So a couple points of clarification: I did a pretty poor job of explaining what is really going on in what you’re seeing. Having done many similar test videos I naturally left out details to make the video shorter. One of the main details I should have covered better is why 6013 had so bad of performance over 6011 on the bend towards the face (with the torque meter). This is why: 6013 has very limited penetration on thicker materials (and in general). A fillet weld break test towards the face of a weld always favors weld penetration/root fusion. Case in point 6010 will hit higher numbers than 7018 in this test. This is not a tensile strength test for most rods because most rods don’t fuse much of the root together. With poor root fusion the plate can bend easily due to the fact the top & bottom toe of the weld are used as a fulcrum point for the plate. This is why the 6013 rod performed poorly on this test vs 6011. When it came to the bend tests in the press they both ultimately failed, which is too be expected. A36 steel can potentially exceed the strength of the weld. In both cases the material seemed to tear off the weld. Regardless of it being a material failure or weld failure, 7018 will pass the same test without failure. So to me the actual reason for failure is less of a concern than the fact a 7018 welded joint is stronger. I have a few videos coming out shortly where I do multi pass welds and compare them. This will be exceptionally eye opening because it will show how more weld does not equal more strength, depending on how something is stressed. On a final note, it’s important to take these test results with a grain of salt. Bending 3/8th steel with over 6k lbs of force is a lot of a load, and only when pushed to the absolute limit will you see failure. This is precisely why many people weld things with 6013 and other 60 series rods and never have anything fail, they never stress anything near the limit. The key takeaway should be that even a small weld of a 60 series rod is immensely strong, and that it likely will hold something you have together. However it is not as strong as a 7018, and if you need strength you need 7018.
Thanks 😀. So far in videos 7018 and er70 mig are the only ones to survive the bend in the shop press. Tig presumably will do I haven’t tested it yet. 7014 test comes out this week, which that will be interesting to say the least. I am awaiting 7024 rods in the mail to test those as well, along with flux core.
Great video, I totally get the point is for a random guy in his garage to pick up a box of rods and start welding. You may do this in another video, I haven't seen yet but... I think it would be a great idea to put together a video doing a fillet weld break test and going over the acceptance criteria and what kind of adjustments can be made to correct defects. I like that you pointed out the lack of fusion on the 6013. I paused the video and zoomed in on them before you talked about it, and was thinking "This isn't fair, that 6013 isn't penetrated at all." Then you go right over it and explain that cranking the amps doesn't do much to help and I'm back on board with the spirit of the video. That is what inspired my thinking about going over acceptance criteria for some simple garage tests so guys can do a test piece and have confidence in what they're looking at is acceptable or alter their procedures. BTW, this is the second video of yours I've watched and you're obviously in the know of what you're talking about. The other one was that Firepower MIG machine you picked up (I just got the ESAB equivalent myself)
I have loosely covered what you’re asking about, but it definitely warrants enough to do a specific video. Making strong welds comes down to many factors, and includes a persons skill, the material used, engineering/design of what’s being welded, etc. Weld defects are never really a good thing. One thing that I personally do (and is somewhat universal) is on things that demand the strongest welds and no defects I use tig welding. There are certain flaws in welding processes that can’t be fixed easily. A great example would be stick and mig welding producing less penetration at/near the start of a weld and a tendency to have weld defects at starts/ends of welds. That is why stuff like structural steel has a tendency to use start strips and run off tabs (where weld starts and stops are off of the actual welded part) which are removed when fully welded. Tig makes it possible to achieve completely defect free welds easily, and weld defect repair far easier without requiring extra work. The downside is speed, tig is extremely slow. There are ways to achieve similar quality of welds with other processes, but it takes far more thought. I will definitely cover all this in the future.
They both are useful and don’t get enough credit. 6011 is a personal favorite of mine for welding 1/8th steel on trailer repairs. It’s real easy to not blow holes through, runs well uphill and downhill, and overhead.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg greg, you got that right......maybe do a video with 6010 and other rods showing they can be run on DC-...which has less penetration and more build up.....even go as far as throwing in some AC.....I am not sure how 6010 will do with that......and of course, many inverters have a hard time with 6010......have you found any ll09 rod up north......the new guys down here are always looking for it at the well supply......cheers, Paul in Florida
100% agree. 6011s rougher weld gives a ton of places for material to collect, it’s far harder to make a decent looking bead, and it’s very easy to leave undercut that weakens the base material. It’s also slow to deposit material, and doesn’t deposit as much weld as 6013.
@@aljock6927The blue demon 7014 in the 5/64 size is an easy button for thin stuff. It’s cheap on Amazon and performs really well thus far. Easy slag removal, too.
Watching the press bend tests you do reminds me of welding school and my heart up in my throat watching the force gauge praying the pressure won't drop. That was a lot of anxiety.
We use baling wire and duct tape when we can. Man I miss those days, baling wire used to be everywhere on the farm, even though we never owned a wire baler. Anything could be fixed with baling wire....
Hi Greg , 1mill times thanks for your good channel, I wish for you 1mill subscribers. The weld and break test , is really an eye opener , and I finally got myself into cut and etch . I use Ferric-chloride , since I also use it for my PCBs. Here we have many rods classified as 6013 , and old rods can be dried 1 hour at 125C . 7018 comes in a very very thin plastic covered paper box ....- I love my 55years old MIG welder , transformer , 4 voltage and 10 wires speed positions , but it can stand "on" all day ready to tack , and not a sound 🙂
Thanks for the kind words and I am glad you found useful info on the channel 😃. Glad to hear you’re experimenting with cut and etches, you will learn a ton. Not to mention it’s fun to see what’s going on “behind the scenes” since welds can look good and yet have problems. Once you know what reliably works, you will be able to tackle harder projects and have excellent results. 😀
Have you tried 9018 rod? How would it compare to 7018 as far as ductility is concerned. I was given maybe 100 lbs of rod which included maybe 5 lbs or more of the 9018. I have not tried it yet. Looking for input…
I have never welded with 9018 but in my experience that rod is primarily used in piping in power plants. I do know that there are multiple types of 9018 (they will have a letter or additional numbers after the 9018) and they have differing uses. It likely welds very similar to 7018 and 11018. As far as if it’s usable on mild steel, it will make welds. However its additional strength wouldn’t be likely utilized or needed.
Hi Greg the bend test of the 6011 sample was a bit different than I expected. It appears to be a stress induced break. As you stated, weld dilution likely also plays a part in the failure and with the addition of a slight undercut it is not too surprising. The wagon tracks appeared to be very minor, but when testing to failure any discontinuity can be critical. I have never found a good use for 6013, and I don't think I ever will. If I ever found 6013 on a jobsite, heads would roll.
To me 6013 is primarily good at thin sheet metal. I pretty much use 7018, 7024, and 6010 for everything I do. It would be funny to bust out 6013 on a job site here in the states 😅
There is a valid use for every rod made, including 6013. The right rod for the job is the key. If you're building a bar stool, 6013 is more than adequate. If you're welding a crack in a train bridge gusset, you'll want to choose a different rod. The right rod for the job has always been the rule. The "heads will roll" comment would also apply if you're😮 making mild steel stools and someone brings aluminum or stainless rods to the job.... that would be a silly mistake.
I would love to see a comparison between 6013 VS 7014... See which would give a stronger weld... I would assume 7014 but it would be great to know for sure.
I can tell you that 7014 is stronger than 6013, but the difference isn’t by much. It actually tends to have worse penetration than 6013 but it will handle more load than 6013 when stressed in tension. On sheet metal (or 1/8th and under) both rods will be acceptable for performance in most cases.
If you are referring to why both rods operate at different amperages, that’s because the rods function differently. 6011 (and 6010) operate at high voltage medium amperage. Basically when you strike a arc the voltage that is required to maintain a arc is controlled by your arc gap and the shielding gas created by the welding rod. 6010 and 6011 need a lot of voltage to maintain a arc. Both 1/8th rods take 26-30 volts to maintain a arc. 6013 requires 22-24 volts to maintain a arc. From a wattage perspective both rods consume the same wattage roughly, because wattage is voltage times amperage. That wattage is a indication of heat output so they both have the same level of heat output they just go about achieving it in different ways. Edit: it’s worth mentioning that the downsides to 6010-6011s higher voltage is the rod produces a really wide weld, and has a lot of arc force which can be bad for thinner material. It is also much harder for a welder to run 6010 and 6011 because many welders don’t produce enough voltage under load to keep the arc lit.
Greg, back home (southern New England) 6013 was said to only be good for welding trash cans, plow blades and re-bars! LOL! The dumpster guys love 6013. It will run EP, EN & AC. EN & AC tend to blow out less on sheet metal. AC is simply because of the current constantly switching direction and with EN the current flows from base metal to the electrode. About halfway through the rod it's glowing red and ready to just melt out of the stinger! Especially with 3/32! 7018 will usually produce a clean, strong, highly ductile weld in most applications. If you think you need a bit more strength then 8018 is readily available and runs pretty much like 7018. If you really want a weld that you can put the beans to and abuse the hell out of then 11018 is available also. But it requires preheat and stricter control of heat input with strict inter-pass temps! Don't drop your hot stubs in your shorts! 😜
6013 will definitely weld all sorts of things and on any welder/polarity lol. That was one thing I always thought was pretty cool about it, anything from a Lincoln tombstone to two car batteries would work to run it lol. Speaking of 11018, I am doing a video on “if a weld can be too strong” where I do fillet welds with all sorts of random rods like 80 series, hard face, 11018, etc to show what happens when you use the wrong filler. I have a feeling the 80 series will be no issue but that 11018 surely will since I won’t be preheating it like you said lol.
Greg, how were the coupons cut from the stock......that breakage may have been caused by bending parallel to the grain structure......I could not tell by looking at the coupons how they were cut.... also, were these welds, AC, DC- or DC+..... thanks, Paul
They were done on DC+. The plates were cut out of the same 12’ stick of 2.5in x 3/8th flat stock I have been using, so all of the grain would be oriented the same for every test (not favoring one rod over the other). I would imagine the grain would run lengthwise on a 12’ stick and not across the hot rolled flat bar.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg Greg, yes, it runs length wise......the breakage reminded me of the coupons we were given in welding school......they were 4x8 inches, but the supplier cut them from 4 inch flat bar.....so when you would do an open root with 3/8 plate, and go to bend, you would be bending parallel to the grain......and they would usually break just like your coupon.....they need to have them made from 8 ".... well, next semester, there were 3 55 gallon drums of the same crap...... poor management and instructors......thanks for betting back to me......I actually prefer 6011 to 6013 when welding thin material or poor fit as you can whip and fill better than 6013 and not risk slag entrapment or or porosity.....cheers, Paul
Curious if you would bevel the plates and make 3 welds pass then test 6011 and 6013. I saw my father build a plow that way and he never had a weld brake.
I have a video coming out shortly where I did 2 different bevels and a gap to see what the results were. Beveling will reduce leverage against the weld. It does have limitations though, you will see in the video 😀
interesting to see the failure points after the fact ! I use 6011 on almost everything mainly because it's the only rod I buy 1/8" and 3/32" and I know the rod is harder than the mild steel I weld.... if you take a hack saw and try to cut through the weld on 6011 you will have a very hard time... it's far easier to just cut the steel instead. this shows you how much harder the weld actually is
Thanks for adding the detail on noticing how hard it is to saw though, that wouldn’t be too surprising. 6011 has strength to it no doubt. With things stressed to the max you will see the differences. In the case of thicker plate the difference between 6011 and say 7018 will be significant, but on thinner material it will likely be less so. I will be testing that in the near future.
Great video!! Question… maybe you already have a video on this subject but. If you ran a cap of 7018 over these 6011 or 6013 welds. Would it add to the strength of the weld joint? This might be a stupid question but I’m just trying to learn the whole stick welding thing.
So I tested exactly that. The video is here: th-cam.com/video/WJ1hgfscVe8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=NNPC_n-agZLsbed- . I previously did a bend test on 3 bead 6010 (6010 root, 2 bead cap) and bent it. In that test it broke. I then did a 6010 root, 2 bead 7018 cap, and tested it, that’s what is in the linked video. The results should answer the question 😀
I have welded hundred of pounds of each in my 42 years of welding. And the strongest one is the one you can weld best with. And thats a 6011. I used 6010 when code required it but 6011 for the rest. Installed and maintained fousands of feet of steel air amd coolant lines using 6013 exclusively. Even got permission form a Coast Guard inspector to use 6013 in the root passes on the hull of a ship. Was faster with less cleanup before the cap. And less screwed up welds overall.
Outside of the USA it’s fairly common to use 6013 on many jobs (like pipe and for root passes) however they have multiple flux compositions on their 6013s much like we have multiple flux compositions on 6010 in the states. Between 6010 and 6013 I rather weld with 6010 for the sake of 6013 is very easy to get flux/slag to run ahead of the rod, and it’s harder to run uphill. If I had access to the other 6013s with different flux I bet the difference would would make things more comparable. You are correct though, if you can make a good weld with a rod and not so great with another, the performance you can get will be limited by defects. 6010 (and to a lesser extent 6011) are very easy to get undercut with and it can be difficult to fix properly, especially if it’s a single pass. 6013 is far easier to avoid this issue with. It also doesn’t really leave slag in the toes of the welds which can cause issues if welded over.
@makingmistakeswithgreg The Coast Guard inspectors were the worst for undercuts and inclusions. I had some military special wire that I used on a lot of smaller hull patches. The CG loved that stuff. The problem was it was so expensive I stopped ordering it and went back to stick. Sure don't miss laying in a hold in a ship yard in the Caribbean. I'm not old, but too old for that...
The test is less a measure of weld strength than it is of ductility and weld quality. Both rods have equal tensile strength at 60ksi minimum. Typically, you would expect failure in the HAZ if there is good penetration. A good weld is tougher than the base metal if the right filler is selected. In addition to mixing of the rod composition in the plate with higher penetration, welding heat can affect the test plate. Testing all weld metal tensile specimens would give you a true strength reading, plus can also provide you with information on yield strength and ductility/malleability. The 60 and 70 series rods really have a minimal amount of alloying added. In most cases primarily Mn and deoxidizing elements which are added thru the coating. There is generally very little carbon in the undiluted weld deposit. This test was similar to the knick break test used to qualify for fillet welds.
Couple of my thoughts: it’s very common for people to use 6011 or 6013 to weld mild steel, both of which have proven in my testing to be weaker than 7018, and er70 mig (as expected). From a strength perspective (a ability to hold together something someone built) 6011 would likely last longer than 6013 because of 6013s limited penetration. Even if I ran more amperage with the 6013 it’s penetration doesn’t increase much, and weld defects become a issue with more amperage. I am more of the thought process that using 7018 is the way to go for most things and for specific uses look at other rods. In this specific video (and many of my break tests) it’s very common for the weld to tear off the base material. Could this be the weld itself failing? Yes it could. It could also be looked at as the base material is failing, which would suggest the weld is stronger than the base material. However 7018 and er70 mig have both handled the bend away from the face without failure. This leads me to believe that in this video the failure was the weld itself and not the base material. Or the weld caused a change in the heat affected zone that weakened the base material. Regardless of the actual mechanism of failure, they are both weaker than 7018. Even more interesting is 7014 and 7024 have proven to be weaker than 7018 in bends away from the face as well. I am suspecting hydrogen embrittlement being a contributing factor in this.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg I wonder if the weld breaking near the surface is just an indicator of the depth of fusion rather than indicator of weld strength or indicator of poor fusion? Is there a correlation of press PSI to depth at which the break occurs?
Polish viewer here. We don't really seem to have 6010s or 6011s available, 6013s are the most prevalent 60 series' welding rods. 6012s do exist, but as you say - for anything that requires more ductility - 7018 is probably a go-to welding rod. Your tests are very interesting and to the point. I realize they are not scientific, and I doubt anybody expects them to be such. However, they do give an idea of how things are between the rods. There are many factors, but the more one gets to know, the better. Thanks.
No problem. It’s funny you mentioned 6012, I actually picked up some 6012 rods to try out. Not sure what to expect with them, I guess that will be found out 😀
Interesting AWS got a lot of the world to use their numbering system. Any standards organization wants a few pennies tossed their way when you put their approval on it. Of course brands here have their own special name and number in addition to the AWS number. You can tell a difference between brands in the same AWS classification, usually how they feel running. It sounds like the the overseas version of 6013 is different enough that Greg needs some to test. Maybe a specification sheet would reveal why they are different.
As I see it, all the weld tests are breaks initiated by cracks that are present in the weld due to the weld technique. Perhaps a more complete test that could be a load path test. A bend test allows the cracks in the weld to grow and fail . When designing a weld, we always determine which will be the primary load path thru the weld and make the required weld appropriate for the load.
There is a lot going on with why welds break. The issue is I could go in super depth and design very specific tests that isolate the weld itself far better, but how applicable this is to the what the average person I am unsure. There are significant differences in welding rods and processes, which can easily be shown in the simplistic tests I have done. A good example will be in the video that I have coming out soon dealing with 3 pass 6010 vs a single pass 7018. Without giving anything away, it’s a great example of adding more weld doesn’t mean stronger. It is absolutely important to determine the loading on the weld since (like in this video) if you only weld on one side of a fillet weld there is a massive strength difference when you have penetration vs no penetration/fusion. That was why this 6013 vs 6011 is such a great example, there are close to one another in tensile when bending away from the face, but completely different in mechanical strength when bent towards the face.
I've been watching welding for a while now....nobody talks about how to UN-weld something....would you heat it up first or freeze it? I realized that when the metals. welded together are permanently stuck in that position I couldn't LEGO my pieces or move them around in a "rotation" to avoid "acclimation" (acclimation being stagnent or unused or forgotten about energy or power) kinda like cleaning cords to phone of cleaning outlets clogged with cold bacon greese ???? I say this as a question
Actually most types of rods are available overseas but the rod of choice is E6013 with minor use of E6010. Metal working shops prefer 6013 because it's easy to run. Very informative thank you! Question: What rod do you recommend for galvanized thin tubing?
For galvanized tubing honestly 6011 would be my go to. 6011 produces a less aggressive arc than 6010, which buys you time on blowing holes through the material. It also has a disregard for zinc coatings so it produces good welds without porosity. It freezes faster than 6013 as well so it’s easier to handle imperfect fitups.
Interesting! I just subscribed after watching a couple videos. I always thought stick was stronger than mig. Have you done a strength comparison between all processes mig, Tim, stick etc? If might is stronger than stick, why do we use stick for pipe, and structural? I’m not a professional welder(obviously) but thanks for all the videos. Keep up the good work.
Welcome 😀. I have not done a video like that yet but I will do a video on that as part of my how to tig weld series I am working on. In the meantime I will share some info regarding this. The ultimate strength of a weld comes down to two major factors: 1) the strength of the filler metal alloy, and 2) the weld size/penetration/how many defects. Tig is not inherently stronger than mig or stick from a filler material end (it uses the same wire as mig). Tig tends to be stronger because it can produce perfect welds with zero defects and those welds tend to be extremely consistent in penetration. This especially holds true with short welds. Small 1-2inch welds tend to have varying levels of fusion with stick and mig (cold low penetration starts and hot weld ends). With Tig it’s easy to produce the same solid penetration start to finish because of how it functions. So in a nutshell Tig is strong because with skill it produces very clean defect free welds that are super consistent. Mig welding can produce very strong welds, however there are many ways operator error can change the strength of a weld. Pushing vs pulling, what settings are used, shielding gas blend, etc, all change the functional weld strength drastically. With stick welding your only variables are amperage, arc gap distance, rod drag angle, and travel speed. It’s not possible to make a stick weld that visually looks good that has poor fusion (with 7018 and 6010/6011). With mig this is easily achieved. I believe this is why mig has a bad reputation, visually it can produce good looking welds that perform poorly.
You guys seemed to have settled on using multiple types of 6013 instead of 6010. 6010 rods really weld out of position well and give a lot of control. The different flux variations of your 6013 rods makes them run more like 6011/10 from what I have heard. Realistically I find myself using 6010 a lot because it makes it very easy to weld gaps shut and weld out of position. It is significantly weaker than 7018 though, so its use must be limited to situations where that strength loss is of little concern.
It is true than in Europe 6011 and 6010 are pretty much imposible to find.I suppose it depends on what kind of material you are welding. If the material is thicker than 2.5 mm, I would simply use 7018. As a simple DIY guy who is mostly welding and repairing on thin material (2.5 mm and thinner ) I mostly use 6013.
Do you ever see rods like 6012, 7016, and 6022? It’s unfortunate you guys don’t have access to 6010/6011, they are great for welding out of position and filling holes in things. Although from what I have read 6013 overseas has numerous flux compositions which change the way it runs, so the 6013s you may have probably function more like a 6013 here in the states.
Oerlicon overcord is a rutile(Titania)-cellulosic blend that welds good out of position and it is also specified as 6013 by aws... The only 6010 I found here are called boehler somewhat "pipe" and are extraordinarily expensive here.
@@makingmistakeswithgregsome "special" named Elektrodes we have here are certified 7016 by aws. The 6012, 6022 and other can ne optained by veostalpine/boehler but to horrendous pirzes (for privateers) 7024 with ironoxide in the flux are called "hochleistungs Elektrode". I think we have common elektrodes with charscteristics some how like 6010 or 6011 but they all are certified 6013 by aws because these contain more or less rutile (Titania) in fluxcomposition. My feeling is, that althought the elektrodes maybe some how comparable there is a confusion caused by different certification standards between EU and US.
Thanks for sharing all of the info. I will admit it’s confusing as to why there are so many differences. 6013 that’s available here is definitely a different composition. I have had some 6013s that have run better than others, but all of them are sold as a “6013” so if there was a flux composition difference you can’t tell based on the packaging.
To me, 6011 is like, a slightly inferior version of 6010, with somewhat less penetraion, but which will run on any welder with a typical open circuit volage. 6013 is the most common rod in the UK, although I personally dont get on with it. Another great video Greg, thanks.
You’re pretty much spot on. 6011 is a great rod on thinner metal and to weld out of position. It’s far less aggressive than 6010 which is good for when you don’t need to melt through things. Definitely harder to make a decent looking weld with when compared to 6013.
AC or DC, your welder must have enough voltage to get a smooth arc for any electrode. An SMAW or transformer TIG machine with enough voltage could make any electrode weld like MAG. I don't have an inverter and I have no intention of getting one. IMO, they're just not powerful enough, arc-wise. Copper windings are pretty much the key to getting quality SMAW with any electrode.
I have only used one transformer machine and a couple different inverter machines. From my VERY limited experience the inverter machines are much easier to weld with. I guess I need to break out the old craftsman and do some comparison tests on weld quality.
You might feel differently if you had a chance to try my little Sanrex 160. It runs 6010 HOT and it will do things no transformer machine could ever hope to do- like run a 1/8 6010 at full power on 120V on any 20a circuit. With a 100ft extension cord.
I know it’s not related to this video but it reminded me about our conversation awhile back on my other account I think. We talked about what generator I should grab to run my little mig130 stick and flux only welder at my storage unit. I’ve bout got the settings dialed in now to where it don’t trip the breaker for the whole building my 10x30 unit is in but the manager is cool and showed me where the breaker is and I just reset it. But recently had a dude randomly bring me a power stroke 5000watt continuous and 6500 starting generator that won’t run. Asked me to get her going again. Tank rusted out bad and carb was trashed, finally got it back dialed in and been using it with the welder and it actuallly does okay man. I’m surprised but it runs only 120 still but I can run 6013 and 6011 and 7014 on it all day and runs pretty good actually bro. And the dude who brought it to me to fix ghosted and I’ve not heard a peep from him or seen him In like two months so I guess I gots me a cheap new generator for a backup
Nice deal. Hard to beat a free generator even though it took a bunch of work to get running. As a backup or for mobile work a generator like that is awesome to have 😀
@@makingmistakeswithgreg I mean it wasn’t no major deal, the tank was totally trashed and it rusted so bad I had to flush with muratic acid but it scraped it back kleen again minus a couple floaties I think I got today flushing again, but a tank double, triple flushola with a side order of new carb and some fresh fuel lines and in-line filters and on/off tab, she’s back in biz and she runs the arc captain stick welding 6011 just fine so it think I did ok on that deal, if dude shows back up wanting it I’ll just bill em like 250 and keep it moving
First of all look at your chart for welding rods second 6013 and 7014 are farmers rods 6010 rods are used by pipefitters 718 is structural rod it has some elongation properties
Definitely a invaluable tool for that. It makes it much easier to fill cracks/holes too. I really like 6011 on 1/8th material for things like trailer repair.
With a multi pass weld the top layer will limit the strength if the stress is away from the face of the weld. The root pass will help a ton if the force is towards the face. 6011 will definitely produce stronger penetration and thus better performance on a bend towards the face. When it comes to 6011 and 6013, I would rather use 6011 for a root pass and you could use 6013 to weld it out. It wouldn’t be as strong as a 7018 weld but the 6013 would produce a smoother better looking weld to put over 6011. Just make sure to clean the slag of the 6011 really good before you weld over it with a 6013 👍
Greg, I need help!!! I'm your second 73-year-old fart trying to learn to weld. I am subscribed and have watched 30 or so of your videos but I have CRS syndrome (a joke...kinda). At the moment I'm horribly frustrated and taking it out on a scotch and water. Details: 3 months ago, I bought a YWM-160. I'm trying to weld 6013, 6011 and 7014 3/32 sticks to 1/4-inch 4x12 plate. My problem is I have a terrible time getting started. My stick consistently sticks to the plate. My settings are 85 amps DCEN, 75 amps DCEP and 90 amps DCEP respectively. If I can get started, I can run a fairly decent bead, but I get stuck to plate about 6 times before I get lit. Thoughts?? Paul
So I can give you some advice for sure, hope this helps: Some rods are just sticky bastards. Just yesterday I was running a 6011 rod to show a friend, and it was a bastard for even me to start. 6011 can be hard in regards to this. 7018 is also bad on restarts. The machine makes a massive difference in how easy a rod is to start. I run a 400a power source at work for stick, and it will start any rod easily because its voltage is 80v when there is an open circuit (aka no welding). That high of voltage makes it easy to get an arc started. Also, having a hot start setting makes a world of difference as well. Hot start boosts amperage for the first few seconds of a weld before dropping to the setpoint. Many machines don’t have adjustable hot start or high OCV so they will flat out be harder to start rods. Your machine is one that likely will be harder to start. There are solutions (besides getting a welder with adjustable settings). I assure you that if you ran a 400amp power source like I do you would have 80% easier starts, so some of the struggle is the machine. To solve what you can control, more practice will eventually help you get better at starting rods. You can also slightly “cheat” and buy rods with graphite tips. Often marketed as “ez start” rods, they have a highly conductive tip that doesn’t deposit metal nor cause the rod to stick. Harbor freights 7018 has this, they may have others. I know Menards sells some us forge rods that have it too. My personal favorite 7018 (esab 7018 prime) has the graphite tip and makes starts clean all the time (restarts with 7018 are still rough). So realistically a bit more practice (and possibly a rod change) will help. Your amperage’s are in line with what I would expect those rods to run at. It may help to slightly change starting technique. You may be able to slightly tap the rod to the plate until the arc starts, then weld. I tend to do that on restarts, on new rods I tend to bring it down to the plate, scratch the tip, and bring it to a slight arc gap in one fast motion.
11/13 are the designations for "all position" or flat only welds. 60 = 60,000 tensil strength. It's how you put them in that makes one weld weaker than the other
You must remember that 60k tensile is minimum, actual testing strength is typically much higher than that. There will be differences between the rods in ultimate strength regardless of the “minimum” AWS spec. From a actual strength perspective, 6013 will not equal the penetration of 6011, therefore on a single pass weld 6011 will produce a stronger weld when stressed towards the face. This has nothing to do with tensile strength but it’s a mechanical strength difference due to the penetration. For the same Reason 6010 will significantly out perform both 6011 and 6013 in a face bend, and 6010 outperforms 7018 in the same test. You can bevel plates to regain the mechanical advantage of penetration.
Thank you for this. I was wondering about the strength between the two. I recently went to our local machine shop here in my country and could get most rods but as mentioned before 6010 & 6011 are just not available.
The main thing you are missing out on with 6010 and 6011 is the ability to weld shut holes and cracks. The weld pool cools so fast you can weld a open crack shut easily where is other rods will just drip molten metal. From a welding on clean material and making stuff without big gaps there isn’t a huge benefit to the rod.
As a beginner I'm still struggling with arc blow and slag porosity. Learning how not to blow hole in 1.4mm thick square tubing when fit up poor, basically everything. I'll be watching your lessons again. A bit of practice I'll inevitably be better. Tx
@@makingmistakeswithgregI had thought penetration was the main function/draw of 6010/11.. is there another rod capable of achieving penetration like those?
The high penetration is a huge benefit yes. However that can be overcome with welding things with a gap or bevel. When it comes to welding holes/cracks shut it’s very difficult with rods like 7018 to close them because the molten pool is too liquid and either drips out or falls through. The fast freezing nature of the 6010 and 6011 make them so much easier than most other rods for repair work.
@julesc8054, arc blow and slag entrapment can be delt with mostly by striking a arc and resting the rods flux on the plate fast while you drag the rod. If you’re welding with 6013 it’s very hard to not have the flux jump ahead of your rod. If the rod feels like a crayon melting on a hot pan while you move you’re doing things right. If you are hovering above the plate without occasionally touching the flux to the plate you will have arc blow and difficulty pushing the flux away. In a flat position weld it’s possible to do it with a gap without much issue, with a fillet weld not so much because the arc gap to the corner becomes so great the arc wanders.
6010s main benefit is its ability to weld gaps shut because of how fast the metal solidifies. The 6013 here is not formulated like what’s available in many countries, the 6013 here is mediocre at filling gaps and running out of position because the puddle is a bit liquid. I personally do a lot of repair work with 6010 because it makes things possible that wouldn’t be (filling gaps, welding downhill, controlling how much dig the rod has, etc. Depending on how your 6013s run it might not be worth it to pay double.
Yeah, it’s a bummer when a welder won’t run with 6011 or 6010. They are great rods to have the option on running. You can still learn as much you can with the rods you can run, and eventually upgrade to a welder that does run 60xx.
Amen. There are inverter welders that do *NOT* like cellulosic electrodes. I have one. It died, though. If I am able to replace it, I’m going for one that can *readily* run cellulosic rods - adjustable hot-start and arc-force. (bite!)
@@makingmistakeswithgreg 7014 is one of my favorite rods. It doesn't have all of the storage problems and hard restrike problems that 7018s do. And it lays down like butter. I'm hoping it fares well on your test! Thanks for the great content.
I guess it didn't perform too well :-D I've bought pack just to check hype around it, welds do look nice but root penetration isn't there...on 1/8" plate edge was almost intact.
7016 is a oddball rod that is virtually unheard of in the states here. It can be ordered in 50lb tins for a lot of money. 7014 does have weaker root fusion much like 6013, sounds like that 7016 is similar.
I agree, that’s virtually all I ever use. I didn’t care a lot for 6011 until I realized how well it runs vertical down on 1/8th material, while having solid penetration. 6010 tends to be too aggressive on stuff like trailer repairs, 6011 seems to work great in those situations.
For all practical purposes the heat input in watts while running is very similar with all 1/8th rods. 6010 at 90 amps runs at say 30v, is 2700 watts. 7018 at 120a at 23volts is 2760 watts. I have actually metered my welder running both 1/8 7018 and 1/8 6010 and they draw the exact same current. The change in heat input is due to travel speed, 6010 requires slower travel speed due to low metal deposition, which intern puts more heat into the metal over time. I would like to implement heat input as a variable in testing but the truth is there isn’t much I can do on a simple scale to achieve testing of this. For most people a rod is a rod, if they run it properly so the weld doesn’t have defects (undercut, undersized due to high travel speed, inconsistent in size, etc) there isn’t control over the heat input. Other than not running excessive amperage for the rod or running too big of a rod for the material, there is very minimal control. Outside of a small range of what works you will get significant weld defects with stick, so you are kind of stuck in that range. I have also torch heated a36 plates to 500 degrees, MiG welded them, and bent them away from the face, without a failure. So I would say on a36 steel heat input doesn’t seem to be a huge concern. On chromoly, ar500, and other heat sensitive materials excessive temps could result in a absolute failure in the heat effected zone.
There is far more going on that just tensile strength. Tensile strength is just a minimum specification, most rods test over that. In the case of 6011 vs 6013, 6011 typically tests at higher tensile strength than 6013 (typically 68-72k psi vs 66-70k psi). Both rods also have completely different penetration profiles. In a single pass single side weld on a fillet joint 6013 will never exceed the breaking strength of 6011 when the plate is bent towards the face of the weld. This is because the penetration 6011 has over 6013 is significant enough make it harder for the plate to use the weld as a lever.
6013 (to me) is primarily a great rod to learn to weld with and to weld thinner material with. It excels at those two things. It’s limited penetration can be a issue depending on what you’re welding. It can also work great for open root welding over 6011 because it actually has better performance in many other things (like cold temp strength performance, ease of use, slag removal, etc) and in that case penetration isn’t a issue at all. For most hobbyists they both are fairly equal but if penetration matters 6011 is a far better option.
Yes that is surprising, I would have lost a bet on that one for sure. The biggest limitation with short circuit MiG is that many people run too “cold” and the cold welds can look much better with MiG than they truly are. With stick it’s much harder to make a very poor penetration weld that looks visually decent.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg In my own testing I've also found that mig can make some excellent welds. I have a Lincoln 180 rated for 3/16" max with shielding gas, I've welded up 1/4" plate (with bevelling and multiple passes) and the plate bends before the weld. I tend to reach for the stick welder for important welds on thick metal but I'm re-thinking that strategy. It's making me want to get a bigger mig welder in the 250A range. Thanks for all your comparison videos, they are great! I'm looking forward to seeing some 250 amp mig weld testing with your new Esab machine.
The a36 steel I used has the following specs: yield 36,300psi, ultimate tensile strength 59,000 to 79,800psi, elongation 20% minimum. All 70k fillers I have tested did better than 6013/6011, however only 7018, er70, and dual shield wire has survived a bend away from the face without breaking. 7014 and 7024 have failed. If the average person wanted to make the strongest stick weld possible on A36 steel they would be best served with 7018 over 6011, 6013, 7014, 7024, etc. The testing method I used isn’t sensitive enough to determine to exact difference between 6011 and 6013 with a bend away from the face (weld under tension) but for all practical reasons it doesn’t matter for the average person welding, they are close. If the stress comes towards the face of the weld (and only one side is welded), 6011 is a clear winner. If pure ductility of the weld is the root cause of failure 6013 has more elongation than 7018. 6013 will not beat 7018 in penetration, or bends towards/away from the face. At this point I believe the root cause of failures away from the face on the plates to be related to hydrogen embrittlement from non low-hydrogen fillers and a lack of tensile strength.
13:00 ~" 70,000psi alloy is stronger than 60,000psi alloy. ~" Yes 70 series is 10k psi stronger than all 60 series rod. The 1st 2 numbers is the tensile strength in thousands of psi.
The difference is typically more than that, the spec 60xx or 70xx refers to the minimum strength. The actual test strength is typically 8-12k higher than the specification, depending on manufacture of the rod.
If a average person makes a fillet weld, and that weld is stressed, the question is one rod stronger than another. The answer is yes, absolutely. The point of the test (which is one in many I have done) is to show potential strength differences between rods and why they exist. 6011 will post higher numbers on a bend towards the face than 6013, because 6013 doesn’t penetrate as much. Both of them are not going to pass a bend away from the face like 7018 or er70 mig will. The difference on a bend away from the face in ultimate strength will be minimal between 6011 and 6013. This information to the average person is useful. I could weld 3-4in long welds, cut a section out of the middle, verify absolutely equal weld sizes, and test that,in a far more scientific test, however 6011 will still beat 6013 in a bend towards the face. I have also done multiple pass 6013 and it broke in the same manner as a single pass, the weld is not strong enough to surpass the steels strength.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg ….good test for the results…I agree 6013 does on average produce a brittle type weld. We have always used 6013 for light sheet metal work. Why at this stage of rod production it is even produced is a mystery. 7014 will produce a better weld with more elongation factor…..thanks for your hard work we appreciate it.
Personally I would rather weld with 6010 or 6011, 6013 tends to be only useful to me for very thin sheet metal. Thankfully I have MiG and tig for that, because stick welding super thin sheet metal is tough lol.
I agree, however it is commonly used by people in the USA for welding mild steel. Depending on circumstances 6011 is a better option. It has far more penetration which can give higher strength.
Bro, you are not testing the specimins corectly . Not being a hardass, but I have been a qc for several companies and used these tests to qualify, or bust welders. According to code the weld should break near or very close to the center of the weld. Then inspector looks at the break no crack, porosity, or inclusion of anything foreign usually slag should never be more than 1/8" in any direction. BTW, if it's got wagon tracks it's undercut. Spend some time reading some code books. On a real test you alway break the T from back side. You're trying to look for flaws inside the weld. No 60 series weld is acceptable on DOT equipment even a lawnmower trailer, if it's used on a public road, the weld must be rated at least 70,000 tensile strength rated by the filler metal manufacturer. Check out some code books AWS D1.1, ASME SEC.9, etc. God bless, and work safe. Keep learning.
I think you missed a lot of what’s going on. The testing is not meant to be code specific, I don’t claim this and specifically state this in numerous videos including the explanation video on the testing. Try breaking a single pass fillet weld on 3/8th plate with 6011 and have it break down the center of the weld. It is not likely to happen. The weld is not being stressed equally because the upright plate is not the same length as the bottom plate, therefore the top toe of the weld sees more force because the way the plate curls. In the case of 6011 it breaks at the top toe, in the case of 7018 there is evidence of tearing at that point. This is an effect of an unequal load, which I talked about numerous times. The purpose of the testing is to give simple demonstrations of differences between rods, not meet a specific code. Most fillet welds on something the average person welds will never be on plates perfectly symmetrical, with loadings perfectly equal, where the weld will split perfectly down the middle. You’re comparing absolutely controlled testing, to something I don’t do or claim to do. If you feel the weld test is wrong, and not accurate, weld a 6013 and 6011 fillet weld and break them and send me your results. I would be happy to revisit this. Also, please cite the DOT laws regarding weld strength specifications. This is unfortunately a myth. Some manufactures follow AWS specifications in manufacture of things that see highway use, however many companies don’t. There is no way for any trailer, motor home, etc to be inspected to verify they meet a weld test specification after manufacture. A vast majority of stuff on the highway (besides cars/trucks) were welded by uncertified welders, have untested welds, and are not done to a specific code. 99% of the aftermarket parts industry is also in the same boat. I repair everything from vactor trucks, mobile e450 command centers, trailers, etc for a living. There is no standard that is enforced other than you can’t weld stuff to a frame on a commercial vehicle unless a manufacture recommends it. Even in that situation who is going to enforce this law? Right now I just took delivery of a brand new garbage truck and it has numerous things welded to the frame (in a manner I think is wrong). How would even the state patrol on DOT inspection figure out if that was recommended or not when the chassis manufacture is not who outfitted the truck? Sure, when something fails and a big lawsuit hits, this will come up. But that’s literally the whole industry.
I definitely will test that. Its salt and snow season pretty soon here in wisconsin, I will leave some plates out for a week or two so they "season" with rust lol.
7018 is such a good rod it’s hard to improve on it. Only downside is trying to bridge gaps with it and welding super thin material can be tough. Almost everything else 7018 is the way to go 😀
Unfortunately this isn’t the case. Let me explain: 1) The performance of both rods are not equal and there are many reasons for this. On a single sided fillet weld 6011 is significantly stronger than 6013 when bent towards the face. Why? Because it has more penetration than 6013 and the extra penetration reduces the leverage of using the weld as a fulcrum point. When bending them away from the face (in the shop press) this is more of a test of tensile strength, bending towards the face is not a tensile strength test. I have covered this in many previous videos, if you would like I can share a few links. 2) the tensile strength spec is a AWS minimum, not a actual test result. 6011 rods generally test around 70-72k psi and 6013 generally tests around 67-70k. In a absolute scientific test 6011 will beat 6013 in tensile strength. They both are similar in elongation and yield strength. 3) A welds strength is far more involved than just the rod used. The direction of force applied, the penetration/ root fusion, weld defects, etc all play a huge role. You can look at tensile strength as the only thing that matters. A great example of this would be welding something just as I did, if you can only weld one side, and the force on the weld is towards the face, 6010 would be a far better option than 7018 because it will take far more force to break the weld due to the reduced leverage via increased penetration. Hopefully that clears things up
The base metal broke! Both rods. Your rambling does not say anything about welding creates heat that makes the base metal fragile. Fact. Undercutting the base metal even more prone to failure. Fact. Do it with 7018 and if will break at the same spot.
7018 did not fail, nor did er70 Mig in the exact same test, it’s in the video before this one on my channel. 7018 was run at the same amperage as 6013 on the same plate. It’s not a heat input issue, it’s a particular rod strength issue. Heat in itself doesn’t make a36 hot rolled steel fragile either, it is not a heat harden-able alloy. If anything it would improve its ability to flex at a loss of strength. I have done extensive further testing and it’s not undercutting that’s causing the failure, it’s a weakness of the weld material or the grain structure produced by the rod.
my gosh can my life get any worse i whent to se my fathers mother in amrca and see basicly dead shes on a vent shes just not gonna make it whith my life i got now nothing to lose but inheirtance and nothing to gain but reputtion i cant buy food for my self with reputation
So a couple points of clarification:
I did a pretty poor job of explaining what is really going on in what you’re seeing. Having done many similar test videos I naturally left out details to make the video shorter. One of the main details I should have covered better is why 6013 had so bad of performance over 6011 on the bend towards the face (with the torque meter). This is why:
6013 has very limited penetration on thicker materials (and in general). A fillet weld break test towards the face of a weld always favors weld penetration/root fusion. Case in point 6010 will hit higher numbers than 7018 in this test. This is not a tensile strength test for most rods because most rods don’t fuse much of the root together. With poor root fusion the plate can bend easily due to the fact the top & bottom toe of the weld are used as a fulcrum point for the plate. This is why the 6013 rod performed poorly on this test vs 6011.
When it came to the bend tests in the press they both ultimately failed, which is too be expected. A36 steel can potentially exceed the strength of the weld. In both cases the material seemed to tear off the weld. Regardless of it being a material failure or weld failure, 7018 will pass the same test without failure. So to me the actual reason for failure is less of a concern than the fact a 7018 welded joint is stronger.
I have a few videos coming out shortly where I do multi pass welds and compare them. This will be exceptionally eye opening because it will show how more weld does not equal more strength, depending on how something is stressed.
On a final note, it’s important to take these test results with a grain of salt. Bending 3/8th steel with over 6k lbs of force is a lot of a load, and only when pushed to the absolute limit will you see failure. This is precisely why many people weld things with 6013 and other 60 series rods and never have anything fail, they never stress anything near the limit. The key takeaway should be that even a small weld of a 60 series rod is immensely strong, and that it likely will hold something you have together. However it is not as strong as a 7018, and if you need strength you need 7018.
I didn't expected the plate to break. Very impressive! You're doing great work!
Thanks 😀. So far in videos 7018 and er70 mig are the only ones to survive the bend in the shop press. Tig presumably will do I haven’t tested it yet. 7014 test comes out this week, which that will be interesting to say the least. I am awaiting 7024 rods in the mail to test those as well, along with flux core.
Great. That's a very cool and informative testseries!
7024 will weld by themselves
Great video, I totally get the point is for a random guy in his garage to pick up a box of rods and start welding.
You may do this in another video, I haven't seen yet but...
I think it would be a great idea to put together a video doing a fillet weld break test and going over the acceptance criteria and what kind of adjustments can be made to correct defects.
I like that you pointed out the lack of fusion on the 6013. I paused the video and zoomed in on them before you talked about it, and was thinking "This isn't fair, that 6013 isn't penetrated at all." Then you go right over it and explain that cranking the amps doesn't do much to help and I'm back on board with the spirit of the video.
That is what inspired my thinking about going over acceptance criteria for some simple garage tests so guys can do a test piece and have confidence in what they're looking at is acceptable or alter their procedures.
BTW, this is the second video of yours I've watched and you're obviously in the know of what you're talking about. The other one was that Firepower MIG machine you picked up (I just got the ESAB equivalent myself)
I have loosely covered what you’re asking about, but it definitely warrants enough to do a specific video. Making strong welds comes down to many factors, and includes a persons skill, the material used, engineering/design of what’s being welded, etc. Weld defects are never really a good thing.
One thing that I personally do (and is somewhat universal) is on things that demand the strongest welds and no defects I use tig welding. There are certain flaws in welding processes that can’t be fixed easily. A great example would be stick and mig welding producing less penetration at/near the start of a weld and a tendency to have weld defects at starts/ends of welds. That is why stuff like structural steel has a tendency to use start strips and run off tabs (where weld starts and stops are off of the actual welded part) which are removed when fully welded. Tig makes it possible to achieve completely defect free welds easily, and weld defect repair far easier without requiring extra work. The downside is speed, tig is extremely slow. There are ways to achieve similar quality of welds with other processes, but it takes far more thought. I will definitely cover all this in the future.
so glad to see a comparison of 6013 and 6011.....too many weldors think they are poor rods......thanks Greg, Paul down in Florida
They both are useful and don’t get enough credit. 6011 is a personal favorite of mine for welding 1/8th steel on trailer repairs. It’s real easy to not blow holes through, runs well uphill and downhill, and overhead.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg greg, you got that right......maybe do a video with 6010 and other rods showing they can be run on DC-...which has less penetration and more build up.....even go as far as throwing in some AC.....I am not sure how 6010 will do with that......and of course, many inverters have a hard time with 6010......have you found any ll09 rod up north......the new guys down here are always looking for it at the well supply......cheers, Paul in Florida
I have found that 6011 is better for structural work while 6013 is good for welding deck plates because it makes a smoother weld.
7014 as well they are iron fill rods Farmers using these rods to fill their plow points up
100% agree. 6011s rougher weld gives a ton of places for material to collect, it’s far harder to make a decent looking bead, and it’s very easy to leave undercut that weakens the base material. It’s also slow to deposit material, and doesn’t deposit as much weld as 6013.
6013 is great for metal patio furniture because it doesn’t penetrate so you can weld thinner metals
@@aljock6927The blue demon 7014 in the 5/64 size is an easy button for thin stuff. It’s cheap on Amazon and performs really well thus far. Easy slag removal, too.
Watching the press bend tests you do reminds me of welding school and my heart up in my throat watching the force gauge praying the pressure won't drop. That was a lot of anxiety.
The mettalurgy data sheet can tell you what you want. FYI in most instances a coathanger can provide all the tensile strength you need.
We use baling wire and duct tape when we can. Man I miss those days, baling wire used to be everywhere on the farm, even though we never owned a wire baler. Anything could be fixed with baling wire....
Hi Greg , 1mill times thanks for your good channel, I wish for you 1mill subscribers.
The weld and break test , is really an eye opener , and I finally got myself into cut and etch . I use Ferric-chloride , since I also use it for my PCBs.
Here we have many rods classified as 6013 , and old rods can be dried 1 hour at 125C . 7018 comes in a very very thin plastic covered paper box ....-
I love my 55years old MIG welder , transformer , 4 voltage and 10 wires speed positions , but it can stand "on" all day ready to tack , and not a sound 🙂
Thanks for the kind words and I am glad you found useful info on the channel 😃. Glad to hear you’re experimenting with cut and etches, you will learn a ton. Not to mention it’s fun to see what’s going on “behind the scenes” since welds can look good and yet have problems. Once you know what reliably works, you will be able to tackle harder projects and have excellent results. 😀
Have you tried 9018 rod?
How would it compare to 7018 as far as ductility is concerned. I was given maybe 100 lbs of rod which included maybe 5 lbs or more of the 9018. I have not tried it yet. Looking for input…
I have never welded with 9018 but in my experience that rod is primarily used in piping in power plants. I do know that there are multiple types of 9018 (they will have a letter or additional numbers after the 9018) and they have differing uses. It likely welds very similar to 7018 and 11018. As far as if it’s usable on mild steel, it will make welds. However its additional strength wouldn’t be likely utilized or needed.
Hi Greg the bend test of the 6011 sample was a bit different than I expected. It appears to be a stress induced break. As you stated, weld dilution likely also plays a part in the failure and with the addition of a slight undercut it is not too surprising. The wagon tracks appeared to be very minor, but when testing to failure any discontinuity can be critical. I have never found a good use for 6013, and I don't think I ever will. If I ever found 6013 on a jobsite, heads would roll.
To me 6013 is primarily good at thin sheet metal. I pretty much use 7018, 7024, and 6010 for everything I do. It would be funny to bust out 6013 on a job site here in the states 😅
There is a valid use for every rod made, including 6013. The right rod for the job is the key. If you're building a bar stool, 6013 is more than adequate. If you're welding a crack in a train bridge gusset, you'll want to choose a different rod. The right rod for the job has always been the rule. The "heads will roll" comment would also apply if you're😮 making mild steel stools and someone brings aluminum or stainless rods to the job.... that would be a silly mistake.
I would love to see a comparison between 6013 VS 7014... See which would give a stronger weld... I would assume 7014 but it would be great to know for sure.
I can tell you that 7014 is stronger than 6013, but the difference isn’t by much. It actually tends to have worse penetration than 6013 but it will handle more load than 6013 when stressed in tension. On sheet metal (or 1/8th and under) both rods will be acceptable for performance in most cases.
Hello, I have learned more from your channel than any other welding channel so far. Why was the current different?
If you are referring to why both rods operate at different amperages, that’s because the rods function differently. 6011 (and 6010) operate at high voltage medium amperage. Basically when you strike a arc the voltage that is required to maintain a arc is controlled by your arc gap and the shielding gas created by the welding rod. 6010 and 6011 need a lot of voltage to maintain a arc. Both 1/8th rods take 26-30 volts to maintain a arc. 6013 requires 22-24 volts to maintain a arc. From a wattage perspective both rods consume the same wattage roughly, because wattage is voltage times amperage. That wattage is a indication of heat output so they both have the same level of heat output they just go about achieving it in different ways.
Edit: it’s worth mentioning that the downsides to 6010-6011s higher voltage is the rod produces a really wide weld, and has a lot of arc force which can be bad for thinner material. It is also much harder for a welder to run 6010 and 6011 because many welders don’t produce enough voltage under load to keep the arc lit.
Thank you for the detailed explanation!@@makingmistakeswithgreg
Greg, back home (southern New England) 6013 was said to only be good for welding trash cans, plow blades and re-bars! LOL! The dumpster guys love 6013. It will run EP, EN & AC. EN & AC tend to blow out less on sheet metal. AC is simply because of the current constantly switching direction and with EN the current flows from base metal to the electrode. About halfway through the rod it's glowing red and ready to just melt out of the stinger! Especially with 3/32! 7018 will usually produce a clean, strong, highly ductile weld in most applications. If you think you need a bit more strength then 8018 is readily available and runs pretty much like 7018. If you really want a weld that you can put the beans to and abuse the hell out of then 11018 is available also. But it requires preheat and stricter control of heat input with strict inter-pass temps! Don't drop your hot stubs in your shorts! 😜
6013 will definitely weld all sorts of things and on any welder/polarity lol. That was one thing I always thought was pretty cool about it, anything from a Lincoln tombstone to two car batteries would work to run it lol.
Speaking of 11018, I am doing a video on “if a weld can be too strong” where I do fillet welds with all sorts of random rods like 80 series, hard face, 11018, etc to show what happens when you use the wrong filler. I have a feeling the 80 series will be no issue but that 11018 surely will since I won’t be preheating it like you said lol.
Greg, how were the coupons cut from the stock......that breakage may have been caused by bending
parallel to the grain structure......I could not tell by looking at the coupons how they were cut....
also, were these welds, AC, DC- or DC+.....
thanks, Paul
They were done on DC+. The plates were cut out of the same 12’ stick of 2.5in x 3/8th flat stock I have been using, so all of the grain would be oriented the same for every test (not favoring one rod over the other). I would imagine the grain would run lengthwise on a 12’ stick and not across the hot rolled flat bar.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg Greg, yes, it runs length wise......the breakage reminded me of the coupons we were given in welding school......they were 4x8 inches, but the supplier cut them from 4 inch flat bar.....so when you would do an open root with 3/8 plate, and go to bend, you would be bending parallel to the grain......and they would usually break just like your coupon.....they need to have them made from 8 "....
well, next semester, there were 3 55 gallon drums of the same crap......
poor management and instructors......thanks for betting back to me......I actually prefer 6011 to 6013 when welding thin material or poor fit as you can whip and fill better than 6013 and not risk slag entrapment or or porosity.....cheers, Paul
Curious if you would bevel the plates and make 3 welds pass then test 6011 and 6013. I saw my father build a plow that way and he never had a weld brake.
I have a video coming out shortly where I did 2 different bevels and a gap to see what the results were. Beveling will reduce leverage against the weld. It does have limitations though, you will see in the video 😀
interesting to see the failure points after the fact ! I use 6011 on almost everything
mainly because it's the only rod I buy 1/8" and 3/32" and I know the rod is harder than the mild steel I weld.... if you take a hack saw and try to cut through the weld on 6011
you will have a very hard time... it's far easier to just cut the steel instead. this shows you how much harder the weld actually is
Thanks for adding the detail on noticing how hard it is to saw though, that wouldn’t be too surprising. 6011 has strength to it no doubt. With things stressed to the max you will see the differences. In the case of thicker plate the difference between 6011 and say 7018 will be significant, but on thinner material it will likely be less so. I will be testing that in the near future.
Great video!! Question… maybe you already have a video on this subject but. If you ran a cap of 7018 over these 6011 or 6013 welds. Would it add to the strength of the weld joint? This might be a stupid question but I’m just trying to learn the whole stick welding thing.
So I tested exactly that. The video is here: th-cam.com/video/WJ1hgfscVe8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=NNPC_n-agZLsbed- . I previously did a bend test on 3 bead 6010 (6010 root, 2 bead cap) and bent it. In that test it broke. I then did a 6010 root, 2 bead 7018 cap, and tested it, that’s what is in the linked video. The results should answer the question 😀
I have welded hundred of pounds of each in my 42 years of welding. And the strongest one is the one you can weld best with. And thats a 6011. I used 6010 when code required it but 6011 for the rest. Installed and maintained fousands of feet of steel air amd coolant lines using 6013 exclusively. Even got permission form a Coast Guard inspector to use 6013 in the root passes on the hull of a ship. Was faster with less cleanup before the cap. And less screwed up welds overall.
Outside of the USA it’s fairly common to use 6013 on many jobs (like pipe and for root passes) however they have multiple flux compositions on their 6013s much like we have multiple flux compositions on 6010 in the states. Between 6010 and 6013 I rather weld with 6010 for the sake of 6013 is very easy to get flux/slag to run ahead of the rod, and it’s harder to run uphill. If I had access to the other 6013s with different flux I bet the difference would would make things more comparable. You are correct though, if you can make a good weld with a rod and not so great with another, the performance you can get will be limited by defects. 6010 (and to a lesser extent 6011) are very easy to get undercut with and it can be difficult to fix properly, especially if it’s a single pass. 6013 is far easier to avoid this issue with. It also doesn’t really leave slag in the toes of the welds which can cause issues if welded over.
@makingmistakeswithgreg The Coast Guard inspectors were the worst for undercuts and inclusions. I had some military special wire that I used on a lot of smaller hull patches. The CG loved that stuff. The problem was it was so expensive I stopped ordering it and went back to stick. Sure don't miss laying in a hold in a ship yard in the Caribbean. I'm not old, but too old for that...
The test is less a measure of weld strength than it is of ductility and weld quality. Both rods have equal tensile strength at 60ksi minimum. Typically, you would expect failure in the HAZ if there is good penetration. A good weld is tougher than the base metal if the right filler is selected. In addition to mixing of the rod composition in the plate with higher penetration, welding heat can affect the test plate. Testing all weld metal tensile specimens would give you a true strength reading, plus can also provide you with information on yield strength and ductility/malleability. The 60 and 70 series rods really have a minimal amount of alloying added. In most cases primarily Mn and deoxidizing elements which are added thru the coating. There is generally very little carbon in the undiluted weld deposit. This test was similar to the knick break test used to qualify for fillet welds.
Couple of my thoughts: it’s very common for people to use 6011 or 6013 to weld mild steel, both of which have proven in my testing to be weaker than 7018, and er70 mig (as expected). From a strength perspective (a ability to hold together something someone built) 6011 would likely last longer than 6013 because of 6013s limited penetration. Even if I ran more amperage with the 6013 it’s penetration doesn’t increase much, and weld defects become a issue with more amperage. I am more of the thought process that using 7018 is the way to go for most things and for specific uses look at other rods.
In this specific video (and many of my break tests) it’s very common for the weld to tear off the base material. Could this be the weld itself failing? Yes it could. It could also be looked at as the base material is failing, which would suggest the weld is stronger than the base material. However 7018 and er70 mig have both handled the bend away from the face without failure. This leads me to believe that in this video the failure was the weld itself and not the base material. Or the weld caused a change in the heat affected zone that weakened the base material. Regardless of the actual mechanism of failure, they are both weaker than 7018. Even more interesting is 7014 and 7024 have proven to be weaker than 7018 in bends away from the face as well. I am suspecting hydrogen embrittlement being a contributing factor in this.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg I wonder if the weld breaking near the surface is just an indicator of the depth of fusion rather than indicator of weld strength or indicator of poor fusion? Is there a correlation of press PSI to depth at which the break occurs?
Polish viewer here. We don't really seem to have 6010s or 6011s available, 6013s are the most prevalent 60 series' welding rods. 6012s do exist, but as you say - for anything that requires more ductility - 7018 is probably a go-to welding rod. Your tests are very interesting and to the point. I realize they are not scientific, and I doubt anybody expects them to be such. However, they do give an idea of how things are between the rods. There are many factors, but the more one gets to know, the better. Thanks.
No problem. It’s funny you mentioned 6012, I actually picked up some 6012 rods to try out. Not sure what to expect with them, I guess that will be found out 😀
@@makingmistakeswithgreg Never used them either, they are said to be more aggressive than 6013s, but I am looking forward to you giving them a try.
Interesting AWS got a lot of the world to use their numbering system. Any standards organization wants a few pennies tossed their way when you put their approval on it.
Of course brands here have their own special name and number in addition to the AWS number. You can tell a difference between brands in the same AWS classification, usually how they feel running.
It sounds like the the overseas version of 6013 is different enough that Greg needs some to test. Maybe a specification sheet would reveal why they are different.
As I see it, all the weld tests are breaks initiated by cracks that are present in the weld due to the weld technique. Perhaps a more complete test that could be a load path test. A bend test allows the cracks in the weld to grow and fail . When designing a weld, we always determine which will be the primary load path thru the weld and make the required weld appropriate for the load.
There is a lot going on with why welds break. The issue is I could go in super depth and design very specific tests that isolate the weld itself far better, but how applicable this is to the what the average person I am unsure. There are significant differences in welding rods and processes, which can easily be shown in the simplistic tests I have done. A good example will be in the video that I have coming out soon dealing with 3 pass 6010 vs a single pass 7018. Without giving anything away, it’s a great example of adding more weld doesn’t mean stronger.
It is absolutely important to determine the loading on the weld since (like in this video) if you only weld on one side of a fillet weld there is a massive strength difference when you have penetration vs no penetration/fusion. That was why this 6013 vs 6011 is such a great example, there are close to one another in tensile when bending away from the face, but completely different in mechanical strength when bent towards the face.
I've been watching welding for a while now....nobody talks about how to UN-weld something....would you heat it up first or freeze it? I realized that when the metals. welded together are permanently stuck in that position I couldn't LEGO my pieces or move them around in a "rotation" to avoid "acclimation" (acclimation being stagnent or unused or forgotten about energy or power) kinda like cleaning cords to phone of cleaning outlets clogged with cold bacon greese ???? I say this as a question
Interesting, thanks. I've never run 80 series rods or 110 series but that might be something to try.
8018 and 11018 is just like 7018. Now 70/8010 to me weld a bit different than 6010.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg Ah, thanks. Good to know.
Actually most types of rods are available overseas but the rod of choice is E6013 with minor use of E6010. Metal working shops prefer 6013 because it's easy to run. Very informative thank you! Question: What rod do you recommend for galvanized thin tubing?
For galvanized tubing honestly 6011 would be my go to. 6011 produces a less aggressive arc than 6010, which buys you time on blowing holes through the material. It also has a disregard for zinc coatings so it produces good welds without porosity. It freezes faster than 6013 as well so it’s easier to handle imperfect fitups.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg Thank you so much.
Interesting! I just subscribed after watching a couple videos. I always thought stick was stronger than mig. Have you done a strength comparison between all processes mig, Tim, stick etc? If might is stronger than stick, why do we use stick for pipe, and structural? I’m not a professional welder(obviously) but thanks for all the videos. Keep up the good work.
Welcome 😀. I have not done a video like that yet but I will do a video on that as part of my how to tig weld series I am working on. In the meantime I will share some info regarding this. The ultimate strength of a weld comes down to two major factors: 1) the strength of the filler metal alloy, and 2) the weld size/penetration/how many defects. Tig is not inherently stronger than mig or stick from a filler material end (it uses the same wire as mig). Tig tends to be stronger because it can produce perfect welds with zero defects and those welds tend to be extremely consistent in penetration. This especially holds true with short welds. Small 1-2inch welds tend to have varying levels of fusion with stick and mig (cold low penetration starts and hot weld ends). With Tig it’s easy to produce the same solid penetration start to finish because of how it functions. So in a nutshell Tig is strong because with skill it produces very clean defect free welds that are super consistent.
Mig welding can produce very strong welds, however there are many ways operator error can change the strength of a weld. Pushing vs pulling, what settings are used, shielding gas blend, etc, all change the functional weld strength drastically. With stick welding your only variables are amperage, arc gap distance, rod drag angle, and travel speed. It’s not possible to make a stick weld that visually looks good that has poor fusion (with 7018 and 6010/6011). With mig this is easily achieved. I believe this is why mig has a bad reputation, visually it can produce good looking welds that perform poorly.
Here in the US 6011, 6013, and 7018 rods are widely available but is harder to get 6010
You guys seemed to have settled on using multiple types of 6013 instead of 6010. 6010 rods really weld out of position well and give a lot of control. The different flux variations of your 6013 rods makes them run more like 6011/10 from what I have heard. Realistically I find myself using 6010 a lot because it makes it very easy to weld gaps shut and weld out of position. It is significantly weaker than 7018 though, so its use must be limited to situations where that strength loss is of little concern.
It is true than in Europe 6011 and 6010 are pretty much imposible to find.I suppose it depends on what kind of material you are welding.
If the material is thicker than 2.5 mm, I would simply use 7018.
As a simple DIY guy who is mostly welding and repairing on thin material (2.5 mm and thinner ) I mostly use 6013.
Do you ever see rods like 6012, 7016, and 6022? It’s unfortunate you guys don’t have access to 6010/6011, they are great for welding out of position and filling holes in things. Although from what I have read 6013 overseas has numerous flux compositions which change the way it runs, so the 6013s you may have probably function more like a 6013 here in the states.
Oerlicon overcord is a rutile(Titania)-cellulosic blend that welds good out of position and it is also specified as 6013 by aws... The only 6010 I found here are called boehler somewhat "pipe" and are extraordinarily expensive here.
@@makingmistakeswithgregsome "special" named Elektrodes we have here are certified 7016 by aws. The 6012, 6022 and other can ne optained by veostalpine/boehler but to horrendous pirzes (for privateers) 7024 with ironoxide in the flux are called "hochleistungs Elektrode". I think we have common elektrodes with charscteristics some how like 6010 or 6011 but they all are certified 6013 by aws because these contain more or less rutile (Titania) in fluxcomposition. My feeling is, that althought the elektrodes maybe some how comparable there is a confusion caused by different certification standards between EU and US.
Thanks for sharing all of the info. I will admit it’s confusing as to why there are so many differences. 6013 that’s available here is definitely a different composition. I have had some 6013s that have run better than others, but all of them are sold as a “6013” so if there was a flux composition difference you can’t tell based on the packaging.
To me, 6011 is like, a slightly inferior version of 6010, with somewhat less penetraion, but which will run on any welder with a typical open circuit volage. 6013 is the most common rod in the UK, although I personally dont get on with it.
Another great video Greg, thanks.
You’re pretty much spot on. 6011 is a great rod on thinner metal and to weld out of position. It’s far less aggressive than 6010 which is good for when you don’t need to melt through things. Definitely harder to make a decent looking weld with when compared to 6013.
AC or DC, your welder must have enough voltage to get a smooth arc for any electrode. An SMAW or transformer TIG machine with enough voltage could make any electrode weld like MAG.
I don't have an inverter and I have no intention of getting one. IMO, they're just not powerful enough, arc-wise.
Copper windings are pretty much the key to getting quality SMAW with any electrode.
I have only used one transformer machine and a couple different inverter machines. From my VERY limited experience the inverter machines are much easier to weld with. I guess I need to break out the old craftsman and do some comparison tests on weld quality.
You might feel differently if you had a chance to try my little Sanrex 160. It runs 6010 HOT and it will do things no transformer machine could ever hope to do- like run a 1/8 6010 at full power on 120V on any 20a circuit. With a 100ft extension cord.
I know it’s not related to this video but it reminded me about our conversation awhile back on my other account I think. We talked about what generator I should grab to run my little mig130 stick and flux only welder at my storage unit. I’ve bout got the settings dialed in now to where it don’t trip the breaker for the whole building my 10x30 unit is in but the manager is cool and showed me where the breaker is and I just reset it. But recently had a dude randomly bring me a power stroke 5000watt continuous and 6500 starting generator that won’t run. Asked me to get her going again. Tank rusted out bad and carb was trashed, finally got it back dialed in and been using it with the welder and it actuallly does okay man. I’m surprised but it runs only 120 still but I can run 6013 and 6011 and 7014 on it all day and runs pretty good actually bro. And the dude who brought it to me to fix ghosted and I’ve not heard a peep from him or seen him In like two months so I guess I gots me a cheap new generator for a backup
Nice deal. Hard to beat a free generator even though it took a bunch of work to get running. As a backup or for mobile work a generator like that is awesome to have 😀
@@makingmistakeswithgreg I mean it wasn’t no major deal, the tank was totally trashed and it rusted so bad I had to flush with muratic acid but it scraped it back kleen again minus a couple floaties I think I got today flushing again, but a tank double, triple flushola with a side order of new carb and some fresh fuel lines and in-line filters and on/off tab, she’s back in biz and she runs the arc captain stick welding 6011 just fine so it think I did ok on that deal, if dude shows back up wanting it I’ll just bill em like 250 and keep it moving
First of all look at your chart for welding rods second 6013 and 7014 are farmers rods 6010 rods are used by pipefitters 718 is structural rod it has some elongation properties
I use 6011 for dirty welding,, muddy, rusty, oily welds when you just cant get the steel clean
Definitely a invaluable tool for that. It makes it much easier to fill cracks/holes too. I really like 6011 on 1/8th material for things like trailer repair.
Informative. Thanks.
No problem 😀
Good video.
How about using 6011 for the root pass and then 6013 for the second or even a third pass as a cap?
With a multi pass weld the top layer will limit the strength if the stress is away from the face of the weld. The root pass will help a ton if the force is towards the face. 6011 will definitely produce stronger penetration and thus better performance on a bend towards the face. When it comes to 6011 and 6013, I would rather use 6011 for a root pass and you could use 6013 to weld it out. It wouldn’t be as strong as a 7018 weld but the 6013 would produce a smoother better looking weld to put over 6011. Just make sure to clean the slag of the 6011 really good before you weld over it with a 6013 👍
Thank you
You’re entirely welcome 😀
Greg, I need help!!! I'm your second 73-year-old fart trying to learn to weld. I am subscribed and have watched 30 or so of your videos but I have CRS syndrome (a joke...kinda). At the moment I'm horribly frustrated and taking it out on a scotch and water. Details: 3 months ago, I bought a YWM-160. I'm trying to weld 6013, 6011 and 7014 3/32 sticks to 1/4-inch 4x12 plate. My problem is I have a terrible time getting started. My stick consistently sticks to the plate. My settings are 85 amps DCEN, 75 amps DCEP and 90 amps DCEP respectively. If I can get started, I can run a fairly decent bead, but I get stuck to plate about 6 times before I get lit. Thoughts?? Paul
So I can give you some advice for sure, hope this helps:
Some rods are just sticky bastards. Just yesterday I was running a 6011 rod to show a friend, and it was a bastard for even me to start. 6011 can be hard in regards to this. 7018 is also bad on restarts.
The machine makes a massive difference in how easy a rod is to start. I run a 400a power source at work for stick, and it will start any rod easily because its voltage is 80v when there is an open circuit (aka no welding). That high of voltage makes it easy to get an arc started. Also, having a hot start setting makes a world of difference as well. Hot start boosts amperage for the first few seconds of a weld before dropping to the setpoint. Many machines don’t have adjustable hot start or high OCV so they will flat out be harder to start rods. Your machine is one that likely will be harder to start.
There are solutions (besides getting a welder with adjustable settings). I assure you that if you ran a 400amp power source like I do you would have 80% easier starts, so some of the struggle is the machine. To solve what you can control, more practice will eventually help you get better at starting rods. You can also slightly “cheat” and buy rods with graphite tips. Often marketed as “ez start” rods, they have a highly conductive tip that doesn’t deposit metal nor cause the rod to stick. Harbor freights 7018 has this, they may have others. I know Menards sells some us forge rods that have it too. My personal favorite 7018 (esab 7018 prime) has the graphite tip and makes starts clean all the time (restarts with 7018 are still rough).
So realistically a bit more practice (and possibly a rod change) will help. Your amperage’s are in line with what I would expect those rods to run at. It may help to slightly change starting technique. You may be able to slightly tap the rod to the plate until the arc starts, then weld. I tend to do that on restarts, on new rods I tend to bring it down to the plate, scratch the tip, and bring it to a slight arc gap in one fast motion.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg thx. Today is a new day and I have more scotch. ;) paul
11/13 are the designations for "all position" or flat only welds.
60 = 60,000 tensil strength.
It's how you put them in that makes one weld weaker than the other
You must remember that 60k tensile is minimum, actual testing strength is typically much higher than that. There will be differences between the rods in ultimate strength regardless of the “minimum” AWS spec. From a actual strength perspective, 6013 will not equal the penetration of 6011, therefore on a single pass weld 6011 will produce a stronger weld when stressed towards the face. This has nothing to do with tensile strength but it’s a mechanical strength difference due to the penetration. For the same
Reason 6010 will significantly out perform
both 6011 and 6013 in a face bend, and 6010 outperforms 7018 in the same test. You can bevel plates to regain the mechanical advantage of penetration.
Thank you for this. I was wondering about the strength between the two. I recently went to our local machine shop here in my country and could get most rods but as mentioned before 6010 & 6011 are just not available.
The main thing you are missing out on with 6010 and 6011 is the ability to weld shut holes and cracks. The weld pool cools so fast you can weld a open crack shut easily where is other rods will just drip molten metal. From a welding on clean material and making stuff without big gaps there isn’t a huge benefit to the rod.
As a beginner I'm still struggling with arc blow and slag porosity. Learning how not to blow hole in 1.4mm thick square tubing when fit up poor, basically everything. I'll be watching your lessons again. A bit of practice I'll inevitably be better.
Tx
@@makingmistakeswithgregI had thought penetration was the main function/draw of 6010/11.. is there another rod capable of achieving penetration like those?
The high penetration is a huge benefit yes. However that can be overcome with welding things with a gap or bevel. When it comes to welding holes/cracks shut it’s very difficult with rods like 7018 to close them because the molten pool is too liquid and either drips out or falls through. The fast freezing nature of the 6010 and 6011 make them so much easier than most other rods for repair work.
@julesc8054, arc blow and slag entrapment can be delt with mostly by striking a arc and resting the rods flux on the plate fast while you drag the rod. If you’re welding with 6013 it’s very hard to not have the flux jump ahead of your rod. If the rod feels like a crayon melting on a hot pan while you move you’re doing things right. If you are hovering above the plate without occasionally touching the flux to the plate you will have arc blow and difficulty pushing the flux away. In a flat position weld it’s possible to do it with a gap without much issue, with a fillet weld not so much because the arc gap to the corner becomes so great the arc wanders.
I worked for an outfit that supplied the rod. All they would use was 6011 1/8th. Nothing else. You either used it or quit.
6011 is a decent general use rod, but definitely not my first pick lol.
I would want better penetration from the 6010 considering they are twice of 6013 thats the price here in the UK, are they double in the US
6010s main benefit is its ability to weld gaps shut because of how fast the metal solidifies. The 6013 here is not formulated like what’s available in many countries, the 6013 here is mediocre at filling gaps and running out of position because the puddle is a bit liquid. I personally do a lot of repair work with 6010 because it makes things possible that wouldn’t be (filling gaps, welding downhill, controlling how much dig the rod has, etc. Depending on how your 6013s run it might not be worth it to pay double.
If only my deko pro would weld 6010 or 6011, the whole voltage thing has me limited, i need a stick welder capable to use them
Yeah, it’s a bummer when a welder won’t run with 6011 or 6010. They are great rods to have the option on running. You can still learn as much you can with the rods you can run, and eventually upgrade to a welder that does run 60xx.
It's supposed to run 6011 but I guess it's operator error
Amen. There are inverter welders that do *NOT* like cellulosic electrodes. I have one. It died, though.
If I am able to replace it, I’m going for one that can *readily* run cellulosic rods - adjustable hot-start and arc-force. (bite!)
7018 and done
6011 good for repairs on dirty rusty metal and I can weld thinner metal with 6011 because they freeze quick
Let's test 7014!
That will be out tomorrow or the day after 😀. That test had far mor unexpected results for performance.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg 7014 is one of my favorite rods. It doesn't have all of the storage problems and hard restrike problems that 7018s do. And it lays down like butter. I'm hoping it fares well on your test! Thanks for the great content.
I guess it didn't perform too well :-D I've bought pack just to check hype around it, welds do look nice but root penetration isn't there...on 1/8" plate edge was almost intact.
Ooops, scrap that! Those were 7016 rods :-(
7016 is a oddball rod that is virtually unheard of in the states here. It can be ordered in 50lb tins for a lot of money. 7014 does have weaker root fusion much like 6013, sounds like that 7016 is similar.
6010 or 6011 and 7018 is all you should ever really need, and one in a while Harris super missile rod for dissimilar metals and very hard steels.
I agree, that’s virtually all I ever use. I didn’t care a lot for 6011 until I realized how well it runs vertical down on 1/8th material, while having solid penetration. 6010 tends to be too aggressive on stuff like trailer repairs, 6011 seems to work great in those situations.
HAZ…..heat ..affected….zone…you need to incorporate that into the test….not alloy….but nice work!
For all practical purposes the heat input in watts while running is very similar with all 1/8th rods. 6010 at 90 amps runs at say 30v, is 2700 watts. 7018 at 120a at 23volts is 2760 watts. I have actually metered my welder running both 1/8 7018 and 1/8 6010 and they draw the exact same current. The change in heat input is due to travel speed, 6010 requires slower travel speed due to low metal deposition, which intern puts more heat into the metal over time.
I would like to implement heat input as a variable in testing but the truth is there isn’t much I can do on a simple scale to achieve testing of this. For most people a rod is a rod, if they run it properly so the weld doesn’t have defects (undercut, undersized due to high travel speed, inconsistent in size, etc) there isn’t control over the heat input. Other than not running excessive amperage for the rod or running too big of a rod for the material, there is very minimal control. Outside of a small range of what works you will get significant weld defects with stick, so you are kind of stuck in that range.
I have also torch heated a36 plates to 500 degrees, MiG welded them, and bent them away from the face, without a failure. So I would say on a36 steel heat input doesn’t seem to be a huge concern. On chromoly, ar500, and other heat sensitive materials excessive temps could result in a absolute failure in the heat effected zone.
You dam sure better have a good machine to run 7018. Cheap rigs wont do anyone any good.
I thought 60,000 pounds tensile strength was 60,000 pounds tensil strength if one is breaking before the other the problem is improper weld
There is far more going on that just tensile strength. Tensile strength is just a minimum specification, most rods test over that. In the case of 6011 vs 6013, 6011 typically tests at higher tensile strength than 6013 (typically 68-72k psi vs 66-70k psi). Both rods also have completely different penetration profiles. In a single pass single side weld on a fillet joint 6013 will never exceed the breaking strength of 6011 when the plate is bent towards the face of the weld. This is because the penetration 6011 has over 6013 is significant enough make it harder for the plate to use the weld as a lever.
Thank you for clarifying I never use 6013 for the welding I do so I have little experience with it
6013 (to me) is primarily a great rod to learn to weld with and to weld thinner material with. It excels at those two things. It’s limited penetration can be a issue depending on what you’re welding. It can also work great for open root welding over 6011 because it actually has better performance in many other things (like cold temp strength performance, ease of use, slag removal, etc) and in that case penetration isn’t a issue at all.
For most hobbyists they both are fairly equal but if penetration matters 6011 is a far better option.
The most surprising part to me is that the 120V level mig welds held up better than this.
Yes that is surprising, I would have lost a bet on that one for sure. The biggest limitation with short circuit MiG is that many people run too “cold” and the cold welds can look much better with MiG than they truly are. With stick it’s much harder to make a very poor penetration weld that looks visually decent.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg In my own testing I've also found that mig can make some excellent welds. I have a Lincoln 180 rated for 3/16" max with shielding gas, I've welded up 1/4" plate (with bevelling and multiple passes) and the plate bends before the weld. I tend to reach for the stick welder for important welds on thick metal but I'm re-thinking that strategy.
It's making me want to get a bigger mig welder in the 250A range. Thanks for all your comparison videos, they are great! I'm looking forward to seeing some 250 amp mig weld testing with your new Esab machine.
Milf steel…deformation at 24K PSI…..shear at 42K ……ductility in the welding rods are a limiting factor…just saying.
The a36 steel I used has the following specs: yield 36,300psi, ultimate tensile strength 59,000 to 79,800psi, elongation 20% minimum.
All 70k fillers I have tested did better than 6013/6011, however only 7018, er70, and dual shield wire has survived a bend away from the face without breaking. 7014 and 7024 have failed. If the average person wanted to make the strongest stick weld possible on A36 steel they would be best served with 7018 over 6011, 6013, 7014, 7024, etc. The testing method I used isn’t sensitive enough to determine to exact difference between 6011 and 6013 with a bend away from the face (weld under tension) but for all practical reasons it doesn’t matter for the average person welding, they are close. If the stress comes towards the face of the weld (and only one side is welded), 6011 is a clear winner.
If pure ductility of the weld is the root cause of failure 6013 has more elongation than 7018. 6013 will not beat 7018 in penetration, or bends towards/away from the face. At this point I believe the root cause of failures away from the face on the plates to be related to hydrogen embrittlement from non low-hydrogen fillers and a lack of tensile strength.
Milf steel is so hot.
They are both rated for 60,000 pounds per sq. Inch.
6010. Or 7018.??
If I had to pick one to live with 7018. 6010 is very useful filling holes though, and making strong welds on poor material.
So you men looking for a stiff strong rod
Promises, Promises, sigh
13:00 ~" 70,000psi alloy is stronger than 60,000psi alloy. ~" Yes 70 series is 10k psi stronger than all 60 series rod.
The 1st 2 numbers is the tensile strength in thousands of psi.
The difference is typically more than that, the spec 60xx or 70xx refers to the minimum strength. The actual test strength is typically 8-12k higher than the specification, depending on manufacture of the rod.
Do a proper bend test…your results are not true strength values….major testing factors have been ignored…but thanks for your hard work.
If a average person makes a fillet weld, and that weld is stressed, the question is one rod stronger than another. The answer is yes, absolutely. The point of the test (which is one in many I have done) is to show potential strength differences between rods and why they exist. 6011 will post higher numbers on a bend towards the face than 6013, because 6013 doesn’t penetrate as much. Both of them are not going to pass a bend away from the face like 7018 or er70 mig will. The difference on a bend away from the face in ultimate strength will be minimal between 6011 and 6013. This information to the average person is useful. I could weld 3-4in long welds, cut a section out of the middle, verify absolutely equal weld sizes, and test that,in a far more scientific test, however 6011 will still beat 6013 in a bend towards the face. I have also done multiple pass 6013 and it broke in the same manner as a single pass, the weld is not strong enough to surpass the steels strength.
@@makingmistakeswithgreg ….good test for the results…I agree 6013 does on average produce a brittle type weld. We have always used 6013 for light sheet metal work. Why at this stage of rod production it is even produced is a mystery. 7014 will produce a better weld with more elongation factor…..thanks for your hard work we appreciate it.
Personally I would rather weld with 6010 or 6011, 6013 tends to be only useful to me for very thin sheet metal. Thankfully I have MiG and tig for that, because stick welding super thin sheet metal is tough lol.
6013 was made for thin metals. Low penetration rod. Not meant for strength
I agree, however it is commonly used by people in the USA for welding mild steel. Depending on circumstances 6011 is a better option. It has far more penetration which can give higher strength.
I use 1/16 6013 electrodes to weld sheet metals, downhill even works.
Bro, you are not testing the specimins corectly . Not being a hardass, but I have been a qc for several companies and used these tests to qualify, or bust welders. According to code the weld should break near or very close to the center of the weld. Then inspector looks at the break no crack, porosity, or inclusion of anything foreign usually slag should never be more than 1/8" in any direction. BTW, if it's got wagon tracks it's undercut. Spend some time reading some code books. On a real test you alway break the T from back side. You're trying to look for flaws inside the weld. No 60 series weld is acceptable on DOT equipment even a lawnmower trailer, if it's used on a public road, the weld must be rated at least 70,000 tensile strength rated by the filler metal manufacturer. Check out some code books AWS D1.1, ASME SEC.9, etc. God bless, and work safe. Keep learning.
I think you missed a lot of what’s going on. The testing is not meant to be code specific, I don’t claim this and specifically state this in numerous videos including the explanation video on the testing. Try breaking a single pass fillet weld on 3/8th plate with 6011 and have it break down the center of the weld. It is not likely to happen. The weld is not being stressed equally because the upright plate is not the same length as the bottom plate, therefore the top toe of the weld sees more force because the way the plate curls. In the case of 6011 it breaks at the top toe, in the case of 7018 there is evidence of tearing at that point. This is an effect of an unequal load, which I talked about numerous times.
The purpose of the testing is to give simple demonstrations of differences between rods, not meet a specific code. Most fillet welds on something the average person welds will never be on plates perfectly symmetrical, with loadings perfectly equal, where the weld will split perfectly down the middle. You’re comparing absolutely controlled testing, to something I don’t do or claim to do. If you feel the weld test is wrong, and not accurate, weld a 6013 and 6011 fillet weld and break them and send me your results. I would be happy to revisit this.
Also, please cite the DOT laws regarding weld strength specifications. This is unfortunately a myth. Some manufactures follow AWS specifications in manufacture of things that see highway use, however many companies don’t. There is no way for any trailer, motor home, etc to be inspected to verify they meet a weld test specification after manufacture. A vast majority of stuff on the highway (besides cars/trucks) were welded by uncertified welders, have untested welds, and are not done to a specific code. 99% of the aftermarket parts industry is also in the same boat. I repair everything from vactor trucks, mobile e450 command centers, trailers, etc for a living. There is no standard that is enforced other than you can’t weld stuff to a frame on a commercial vehicle unless a manufacture recommends it. Even in that situation who is going to enforce this law? Right now I just took delivery of a brand new garbage truck and it has numerous things welded to the frame (in a manner I think is wrong). How would even the state patrol on DOT inspection figure out if that was recommended or not when the chassis manufacture is not who outfitted the truck? Sure, when something fails and a big lawsuit hits, this will come up. But that’s literally the whole industry.
Lets weld on rust
I definitely will test that. Its salt and snow season pretty soon here in wisconsin, I will leave some plates out for a week or two so they "season" with rust lol.
Go big or go home! 7018
7018 is such a good rod it’s hard to improve on it. Only downside is trying to bridge gaps with it and welding super thin material can be tough. Almost everything else 7018 is the way to go 😀
They are both 60000lb rod 1 is not stronger than the other they have different coatings for different applications. Your comparing apples to oranges
Unfortunately this isn’t the case. Let me explain:
1) The performance of both rods are not equal and there are many reasons for this. On a single sided fillet weld 6011 is significantly stronger than 6013 when bent towards the face. Why? Because it has more penetration than 6013 and the extra penetration reduces the leverage of using the weld as a fulcrum point. When bending them away from the face (in the shop press) this is more of a test of tensile strength, bending towards the face is not a tensile strength test. I have covered this in many previous videos, if you would like I can share a few links.
2) the tensile strength spec is a AWS minimum, not a actual test result. 6011 rods generally test around 70-72k psi and 6013 generally tests around 67-70k. In a absolute scientific test 6011 will beat 6013 in tensile strength. They both are similar in elongation and yield strength.
3) A welds strength is far more involved than just the rod used. The direction of force applied, the penetration/ root fusion, weld defects, etc all play a huge role. You can look at tensile strength as the only thing that matters. A great example of this would be welding something just as I did, if you can only weld one side, and the force on the weld is towards the face, 6010 would be a far better option than 7018 because it will take far more force to break the weld due to the reduced leverage via increased penetration.
Hopefully that clears things up
The base metal broke! Both rods. Your rambling does not say anything about welding creates heat that makes the base metal fragile. Fact. Undercutting the base metal even more prone to failure. Fact. Do it with 7018 and if will break at the same spot.
7018 did not fail, nor did er70 Mig in the exact same test, it’s in the video before this one on my channel. 7018 was run at the same amperage as 6013 on the same plate. It’s not a heat input issue, it’s a particular rod strength issue. Heat in itself doesn’t make a36 hot rolled steel fragile either, it is not a heat harden-able alloy. If anything it would improve its ability to flex at a loss of strength. I have done extensive further testing and it’s not undercutting that’s causing the failure, it’s a weakness of the weld material or the grain structure produced by the rod.
Your batteries are loose.
people named Greg don't make mistakes LOL
I have tried saying that for years but nobody believes me lol.
4 hours late
Lates better than never 😀
my gosh can my life get any worse i whent to se my fathers mother in amrca and see basicly dead shes on a vent shes just not gonna make it whith my life i got now nothing to lose but inheirtance and nothing to gain but reputtion i cant buy food for my self with reputation