rod properly used will give a slightly higher strength weld as well as other properties. i am saying it does take skill to use 6013 rod and have strong welds. if your welds are failing maybe you need to practice or learn how to use 6013 better.
.
i have had 6010 and 7018 small welds fail before. i never "blamed" the rod type. it was strictly welds not big enough for the application....
.

.

.
....... i have certainly have had plenty of 6013 tack welds holding a part while i hit it with a hammer to get in alignment for more tacks and or welding. i cannot say i ever notice 6013 tack welds failing from impact of a hammer any more than 6010 or 7018................ do some welding rod types give better tensile strength, ductility and impact resistance of 5 or even 10%.?? quite possible but i never weld anything with that small a margin of safety factor.
.
7024 which is same rutile flux as 6013 but with iron powder in it for even lower penetration and faster travel speeds has been used for literally millions of tons of stuff and welds managed not to fall apart either. my point there is a skill in learning how to use rutile rods properly. too many American welders complaining about 6013 and maybe should be asking how does the rest of the world manage to use 6013 and not have massive weld failures. or is somebody saying the Germans cannot weld because they prefer to use 6013

 

I think saying 6013 is "the most popular electrode in the world" is BS. You make it sound like the entire world besides the United States uses 6013 for most every weld. Look at Lincoln and Esab web sites on all the other continents, is 6013 the only electrode listed? Is it even near the top of the manufacturers lists? Answer is no. 6013 is there, but the same popular low hydrogen and cellulose electrodes are top of the list. I know the thread by pipe _ fitter about 6013dcen shows a small glimpse of European use in one sector of pipe welding, but I will need some proof to substantiate you claim of 6013's world wide popularity.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

.
from German welding company saying Rutile rods have leading role which i interpret as most popular. and i have seen rutile rods being most important, most popular, leading roles in books and catalogs from other companies and countries too beside Germany. i merely mention Germany because they are know for high quality products. obviously not all countries use 6013 term they may call rutile rod by different name
.
Rutile RR is same as 6013
RC has cellulose in it too for 6011 like properties and many 6013 has cellulose with rutile. amount varies with different manufacturers

 

And does Expat Welder use 6013 to rebuild mining equipment in Africa?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

they say same thing about mig welding too. can not trust for structural loads cannot trust penetration cannot trust some weld properties
.
6013 like mig welding, some not very good welders, fill a gap and surface of weld may look ok but the weld can be mostly on the surface not filling gap much........ if you got 1/4 thick steel tubing say 3x3 or 4x4 it is poor practice to weld joint in one pass. sure you can put a cosmetic looking or nice looking weld on surface but for best results it is better to
.
1) make proper tight joint (no gaps , vee it if needed)
2) weld "root" pass and grind it to make sure no visible slag entrapment
3) use 2nd pass "cover pass" weld so in general 1/4 thick tubing should have at least 1/4 welds

 

i guess main point is the people that say 6013 requires no skill to use are the same that say 6013 welds cannot be trusted or are low strength and say better to use other rod types
.
amazing amount of people manage to use 6013 rod (rutile rods) every day welding tons of stuff and they some how manage to have welds hold and not break apart.

 

from India welding standards book. titania is another name for rutile flux (used in 6012, 6013, 7014, 7024)
.
same rutile flux rods being most popular or leading role is found in books and catalog all over the world. you merely have to look beyond the USA

 

typically this company sells 5 types of 6013 so in this case combined all 5 types makes a very popular rod

 

Let me know if you find a good source for this "rest of the world" 6013, i would like to try it out and see what it is all about.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

.
i have noticed Hobart 6013 from Tractor Supply runs a little different than Lincoln 6013
.
Hobart is rated at lower amps so possibly flux is thinner and it is more fast freeze (6010/6011 is fast freeze too). most rutile 6013 rods have some cellulose which gives some properties that 6010/6011 has
.
thinner flux covering you usually hold a arc length rather than a drag rod which thicker flux covering is usually drag rods.
.
so i believe some 6013 is better for out of position welding and less slag problems (thin flux covered rods) and thick flux 6013 is better for flat welding and just dragging rod.
.
either way 6013 will fill a big gap but that does not mean the filled gap is high quality metal. Cosmetic welding or welding for surface appearance and welding a fully penetrated joint like pipe welding requires different welding technique
.
plenty of pipe is welded with 6013 but you can be sure they are properly preparing joint and not just filling a big gap or badly prepared joint

 

Do you know hobart has different lines of electrodes too? Department store Hobart is not the same as Hobart Brothers sold through welding distributors. http://www.hobartbrothers.com/products/stick-electrodes.html

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

.
hobart catalog lists 2 types of 6013 type 447A and 447C
.
447C is listed as some fast freeze so possibly C is cellulose which gives it some 6010/6011 properties
.
if you look up common 6010 and 6011 types they often have some rutile mixed in with cellulose so many rods are a mix and not 100% cellulose or rutile flux

 

The differences between rr rb and rc rods are subtle.a rutile cellulose 6013 is nothing like a 6011 to use.they are not even in the same ballpark.they won't freeze quicker or penetrate deeper to the naked eye.
There is more attention paid to the brand of rod really,rather than its designation.probably the best rods out there are rare enough and called Murex Vodex.pricey but worth it.around a long time and the preferred rod in pipe,shipyards etc,where 6013 is specified.if you are always getting slag in your welds and having the odd part break,then you are wasting your time buying any 'exotic' 6013.you probably won't detect much difference.in most of the world 6013 is what people begin welding with,privately and professionally.there is a big head scratching moment when progressing onto lohi.you have to forget almost everything about running 6013.it will be the opposite in america.throw the 7018 manual out the window.

 

.
welding rod companies are calling some types of 6013 fast freeze which usually is what cellulose rods like 6010/6011 are. i merely am noting that a lot of rods are a mix of rutile, cellulose, basic and they vary flux coating thickness which effects arc length needing to be maintained and heavy slag/flux can create slag entrapment problems
.
some 6013 you drag and other you hold a arc length often up to one rod diameter. kind of different dragging rod and holding a 1/8" arc length. some 6013 seems to give a hotter puddle if you hold a arc length and seems colder if dragging. this might explain welds with 6013 and some not getting enough penetration...... other rods are hotter if dragging rod. very much can change with different brands of 6013

 

Looked up Esab Sureweld like jmay suggested. Looks interesting. Their 6013 is charpy rated at 35ft lbs, which beats out both their 6010 and 7024 electrodes. Still doesn't hold a candle to Atom Arc 7018, but would surely be acceptible for most non critical and non code applications. So i stand corrected.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

When I started welding in 1959 I always felt that 6013 made a more profesional weld. 6011 was the "farmers rod". I used a lot of 6011 for patching up my own stuff because everything was always rusty and I didn't care what the results looked like as long as it held together. If I was working on something for hire or with new material I always used 6013. The slag chips off easily and leaves a beautiful weld. When 7018 came out I went to that but I never felt as comfortable as with 6013. One of the jobs I take the most pride in is when I welded grouser bars on my D4 Cat. When I started I was using an old engine drive Hobart running 5/16" 7018. After I finished the first side the old Hobart quit, I guess I exceeded the duty cycle and fried the armature. I only had my old 180 Lincoln buzz box an it would not run 7018. I welded the other side with 5/32" 6013. This was nearly 20 years ago and not one weld has failed and I am hard pressed to tell the difference. I will have to take pictures someday.