Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 261

Thread: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    And we can have enjoying the different points of view 😉

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by Lis2323 View Post
    And yet here you areÖ..


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    B.C. Canada
    Posts
    6,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I grew up on the farm and used an AC buzzbox exclusively for over 35 years (1965 -2000)

    I had no idea what a DC machine was or even existed. All I knew to use was 6011 and 6013 electrodes.

    If I had access to the posts in this thread ( good AND bad) at that time I'm confident that my welding would have been WAY better even with the use of my existing machine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    :

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I grew up with a Miller 180 buzzbox too.
    The best for me is DC use a generator Hobart 213. Very smooth welding with 7018

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by Lis2323 View Post
    I grew up on the farm and used an AC buzzbox exclusively for over 35 years (1965 -2000)

    I had no idea what a DC machine was or even existed. All I knew to use was 6011 and 6013 electrodes.

    If I had access to the posts in this thread ( good AND bad) at that time I'm confident that my welding would have been WAY better even with the use of my existing machine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    4,644
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynBravest View Post
    Alright after hours of messing around this is as good as it gets porosity wise.

    I canít see anything else to change other than ditching the rods that everyone did say sucked. (Home Depot Lincoln 7018AC)

    My process currently is:

    -Strike arc about 1Ē inward
    -steady move back to the start slight pause
    -weld with rod basically touching the metal
    -pull back and pause briefly at end of weld about 1/2
    -whip/pull rod quickly out of puddle to terminate it.

    Iím ordering regular 7018, if thatís all it is and i wasted all my time over $15 Iíll be fairly annoyed lol.

    Attachment 1733800Attachment 1733801
    Its got to be the rods. Your beads look great actually except for the porosity and maybe a little undercut on that last lap weld. I think your technique is good enough, just need better rods
    Miller Multimatic 255

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mount Tabor VT
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I see no evidence you are long arcing. That sort of porosity is gas coverage. Whether the gas is produced by flux combustion or a tank, coverage is essential. Wind could cause it, long arc length could. Crap electrodes is another suspect.
    An optimist is usually wrong, and when the unexpected happens is unprepared. A pessimist is usually right, when wrong, is delighted, and well prepared.

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I tell everyone use rod you like 👍
    All rods today are are AWS cert and just about everyone is welding A36 steel.

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynBravest View Post
    Alright after hours of messing around this is as good as it gets porosity wise.

    I canít see anything else to change other than ditching the rods that everyone did say sucked. (Home Depot Lincoln 7018AC)

    My process currently is:

    -Strike arc about 1Ē inward
    -steady move back to the start slight pause
    -weld with rod basically touching the metal
    -pull back and pause briefly at end of weld about 1/2
    -whip/pull rod quickly out of puddle to terminate it.

    Iím ordering regular 7018, if thatís all it is and i wasted all my time over $15 Iíll be fairly annoyed lol.

    Attachment 1733800Attachment 1733801

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Laredo, Tx
    Posts
    6,076
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie B View Post
    I see no evidence you are long arcing. That sort of porosity is gas coverage. Whether the gas is produced by flux combustion or a tank, coverage is essential. Wind could cause it, long arc length could. Crap electrodes is another suspect.
    I suspect crap steel. The slag can only deal with so much rust and millscale. The porosity issues I had on those same exact rods was because I ran them on the low-end of their operating range. Once I got up past 115A, the welds came out just fine, but I cleaned the steel so it was free of both rust and 90% of millscale.

    BrooklynBravest, get a grinder with a ľ" hard grinding disc, and grind the L.F. out of that steel until you get to clean bare metal, then run those 7018AC rods again. Betcha they will run just fine, and with no porosity.
    1st on WeldingWeb to have a scrolling sig!



  8. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brethren, Mi
    Posts
    1,923
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I got away and to lo hy cause i was a finish snob when i was starting out. I dont care so much anymore. I find my way back to 6011 now.
    Last edited by Sberry; 11-27-2021 at 10:30 PM.

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    6,522
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Guys................
    It's all about what flavor
    you choose.......

    7018AC

    Name:  7018ac.jpg
Views: 119
Size:  239.0 KB

    Name:  7018ac3.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  251.6 KB

    For in position (flat) welding.......AC was righteous.........it was the gold standard
    It was harmonious

    7018DC

    Name:  7018dc.jpg
Views: 114
Size:  208.3 KB

    Name:  7018dc2.jpg
Views: 113
Size:  193.6 KB

    Name:  7018dc3.jpg
Views: 118
Size:  223.5 KB

    DC is, and was, the go to for any out of position welding.
    Friggin' beautiful stuff

    I look back over the old pics, and I get angry. I can't do it anymore, and it's depressing in a huge way. Very few folks could run this stuff like I used to. Now,, I'm doing good to get the metal in the right place. Old age is a wheel barrow full of crap.

    I used to have fun PLAYING with this stuff.................now I'm doin' good to get the bead in the right place. Sucks....................you betcha.

    Anyways.........7018AC has changed in a big way. It never used to give porous results. If you held a close arc, it ran like butter. When the boxes started to have labels "Made in Mexico" it went down the crapper. Not because it was made in Mexico.............because they changed something in the manufacturing process, or the materials used. They ruined it.

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    6,522
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Denrep was still around when I glued that trailer hitch together. Those were the days. Lot of good solid fabricators on the site. Speakin' of Denrep...........I kinda miss Alfred.

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    6,522
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Denrep was da manName:  tkqe4fh-smiley-two-thumbs-up175028_285604.gif
Views: 105
Size:  1.1 KB We were charter members of the anti plasma club.



    Can't find his other videos, guess they're gone. The guy was really a cool doooood.

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    B.C. Canada
    Posts
    6,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    What happened to him?

    * hate asking stuff like this


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    :

  13. #188
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I agree 👍

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by Lis2323 View Post
    * hate asking stuff like this
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    PDX PNW
    Posts
    10,069
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lis2323 View Post
    And yet here you areÖ..


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    The guy is just getting his pent up anger out. That's about all I see him do on here when he posts every once and a while. He gets kinda nasty most if the time. Probably a narc

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    3,854
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Lots of good weldors can burn 7018 in all positions. Used to work with a guy that did all the heating coils for gas equipment. Mostly 3" and 4 " using lots of 180* forged elbows. He had it down to a science and only about 2 of the joints had to be done out of position. The rest were rolled often using just a jib crane. The vertical welds where he couldn't roll the coils, you couldn't tell they were done vertical up. They tied in to roll welded portion like it was 1 continuous weld. He was that good and also spit the coils out pretty fast. No many are that good and fast to boot. He also got his A pressure ticket that is all theory that comprises 4 4 hour tests. He went on to become an engineer. He initially took engineering but was offered a lot of money to continue with welding. He eventually finished his engineering. He was from Vietnam or Louse or some country you wouldn't expect to harbor such talent. He helped other's get their pressure tickets and often they never gave him any credit which was a little disappointing for him. He had it down to a science. Probably the best weldor I ever saw ( certainly the smartest) but there were several including my welding teacher in trade school who was a Tig specialist. One of the 4 tests to get the A pressure ticket was just welding codes. Too bad he wasn't on here and could explain them a little more so people wouldn't keep referring to tensile strength as the be all end all requirement. They no longer offer the A pressure ticket. Most who had it were the instructors at the technical school where you went for your apprentice training. Some darn good weldors there too that made it look easy.
    Last edited by Welder Dave; 11-28-2021 at 02:59 PM.

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Why would 7018 over 6013 or 7014 if the steel you working with is 36,000 psi.

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    I suspect crap steel. The slag can only deal with so much rust and millscale. The porosity issues I had on those same exact rods was because I ran them on the low-end of their operating range. Once I got up past 115A, the welds came out just fine, but I cleaned the steel so it was free of both rust and 90% of millscale.

    BrooklynBravest, get a grinder with a ľ" hard grinding disc, and grind the L.F. out of that steel until you get to clean bare metal, then run those 7018AC rods again. Betcha they will run just fine, and with no porosity.

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Laredo, Tx
    Posts
    6,076
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by smithdoor View Post
    Why would 7018 over 6013 or 7014 if the steel you working with is 36,000 psi.

    Dave
    Just as a test because he already has them, so he can compare the results to see if they are any different.
    1st on WeldingWeb to have a scrolling sig!



  18. #193
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    You to expand on your answers?

    The yield of A36 is 36,000 psi base metal
    The yield of E70XX is 57,000 psi min
    The yield of E60XX is 50,000 psi min

    Now either is over kill for the base metal so either E60XX or E70XX .

    Dave

    https://www.mechanicwiz.com/wp-conte...-and-Chart.jpg


    Quote Originally Posted by Oscar View Post
    Just as a test because he already has them, so he can compare the results to see if they are any different.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Laredo, Tx
    Posts
    6,076
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by smithdoor View Post
    You to expand on your answers?

    The yield of A36 is 36,000 psi base metal
    The yield of E70XX is 57,000 psi min
    The yield of E60XX is 50,000 psi min

    Now either is over kill for the base metal so either E60XX or E70XX .

    Dave

    https://www.mechanicwiz.com/wp-conte...-and-Chart.jpg
    Yes..
    1st on WeldingWeb to have a scrolling sig!



  20. #195
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mount Tabor VT
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by smithdoor View Post
    You to expand on your answers?

    The yield of A36 is 36,000 psi base metal
    The yield of E70XX is 57,000 psi min
    The yield of E60XX is 50,000 psi min

    Now either is over kill for the base metal so either E60XX or E70XX .

    Dave

    https://www.mechanicwiz.com/wp-conte...-and-Chart.jpg
    Caterpillar once published their position on bucket repair. They felt that even though some components have strength in excess of the filler strength, fusion strength & ductility are more important. They recommend 7018. I'll guestimate that information is 15 years old, I bet it is relevant today.

    If you weld 110000 LB tensile with 110000 tensile filler, it'll still fail if the shrinkage as it cools makes stresses ductility can't ease. Hot steel shrinks as it cools. Restrained, there must be either stretch, or breakage. Stretch is a good thing. After a minor stretch, steel is stronger than it was originally.

    For years 7018 has been known for ductility. Something even better might have come along by now.
    Last edited by Willie B; 11-28-2021 at 08:45 PM.
    An optimist is usually wrong, and when the unexpected happens is unprepared. A pessimist is usually right, when wrong, is delighted, and well prepared.

  21. Likes 12V71 liked this post
  22. #196
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brethren, Mi
    Posts
    1,923
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I agree with Willie on this concept. I have never used a 9010 or a 110 18. When we wanted it tuff and needed the elongation or ductility etc it was a fresh box of 7018. Back in the day even welded forks with them a couple I know still working when the factory one failed.

  23. Likes 12V71, Willie B liked this post
  24. #197
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Clovis California
    Posts
    4,147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    At 110,000 psi that would be a 11018 rod and there be a letter and number after that too. Caterpillar uses a lot of AR plate and I would use E8018 ot E10018 rod after testing hardness of steel.

    I taking about A36 steel witch most here uses.

    Dave

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie B View Post
    Caterpillar once published their position on bucket repair. They felt that even though some components have strength in excess of the filler strength, fusion strength & ductility are more important. They recommend 7018. I'll guestimate that information is 15 years old, I bet it is relevant today.

    If you weld 110000 LB tensile with 110000 tensile filler, it'll still fail if the shrinkage as it cools makes stresses ductility can't ease. Hot steel shrinks as it cools. Restrained, there must be either stretch, or breakage. Stretch is a good thing. After a minor stretch, steel is stronger than it was originally.

    For years 7018 has been known for ductility. Something even better might have come along by now.

  25. #198
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    AJO, ARIZONA
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    I tried some 9018 &11018 because some ended up in some rod I picked up somewhere, I've acquired a good variety of different rods over the years.

    NRA LIFE MEMBER

    UNITWELD 175 AMP 3 IN1 DC
    MIDSTATES 300 AMP AC MACHINE
    GOD HELP AMERICA!
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.Ē BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

  26. #199
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Sechelt, BC
    Posts
    337
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Long thread! Why not pull it over and weld it on the ground? Or sell it for scrap and build a new one in place? I bet the time, effort and recovered steel prices, crane costs etc. might pay for a lot of the new one, especially if you are not getting paid to do it.

    Just a thought. You get to weld it how you would like, reinforce it same, design it same…weld on the ground?
    Do not believe everything that you think.

  27. #200
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mount Tabor VT
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Would I be wrong to use 6013 over 7018 on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by smithdoor View Post
    At 110,000 psi that would be a 11018 rod and there be a letter and number after that too. Caterpillar uses a lot of AR plate and I would use E8018 ot E10018 rod after testing hardness of steel.

    I taking about A36 steel witch most here uses.

    Dave
    I've done a number of weld on cutting edges, repaired a number of buckets, both loader, and digging buckets. I routinely use grouser stock to freshen up weld on cutting edges on loaders. Always have used 7018, no failures yet.
    An optimist is usually wrong, and when the unexpected happens is unprepared. A pessimist is usually right, when wrong, is delighted, and well prepared.

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 1,643,133,945.86600 seconds with 15 queries