The below link could be useful.
https://www.esabindia.com/in/en/products/filler-me...

DHURJATI SEN
Kolkata, India

If the WPS is qualified with impacts using E6013, then go for it. I question whether E6013 electrode would pass the CVN testing at -15C as needed to qualify the WPS, but you'll never know if you don't try it. Let us know how it works out. Is it worth the time and effort required to qualify the WPS? Regardless of what electrode is used, the WPS will have to be qualified by testing if this work is governed by a recognized welding standard such as ASME or AWS.

I would probably elect to use an electrode that has been demonstrated the ability to pass CVN at low temperature by the manufacturer. There are electrodes available that can meet CVN at low temperature. Consider reviewing AWS/ASME A5.1 to see which electrodes are required to pass CVN at low temperature. Not all electrodes are created equal.

You can bend Section IX rules by depositing just 1-2 layers and then complete the joint with E7018, which definitely has superior impact properties. A Charpy coupon will contain 50% or more of E7018, greatly enhancing your chances.

I've seen that done many times, either deliberately or in ignorance, but I do not endorse it because it doesn't pass the engineering judgment test in most situations.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I think inpact test for E6013 is only allowed at 0ºC.

luis

I believe the electrode is tested by the manufacturer at 0 degrees C, but that doesn't mean the contractor can't test it at a lower temperature. If the test passes at a lower temperature, the electrode is qualified for the lower temperature provided the parameters are not changed causing the heat input to increase beyond the limits permitted by the applicable welding code.

Best regards - Al

When impacts apply, Code does not permit use of a filler metal classification to be used below the temperature listed in Section II-C. And if that is not strictly true technically it is sound engineering judgment.

You could get around that by qualifying with a specific brand that achieves the required properties at a lower temperature. Your WPS is then of course restricted to that tradename.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

E6013 has a good chance of meeting impacts at -15C. You will only know if you attempt to qualify a procedure using it.

What is the base material you're trying to weld with 6013 rods?

And here was silly old me thinking E 6013s were a general purpose electrode used for things like farm gates etc
Why would you not be using a low hydrogen electrode ?

For example, for repetitive small weldments that are difficult accessible with a MIG gun.
I have done it in the past, because they are easy to restrike (unlike 7018's). With a number of caveats, of course.

yup I agree with DekDee, E6013 is an easy to weld rutile electrode and from my opinion it is normally used in farm gates, and other minor carbon steel situations.

luis

... because they are very easy to operate. However, mechanical tests do not give bad results. tensile, impact, ... all surpass base quality mild steel, so more than adequate for a number of applications.
I'm not talking nuclear reactors of storage tanks @ near zero K, but people who are designing/building these also don't ask these kind of questions (generally).

Material is IS 2062 Gr 350 Gr C

Quote (ironic)

When impacts apply, Code does not permit use of a filler metal classification to be used below the temperature listed in Section II-C. And if that is not strictly true technically it is sound engineering judgment.

What exactly are you saying?? The Code allows you to use a filler metal at the temp you test it to...it is done everyday. If this were true you could only use E7018 at -20F and warmer.

By that logic I could test E7018 @ -80°F until I pass, and then use any supplier's E7018 for -80°F service. So yes I would only use E7018 at -20F and warmer. If I need colder I pay the money for a suitable classification.
It may be done often; I'm saying it fails the engineering judgment test at least (and try getting away with that in Nuclear).

There are also big loopholes in Section IX that are abused daily, often unknowingly.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

If you pay more for E7018-1 with impacted tests done on the lot, you don't need impact tested procedures.

Quite a change in your opinion, considering you inquired if there was dual E7018/E7018-1 for WPS qualification, to use only E7018 at colder temperatures last year to skirt these rules.

Does ASME IX cover qualifications for all electrodes with the same designation (= standard + spec)?
ISO codes limit rods and flux core wire to the brand + exact type/commercial name when impact values are required.

Unless the Code has changed recently, Specification and classification is all that is/was required. Owners often required manufacturer and exact brand designation. Well before E7018-1 came to be, we found that specific manufacturers classifications of E7018 would always meet -50F Code impact requirements and we limited E7018 to those manufacturers and brand designations but Codes did not. ER70S-2 and ER70S-6 also always met -50F Code impact requirements regardless of manufacturer at the time. For flux cored wires we always required exact manufacturer and brand designation used in qualification of impact tested equipment to be used in production.

It is high time AWS granted full citizenship to E7018-1. As it stands it is a sub-classification, a half-ast state of affairs.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

We're kind of going off the deep end. We don't know what the applications, what code applies, and a lot of other details.I think I said it before, I would pick a filler metal that meets the requirements, rather than reinventing the wheel.

When toughness is a requirement, I limit the WPS to specification, classification, masnufacturer, and brand name. The original post just asked if the electrode classification could be used at lower temperature and could it meet toughness requirements. We don't even know what the toughness requirement is at this point.

Best regards - Al