Welding Forum _ Difference Between 7018's and 7016's

8/10/2019 Welding Forum _ Difference Between 7018's and 7016's

1/12

11/3/2014 Welding Forum > Difference between 7018's and 7016's

http://www.ukwelder.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t5253.html 1/12

bigchris

try_some_welding

try_some_welding

Help - Search - Members - CalendarFull Version: Differencebetween 7018's and 7016's

Welding Forum > UKWelder > Practical Welding Questions

Jun 23 2007, 12:43 PM

Can anyone tell me the difference between 7018 and 7016?

I do a lot of mobile welding repairs to agricultural machinery and general use lo hi 7018's.Was recently recommended to try a box of Oerlikon Spezial 7016 which I really liked.

Is there a significant difference between the two?

Jun 23 2007, 02:51 PM

Chris

I've been there - done that recently. Al l welding machines (transformers and petrol-generators) at a recent workplace were AC - and I wanted Basics.

Got 7016's from Bohler (good folk!).Given I am far from the top of the expertise pyramid - I found 7016's just fine on AC, withevery characteristic of a 7018 on DC.

Welding operability - superficially you couldn't tell that you were on 7016 AC if you areused to 7018 on DC.

The 7016's AC gave the superb vertical-up fillet, deeply fused and perfectly shaped, using

"the Christmas tree" manip. - used a stub in my holdall from my test with the Bohler tradesamples to get that one - saved no end of bother!

Properties...

Set up a sledgehammer test with pieces of equal length angle welded to one large platewith different welding rods. Compared to rutiles (6013's) - far higher strength. Clearlytoughness. The angle iron bent with the 7016's leaving the weld untouched. Therefore, tototally prove high toughness I would have had to do a similar test but a nick-break - butthat's me being me not claiming anything I haven't seen with my own eyes.

I'm told keep all basics (7016, 7018) dry - like where you would store good clothes. A

locked site-box with 1/4inch of water in the bottom won't do for basics, apparently!

So I would say - go for it.

Jun 23 2007, 07:22 PM

Chris - &^%$! - misread your question - you remain on DC. I'd just come back fromovertime - knackered. FWIW - I was shown 7016 as a rod for high-quality posi tional welding(15 years ago!). Was used for making the 1970's oi l-rigs, apparently. ??? Low-slag 7016enabled a lot of welders to pass qualification tests. V-butt welds positional without slaginclusions.


2/12



1 Dripping hot slag

BadPenetration

try_some_welding

BadPenetration

I'll be looking at further responses as keenly as you...Try_some

Jun 24 2007, 03:04 PM

QUOTE(try_some_welding @ Jun 23 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]40712[/snapback]

Chris - &^%$! - misread your question - you remain on DC. I'd just come back fromovertime - knackered. FWIW - I was shown 7016 as a rod for high-quality positionalwelding (15 years ago!). Was used for making the 1970's oi l-rigs, apparently. ??? Low-slag 7016 enabled a lot of welders to pass qualification tests. V-butt welds positionalwithout slag inclusions.I'll be looking at further responses as keenly as you...Try_some

Without sounding funny here mate, but have you read this question properly?He's asking the diff between 7016s and 7018s, 2 different types of low hydrogen electrode.I personally don't know either so am intrigued

Jun 24 2007, 04:45 PM

IIRC 7016's have a low hydrogen potassium based coating whilst 7018's have an ironpowder based low hydrogen coating.

The last two digits of the electrode number indicate the type of coating it has and AFAIK thecurrent type.

Jun 24 2007, 04:46 PM

Technically, I understand from what I have read that:

7016 and 7018 have the same flux chemistry (apart from 7016 have a smidgeon of potassium salts in the flux so they will stay alight on AC). They are both "basic" rods (theirflux is based on limestone (CaCO3), with additions of fluorspar (CaF2)).

Stay with that formulation and you have 7016.

7018 has some iron powder added to the flux, which goes into the weld-pool when the rodis burned, so more metal is deposited. That is sometimes classified as "a higher efficiency".

It seems a tradition that rods with nothing but the "basic" minerals in the f lux will havepotassium salts and run on AC or DC, whereas 7018 with iron powder in the flux has onlysodium salts and will only run on DC. Anyone say whether there is a technical reason forthis being so?

You could always search on-line for more information - try the "Knowledge" link on the LHSof this page, follow "manual metal arc" and there is a listing of the different types of rod

Jun 24 2007, 04:51 PM


3/12



try_some_welding

Actually, thinking back, the second last digit tells you the postions the rod can be used in,the last tel ls you the current type and the last two together make up the type of coating.Something like that anyway. You can tell I haven't used the stick for a whilecan't you?

Jun 24 2007, 05:49 PM

American spec - eg "6013" is"60" - the strength in thousands of pounds-force per square inchthe last two numbers - the "13" is the flux type

Copied from A.C.Davies, "The science and practice of welding Volume 2 The practice of welding", 9th EdnExx10 High cellulose, bonded with sodium silicate. Deeply penetrating, forceful spray-typearc. Thin friable slag.Exx11 Similar to Exx10 but bonded with potassium silicate to al low use on AC or DC;covering bonded with sodium silicate.Exx12 High rutile. Quiet arc, medium penetration.Exx13 Similar to Exx12 but bonded with potassium silicate and other easily ionizedmaterials. Fluid slag, easily removed.Exx14 Similar to Exx13 and Exx13 types with the addition of iron powder.Exx15 Basic low hydrogen type bonded with sodium silicate. For high tensile strengthsteels.Exx16 Similar to Exx15 but bonded with potassium silicate.Exx18 Covering similar to Exx15 and Exx16 but with addition of iron powder.Exx20 High iron oxide coating bonded with sodium silicate.Exx24 Similar to Exx12 and Exx13. Heavily coated plus iron powder.Exx27 Flux ingredients similar to Exx20 with the addition of iron powder.Exx28 Similar to Exx18 but with heavier covering. Low hydrogen, potassium silicate asbinder. Flat and horizontal fillets.

What you are referring to is the the one used in Europe - which is a much longer series of numbers and letters.

Here's how Davies explains this - unfortunately proportional font on the UKW website willmess up this diagram... best understood reading from the bottom up and comparing to the"E nn n ..." line

E nn n n [X] (nnn n n H)

^| | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | || | | | | | | | present if hydrogen-controlled| | | | | | | || | | | | | | code number indicating power requirement (AC, DCEP, ... )| | | | | | || | | | | | || | | | | | code number indicating welding positions| | | | | || | | | | effiency in percent, if a high-depostion electrode (will be above 100)| | | | || | | | type of flux R=rutile, B=basic, C=cellulose, RR, BB = heavy-coated| | | |


4/12



bigchris

try_some_welding

bigchris

| | | code for temperature of 47J impact energy| | || | code for temperature of 28J impact energy| || strength in (N/mm^2|Mpa) divided by 10 (eg. 51 = 510MPa)|Is an arc welding electrode

Jun 25 2007, 05:26 PM

Thanks TSW and bad penetration.

I had no idea what all the numbers meant..

TSW.

Got some Bolher 7016's (Comet J50N's).They also weld really nicely. Easy to use in verticaland overhead. Nice shaped bead and good penetration. The oerlikon spezial were equallygood. In fact I couldn't tell the difference. They burn't the same. Same glassy slag. Same

shape and finish on the weld. Could they be the same?

Ran both on DC+ on Lincoln Ranger. They may be a little more expensive than I 7018's Iuse normally but I think they may be worth the extra.

Chris

Jun 25 2007, 06:23 PM

Thanks Bigchris - read what you found keenly.

Bohler sent me "Pheonix Spezial D".Only had a few - so all I can say is that what you say sounds like what I found too.They list "EV50-A" in their catalogue - which are 7016 - ("EV50" is their 7018, which I have)but explained they had the "pheonix" available in 7016 and sent those.

My only original contribution is to say - if you hanker after what you get with 7018 on DCbut have only AC, 7016's should leave you feeling happy.

Bigchris - would you say the 7016 controlled better positionally that 7018?

Try_some

Jun 28 2007, 08:13 PM

Try some

Have tried both oerlikon spezial and some of the phoenix spezial D same as you tried.

Can't tell the difference. Spec sheets suggest they might be.

Yes I would say the 7016 are better controlled positionally. I won't be going back to 7018's


5/12



handrag

Ballbearing

try_some_welding

asmeIX6G

major tom

BadPenetration

thats for sure!

Chris

Jun 29 2007, 02:07 PM

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEM 7018 AND 7016 IS......2

Jul 3 2007, 01:04 AM

Try some welding,Had a bit of trouble reading the chart above (as you say the font doesn't help), but I thinkthe information you have quoted is a bit jumbled.You are correct that the British and Americans have different numbering for electrodes butthe information listed has got a combination of British and American.The first 2 numbers are the minimum required tensile strength and in Britain that ismeasured in Megapascals (mpa) and America it is pounds per square inch (psi).The 3rd number is the position/s the electrode should be used in and the 4th is the fluxtype and welding current/polarity.

Anything after the 4 digits indicates chemical analysis requirements.For example, E7018 is 70,000 psi, positions are F,V,OH & H and it is a Low Hydrogen IronPowder electrode that can be used with AC and DC+.E7016 is 70,000 psi, positions are F,V,OH & H and it is a Low Hydrogen Potassium electrodethat can be used with AC and DC+.I have taken this info straight out of AWS 5.5 Low Alloy Steel Covered Arc WeldingElectrodes.From a welders point of view the main difference I found between the 2 was the 7016seemed to be a quicker cooling electrode which made them more suitable for putting rootruns in pipes.Hope that helps,Ballbearing

Jul 3 2007, 06:36 PM

Hi Ballbearing - appreciate explanation - so now I know - 7018 is all position iron-powderbasic, 7028 is same flux but restricted positions (never used one, but understand is highdep'n downhand and h-v fille t electrode).So 7014 and 7024 are related - and so on. Thanks - Try some

Jul 4 2007, 09:24 PM

yeh a guy i worked with dropped a b0llock when i sent him for 4mm lo hi's came back withsome iron powders 7024s i think?? he took over welding some flanges on and made a rightmess! trying vertical up and stuff!

Jul 6 2007, 07:11 PM

Are you sure you are propper welders not just found a head shade in the skip???

Jul 7 2007, 06:44 PM

Watch out lads. Super-welder alert!!!!!!


6/12



arc bishop

asmeIX6G

major tom

try_some_welding

Technic Al

asmeIX6G

try_some_welding

Ballbearing

Jesus!

Jul 7 2007, 07:40 PM

stop reading ac davies whilst your on the (beep) house and get a life lads ....ha ha ha.

Jul 8 2007, 08:13 AM

can someone mention to me why when i was being tested at TWI we had to root with 7016but fill n cap wiv 7018s?? from my understanding on here the difference is one will arc upon AC one wont??

Jul 8 2007, 06:03 PM

It stops root cracks!!!

Jul 8 2007, 08:32 PM

OK - It stops root cracks...How/why?What is it controlling, or what does it enable you to control, which makes this the case?

My guess is that as 7016 is a lighter slag, lighter deposition electrode than 7018, it givesbetter control of what is going on in the root, and less chance / problem of slag over-running the weld pool area, give you more for-fusion manipulation options. But what youcould tell use would be 100 times more valuable than my guess...

Jul 9 2007, 08:08 AM

The 7016 (without Fe powder) will be thinner coated and therefore more controllable andphysically the diameter will not cause access problems. The 7016 deposits less metal soprotecting it from the atmosphere is easier, which in the root is more susceptible. This iswhy its less likely to crack, or be porous.

In many cases the flux used for 7016 and 7018 is the same or very similar, the difference isthe diameter. There is more flux on 7018s, therfore the weld is more fluid, wets better, butis more difficult to control and the higher Fe powder will produce a slightly inferior steelwith lower ductility.

Many 7016s contain Iron Powder, they dont weld very well without it.

Jul 9 2007, 03:35 PM

thanks techinc AL nice to have someone explain actually why they do what they do!

Jul 9 2007, 07:49 PM

Yeah - I second what asme says - thanks Technic Al

Jul 10 2007, 01:10 AM


7/12


8/12



Technic Al

However

I think we can agree that Filarc (Phillips) 56S is probably the most common 7106 used inEuropehttp://products.esab.com/Templates/T041.asp?id=58388

If you look at the spec sheet you will see on the top right. Recovery 100%. If there was noIron Powder the recovery would be a lot less than 100%. If you dont know, 100% meansthat the electrode (core and flux) will deposit a weld weighing exactly the same as the

electrode. Considering that the core probably contributes about 70% of the weight, if thereis no iron powder the recovery would be 70% ish.

They also quote CVNs at -50oC which I believe is in excess of the AWS requirement.

The AWS mechanical property spec gives the minimum required to meet the spec.Generally, the 7016 will exceed the minimum by a bigger margin than the 7018.

The AWS def inition is not strictly adhered to by manufacturers. They want a product thatperforms in a specific application. If adding Fe powder improves the performance in rootwelding, they will add Iron Powder but as 7016 is considered the norm for the job theclassification will not be changed.

I am talking generally, there may be exceptions but these will be few and far between.

Iron Powder additions will improve the arc characteristics but the downside is that they willbe detrimental to mechanical properties. There is a very large report highlighting this from avery eminent metallurgist called Tad Bonicewski who worked in electrode development formany years. I dont have a link and I cant remember the title but I think it was published inthe TWI magazine. I recall Hoganas the Fe Powder supplier being rather miffed about it.

As for control, I was referring to the previous post about root welding. Most would agreethat 7016 are better, more controllable, for root welding (lower recovery = less metal =easier to control). The usual procedure is 7016 root and 7018 fil l and cap, thus making the

best of both types. I agree that 7018 are generally easier to use other than in the root.

I used to work in the development of electrode coatings for a major manufacturer and I canassure you that as far as the AWS descriptions are concerned they are followed morallyrather than technically. For example the difference between 6012 and 6013 according toAWS is the addition of Na or K. In truth most Rutiles contain both so the rules are appliedmorally.6012 more fiery, arc more spatter, better pen6103 soft arc, low spatter, low penThere are also rutiles that probably (even using the moral code) should be 6012s but inEurope this is not as acceptable as 6103 so they are classified accordingly (6013).

Hope Ive answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Finally I am disappointed that you consider me "quick to shoot down". I hope your opinionisnt popular.

Jul 11 2007, 01:50 PM

The effects of iron powder in basic low hydrogen all-positional electrodes.BONISZEWSKI TIn: Trends in Steels and Consumables for Welding. Proceedings, International Conference,


9/12



Ballbearing

London, 13-16 Nov.1978. Publ: Abington, Cambridge CB1 6AL; The Welding Institute; 1979.ISBN 0-85300128-6 (Papers), 0-85300132-4 (Discussions). Paper 15. pp.199-215; sessiondiscussion, pp.618-628. 9 f ig., 5 tab., 14 ref. [ISBN: 0-85300128-6 (Papers)][in English]Availability: TWI holds this reference

Jul 12 2007, 02:21 AM

Technic Al,It was definitely not my intention to make a personal attack on you, I just felt thatstatements you made were misleading and I didn't agree with them.From your response I feel you have made more misleading statements and I will try andexplain why.

" The AWS mechanical property spec gives the minimum required to meet the spec.Generally, the 7016 will exceed the minimum by a bigger margin than the 7018."

You have quoted the 56S (E7016) so I have used the 76S (E7018) from the same companyfor comparison.The Typical Mechanical Properties All Weld Metal for the 7016 are Yield Stress = Greater

than 420 mpa, Tensile strength = 510-640 mpa, Elongation is greater than 22%.The Typical Mechanical Properties All Weld Metal for the 7018 are Yield Stress = Greaterthan 460 mpa, Tensile strength = 530-640 mpa, Elongation is greater than 22%.

Another example - Weldwell 56S (E7016) and Weldwell 77 (E7018) (Made in Australia)The Typical Mechanical Properties All Weld Metal (as welded)for the 7016 are Yield Stress =480 mpa, Tensile strength = 547 mpa, Elongation is 28%.The Typical Mechanical Properties All Weld Metal (as welded)for the 7018 are Yield Stress =482 mpa, Tensile strength = 552 mpa, Elongation is 32%.

In none of these examples does the 7016 exceed the 7018.

"They also quote CVNs at -50oC which I believe is in excess of the AWSrequirement."

Not sure of the relevance of this statement because the 76S (E7018) is tested at a lowertemperature (-60 degrees C) than the 56S (E7016).The Weldwell electrodes are both tested at -40 degrees C and the 7016 has CVNs of 150

joules and the 7018 has CVNs of 160 joules.

" If you look at the spec shee t you will see on the top right. Recovery 100%. If therewas no Iron Powder the recovery would be a lot less than 100%. If you dont know,100% means that the electrode (core and flux) will deposit a weld weighing exactlythe same as the electrode. Considering that the core probably contributes about

70% of the weight, if there is no iron powder the recovery would be 70% ish."This statement is just incorrect.TWI FeqsTWI Frequently Asked Questions " How can a manual metal arc electrode have an electrodeefficiency greater than 100% ?""The electrode efficiency is calculated by dividing the mass of weld metal deposited by themass of core wire consumed, not the total mass of electrode consumed i.e core wireand flux covering .An electrode efficiency greater than 100% is possible when constituents of the flux coveringon the electrode contribute to the mass of the weld mtal deposited." (The addition of ironpowder will give a recovery of up to 130% in some circumstances)


10/12



wavey dave

Technic Al

chunkolini

Ballbearing

orWelding Consumbles-Part 2

"By adding substantial amounts of i ron powder, up to 50% of the weight of the flux coating,to either basic or rutile electrode coatings it is possible to deposit a greater weight of weldmetal than is contained in the core wire. These electrodes are described as having anefficiency above 100% eg 120%, 140% etc and 3 digit figure is often included in theelectrode classification."

If I give an opinion on this forum, that is all I am giving, generally based on pastexperiences.If I give technical advice I make damn sure I have the information in front of me in blackand white.That is all I am asking, if you are going to give technical advice, please ensure it is correct.Regards,BB

Jul 12 2007, 07:14 AM

Come on people, surely this subject has been flogged to death by now!!!

Jul 12 2007, 08:15 AM

Ballbearing

You are confusing EFFICIENCY with RECOVERY

Tell NANJING to look up the Filarc 76S again, it is a 1% Nickel so you are comparingApples with Oranges.

Your mate Nanjing must be really short of something to do. Trying to get at me through youis particularly pathetic.

BB You should be careful, people will think its you making the comments and they will thinkyou are a bit of a .....er

Jul 12 2007, 09:57 AM

To quote Molesworth Junior on the difference twixt 7018's and 7016's

'As any fool kno the differens is 2.'

Jul 12 2007, 09:34 PM

Technic Al,I am quite capable of conducting my own research, I do not need Nanjing or anyone else todo it.To suggest I am firing bullets on Nanjings behalf is laughable, if you looked back throughall my previous postings you would see Nanjing and I never agreed on anything, in fact hewas usually my harshest critic.Go back to your first posting where I highlighted things that I said were misleading and I


11/12



Flatcap

SWT

godlikegenius

zilingsad

frankieboy

also said I would apologise if you proved me wrong.7018s are slightly inferior and less ductile - can you show me one data sheet that provesthis. I can find a dozen that say the opposite.Most 7016s have iron powder - still awaiting proof.7018s are harder to control - yes, for the root run they are but you never mentioned that.

All you have to do is post the information, then I will say sorry and shut up.Regards,BB

Jul 13 2007, 06:06 AM

Been away for a while but its good to see that some things don't change - fascinating stuff boys - well done

Jul 13 2007, 08:20 AM

i go to work do my bit then go home and chill with family or if i'm working away chill withco workers.Looks like i'm gonna have to start reading welding books get a life boys

Jul 26 2007, 04:20 PM

root with 7016 fill and cap 7018, most of us old timers have done this for 25 years or more.7018 is a real pain to root with.They dont like to stand up on the bottom!

Jul 26 2007, 07:34 PM

Strictly personelly!

I am explained that today modern 7016 electrodes are made like this: metal core, putting

rutile coat over core, baking in the oven and after 2 days they put basic cover over rutileone. Therefore they call 7016 as "double coated" with description "easy to work as with6013 rutile one" and "low hydrogen as 7018 one" (to be honest 7016 is ...H10 unlike 7018that is ...H5).

Definetelly, it is much easier to use 7016 for roots and we like to use 7016.

Aug 13 2007, 11:10 AM

HI MATEY

BLIMEY... THERES A LOT OF CLEVER PEOPLE OUT THERE.. IVE JES JOINED THE FORUM..ONE GUY MENTIONED BOHLER... THE 7018 BOHLER IS CALLED AN EV 50... AND NICE TOUSE... THEY ALSO MAKE AN EV50W WHICH IS STILL A 7018 BUT MADE TO BE USED ONAC.. AND THE LADDO WHO SAID USE A 7016 TO STOP ROOT CRACKING I BELIEVE TO BETHE CASE ALSO...

THERE IS ANOTHER STICK CALLED THE FILARC 56S FOR THE ROOT ( 7016 ) AND FILARC35S FOR THE FILL.. (7018 ) I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY ROUND.. NO DOUBT YOUWILL BE PUTTIN ME RIGHT....WELL DONE LADS...... CARRY ON......

..........FR4NKIE


12/12


pipesmoker

frankieboy

Aug 14 2007, 08:43 PM

FLUX IS DIFFERENT AND THICKER ON 7018 BOTH ELECTRODES ARE THE SAME OTHERWISE

Aug 19 2007, 07:44 AM

Love that reply Pipe smoker... ROFL !....... it is true for all coated electrodes... but there isa bit more depth to the subject... it is also true about some stainless steel electrodes as

some manufacturers use a mild steel core, the only diffefrence is the flux... keep puffinthat St Bruno..... ( in an outside open space of course )

kindest regards Frankie

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, pleaseclick here .

Invision Power Board 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.

Documents

Welding Forum _ Difference Between 7018's and 7016's