Drag Rod Test Question

Date 04-23-2007 18:57 Edited 04-23-2007 19:00

Hello Robert 4, I'll take a stab at this for you. If this is the exact question it could be a very difficult one to answer for two reasons, E6014 and E7018, now I'll explain my reasoning. E6010 and E6011 are rutile electrodes which typically are classified as having a deep, digging arc and generally are oscillated or manipulated when they are used. Of the other two answers listed in the question the E7018 is listed as having a medium arc and medium penetration, the E6014 is listed as having a soft arc and medium penetration, both electrodes contain a similar amount of iron powder in the flux. The E6014 is shown to have a titania/iron powder flux composition and the E7018 is shown to have a low-hydrogen/iron powder flux compostion, so they would likely be manipulated, if any, in a similar fashion. Now to talk about the drag rod definition a little bit. There is a bit of a discrepancy on the drag definition, some might consider a drag rod as being one that is physically dragged on the material as the weld is being done, others might classify the drag rod as referring to the direction of weld travel relative to the angle(a backhand method). In the case of the E6014 and E7018 I would likely run these two rods in a similar fashion, although I have never personally run any of the E6014 electrode. I appologize for sidestepping your original question because I would agree that this question, as it is shown here in my opinion, is not a very good question. Just my $.02 Regards, aevald

By js55

Date 04-23-2007 19:20

Wow. Thats about as good an explanation as it gets. Its a crappy question. Hobart's, not yours Robert. I'm not sure slang is appropriate for a test given by an insitution of such reputation as Hobart. Slang too readily opens itself up for varying interpretations. Some may not consider 'drag' as slang. But given the status of XX18/XX14 rods I would argue it really is.

By 803056

Date 04-24-2007 03:48

Hello Robert;

I would have contested the question.

I was taught a SMAW drag rod had the flux covering formulated so that it formed a deep cone that essentially controlled the arc length and was limited to flat grooves and flat and horizontal fillet welds. Sounds like the F1 electrodes per AWS D1.1 and ASME Section IX doesn't it? Typically the EXX24 and EXX28 elelctrodes fit the description of "drag rods". If I had to select one of the four answers provided, I would have selected the E6014. However, E6014 isn't even listed in AWS A5.1 (E7014 is listed). The terminology of "drag rod" isn't part of the terminology used by AWS A5.1, so you will have to go back to your text by Hobart to see what they consider to be a "drag rod".

By the way, I'm using an old AWS A5.1:1981 edition, it was handy and my current edition is two stories up in the library. So, the information may be dated, but it sounds like the exam question is even older than my reference.

Best regards - Al

By Robert 4 Date 04-24-2007 08:38

Why would the EXX24 and EXX28 be considered a drag rod?

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 04-24-2007 11:30

The answer floats above you like a cloud

"SMAW drag rod had the flux covering formulated so that it formed a deep cone that essentially controlled the arc length and was limited to flat grooves and flat and horizontal fillet welds."

I have a Miller Training Video from the late 70s or early 80s that uses almost the exact terminology.

I think the Hobart question was a typo (even the greats make them) and maybe they are waiting for the program to be revised before making a change.

We do hold Hobart to a high standard.... Because they have such a record of excellence in making training materials.

By 803056

Date 04-24-2007 14:20

The flux coating decomposes and, with the deep cone formed by the flux, controls the arc length and the melt-off rate so the welder does not have to maintain the arc length by physically holding the "1/8 inch" arc length. The flux covering does all the work. It typically has a high content of iron powder in the flux to increase the deposition rate. The term "drag rod" comes into play because the welder leans the electrode in the direction of travel and simply "drags" the rod along the joint. That isn't really what is done, the electrode essentially determines the travel speed, the welder simple directs the electrode in the proper direction.

Like many things in our industry, there is a lot of slang thrown around that causes miscommunication. Terms like root gap, land, drag rod, dry pass, are terms that can be confusing because they are not used by all industries and there is no common denominator such as AWS A3.0 terms and definitions that includes them, nor should they be included. Even AWS committees fall victim to the use of slang in some of the welding standards published by AWS. Life would be easier if all the welding standards published by AWS used only standard terms and definitions as published in AWS A3.0 or at least included definitions of the nonstandard terms in a glossary of their welding standard. However, I see no reason for using nonstandard terms in official publications.

Other organizaations such as API use terms that are considered to be nonstandard by AWS. That's fine as long as API include a means of providing terms and definitions so the reader can "look" them up for clarification.

Inspectors that work with several different codes have to become familiar with the terminology specific to the welding standards they use. I feel it is good practice to use the proper terminology for each specific industry. For instance, even though API refers to AWS A3.0 for terminology, they use the term "land" instead of "root face". Likewise, they use different terminology for some certain weld discontinuities such as "inadequate penetration" instead of "incomplete joint penetration". There's no problem with what they are doing because API defines the terminology they are using. It can be confusing when inspectors apply the terminology from one industry to another. The person reading a report, and if they are unfamiliar with the terminology, has no means of looking up the nonstandard terms.

I believe that is what you are encountering with your situation. Life would be easier if everyone used standard terminology. Professionals that insist on using slang terms are not doing our industry any favors. Clear communication should be the goal of any inspector or other welding professional. Rarely does the use of slang terms clarify a situation. Slang only causes confusion, misunderstanding, and miscommunication.

What a rant!

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 04-24-2007 15:02

I was taught that a drag rod required no manipulation and that 7018 could fall under that category. 6014 0R 7014 wow an all postion drag rod who would of thunk. I'm guessing the right answer was the 6014 for the flux composition being the same as a 7024 witch is a true drag rod. So i guess the flux type was taught to be what determines the slang name drag rod and if they didn't teach you that then it's a crappy question.

By js55

Date 04-24-2007 15:15

Maybe a rant Al, but a good one. I have to admit that I am as guilty as anybody at utilizing slang. But then, I'm not designing test questions either.

By Robert 4 Date 04-24-2007 22:32 Edited 04-25-2007 01:58

I would like to thank everyone who posted and found the information provided very educational. The expertise and explanations are exceptional, well written and understandable.

In my field we too use slang and I have been guilty of using it in class room situations but never on a test.

After reading the post and seeing that drag rods is a well known slang by professionals in the field I'm not going to try and hold the instructor accountable for the term drag rod and accept my failure and move on.

I don't think the company I work for will send my back to the course, thus ending my chance to becoming a certified welder. My company has a lot of people and they believe and giving others a chance too. I've offered to be retrained out of my pocket for half a day if I can be retested. But the instructor has not gotten back to the company as of yet.

If faced with this question again I'll be able to smile and answer it correctly thanks to the help received here!

Thank you :)