Talk:Aluminum building wiring

}

This Article was a mess

October 2016

As a forensic engineer and inspector familiar with the issues associated with aluminum wiring for residential construction in North America I happened to come across this Article and decided to read it.

It Was a Mess!. Things seemed out of order (e.g. the discussion of wire types should have been one of the first headings), there were discussions of the same or related topics under different and/or multiple headings, some things should have had references to substantiate the content (e.g. that poor workmanship is one of the primary causes of problems), some statements were half-truths or completely wrong/unsubstantiated, and there were grammatical errors and typos throughout as just some examples.

Instead of just flagging the Article as being a total mess, I spent some time trying to clean it up without deleting significant content or the intent of the original writer if it was defensible/relevant, and attempted to reorganize it into somewhat of a more coherent article with additional references that were needed, along with some photos to illustrate topics.

It also seems someone had put their own personal spin along with implied conclusions on the use of Ideal No. 65 twist-on wire connectors for pre-1970s aluminum wire repairs (which also included only partial quotes from 20+ year old CPSC documents, meeting notes and other one-sided references), and pushed the COPALUM connectors ... without including both sides of the sometimes controversial issue. And pros/cons for the various pig-tailing options were not included (go figure). The article is NOT the place for personal spins/opinions or implied conclusions on issues - that are not defensible conclusions based on scientific methodology. I have observed and investigated many things that have gone wrong, and most frequently it's human error (or poor workmanship) ... but that's just my personal experience and observations, or related to specific circumstances. Opinions can be kicked around on a Talk page.

As a side note, the U.S. courts have ruled that the CPSC does not have jurisdiction over building wiring systems. However, the CPSC research, documents and recommendations are still widely referenced. Also, many of the reported field problems associated with pig-tailing repairs with Ideal twist on connectors are suspected to be DIY disasters where Harry C. Homeowner (C for Cheap) goes to the big box home improvement store and is handed a box of purple wire nuts by the local crossing guard to "fix" the problem himself (without the experience needed for proper repairs, and without both preparing and pre-twisting wires as specified by CPSC, and as recommended by Ideal for "old technology" aluminum wiring repairs). Harry Homeowner can be his own worst enemy, which sometimes actually makes things worse. I think the AlumiConn connectors will likely turn out to be the best repair option it they stand the test of time ... but Harry Homeowner can get them at the big box stores, and I will bet the family ranch he doesn't have the needed torque screwdriver, which is critical to have for a proper repair.

There ended up being some significant corrections or changes ...

• I changed the heading which read "Aluminum Conductor Material (ACM) wire" to just "Aluminum wire materials" since it was redundant and ACM is an older electrical code term (presently just "Conductor Material" in the NEC, which includes copper and aluminum conductors). I added some info to offer both sides of the pigtail repair connector issue (without implied conclusions).

• I deleted references to what was reported to be said by a mfr. rep about the Ideal No. 65 at a CPSC meeting in 1995. It's irrelevant to reference an understandably cautious comment by a mfr. representative at meeting for what was at that time a relatively new product for them, where they were the only ones making a UL listed Al/Cu twist-on connector with a potential high liability exposure (the US civil courts obliterate lack of diligence ... i.e. McDonalds coffee being a little too hot).

• I also changed the wording on the section which stated that CO/ALR devices should be used for repairing a home with older AL wiring since it's not substantiated. I added a NEMA reference (as just referencing the entire NEC doesn't substantiate use of CO/ALR devices with AA-1350 wire as a partial/temporary repair). I also added some pros/cons.

If someone who is also qualified/knowledgeable on the entire subject could proof read the article with the changes I made, that would be much appreciated (without spins or implied conclusions, which should be done elsewhere). Also, there are probably some minor typos or grammatical errors I missed.

EagleRJO (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Article Title - "Aluminum wire"?

October 2016

I changed the title to "Aluminum building wiring", as that is what the article is about. It's about the building "wiring" for houses, and not just about the "wire" (or more correctly "conductor") as it is also about the wiring methods, devices, and wiring repairs. "Aluminum wire" could be used for many things including utility transmission and distribution systems discussed in other Wiki Articles (e.g. Overhead power line and Electric power distribution)

EagleRJO (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

apparently we are having a problem with vandalism from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.2.103.233 I am relatively inexperienced with wikipedia, so if someone knows how to report this or something, it would be appreciated. Thanks, phd_jp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd jp (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

I was unable to find any evidence on Google that this is a copyright violation, which is often the case with long, unwikified articles. -- Kjkolb 21:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Elastic Memory

The comments regarding "elastic memory" are incorrect. Aluminum expands and contract, just as copper expands and contracts. If either metal is exposed to excessive pressure (especially at a high temperature) and the surrounding media contracts faster than the surrounded metal, then the metal will not be able to return to the original shape. That is true for all metals, and is a key factor when aluminum wire is incorrectly installed in a copper connector. I believe that is where the confusion comes from. If the statement "aluminum does not return to the same shape afterwards" were true, then you would have to believe that aluminum only expands and does not contract, which obviously contradicts everyday experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskt (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the change removing the phrase elastic memory. This phrase is very widely used in industry with respect to aluminum wire. All wires expand under electrical load, but unlike copper, aluminum does not return to the same shape afterwards. Whatever way you choose to word it, it is important to indicate that fact as it is a difference between aluminum and other conductors.

(The statement that "aluminum does not return to the same shape afterwards" is incorrect: aluminum, copper and other metals will return to their original shape if they are not under excessive force. This happens everyday in billions of aluminum connections that are made with the proper connectors.)Chriskt (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What language is this article written in?

Is it American or British? The sight of "aluminium" on the same page as "No. 14 gauge" (American Wire Gauge) is painful. Could we at least spell "aluminum" the same way throughout the article? --Wtshymanski 17:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the alumin(i)um article, IUPAC prefers the extra i, and I, personally, would term them authoritative. --Baylink

The manual of style agrees with you. The article really ought to be edited and indeed moved to reflect that. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) which is appropriate for articles of a scientific nature. As this article is a about a US domestic issue, it's possible that MOS:TIES trumps that. catslash (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusing tag on "ACM, or NUAL, wire" section

I added a confusing template on the "ACM, or NUAL, wire" section because it does not seem to make sense. The bolding in the quotes is mine. "In the early 1970s, a new aluminium alloy was listed by UL, known as AA-8000 series or "ACM" aluminium wire, which is the current aluminium wire used today." It is unclear if this means that it is the type of wire used for grid applications or for low-voltage applications (houses, small businesses). Also, the section later says, "It is, however, extremely rare in branch circuit wiring." If it is the current type of aluminum wire used, why is it extremely rare? Is it because aluminum wire has almost never been used since 1972 (this is the year that the article implies the change from the old wire to the new wire was made)? Does the article mean to say that the new wire was used in the power grids, but the old wire was still used in houses? It would make more sense if the wire was developed earlier, but the article says that it was made in the early 1970s, so there is no reason to expect it to appear much as original wiring in houses built before 1972. This is not a topic that I am particularly interested in, so it is not on my watchlist. If you want to contact me, please use my talk page. Thanks, Kjkolb 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Also, the section later says, "It is, however, extremely rare in branch circuit wiring." If it is the current type of aluminum wire used, why is it extremely rare?"

It is my understanding, from everything I've read on the subject, that aluminum wiring developed such a bad reputation (at least in the U.S.) in the years before 1972, that its use was abandoned (and had become prohibited by some local codes), regardless of the merits of the new alloys and connectors that came out in 1972 and in the years since. Thus, while the connectors are often updated in housing that had been built before 1972, the wiring itself, if replaced after 1972, would most likely have been replaced with copper, making the post-1972 variants of aluminum wire extremely rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.239.78.101 (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have read eventually references the Aronstein paper, so there is a bit of a lack of independent varification. There is also some rather loose use of the term "branch circuit" (also in my own edit). This refers only to relatively low current branch circuits. The new alloy is likely used quite extensively in dedicated circuits for large appliances and subpanel feeders[I know aluminum wire is still used quite extensively in circuits for large loads, I just am not sure of the alloy]. Mattmia2 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase it to capture this, based on what I've read, but this really needs some citations, so I added . ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"ACM" is an acronym for an AA-8000 series aluminum alloy wire. It is currently used for 600 volt applications in North America, including residential, commercial, and industrial installations. Utilities still use primarily AA-1350, but also use certain alloys in some locations. Branch circuit wiring is the wiring from a receptacle, switch or similar device back to the overcurrent protective device, which is usually a circuit breaker in a load center or panelboard. Branch circuit wiring is usually copper, which is more economical due to the available device connections. The wire upstream from that would be a feeder or service conductor; these conductors are often larger gauge and may be copper or aluminum. Connections typically provided for feeders and service conductors are compatible with aluminum and copper conductors, and are most often made of aluminum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskt (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the electrical engineering/construction field ACM is an acronym for "Aluminum Conductor Material" (i.e. aluminum "wire" material) referenced for example in older versions of the NEC. Presently, the NEC just uses the term "Conductor Material" which includes requirements for various wires, including aluminum wires. See the comments herein for changes to the Article related to this.

EagleRJO (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

US/UK

I think at least some separation by country of ali wiring's current use & history is warranted, as much of the info here is quite wrong in the UK for example, where domestic ali wiring has been an absolute no-no for a long time, and its past history of use is also different. Tabby (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed, the article is 100% USA-centric - wire sizes, history, and even reference to US insurance rules which differ by "state", without explaining what kind of state. Most likely not Australian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.97.90 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ABC / AES / AMKA / APRX / AXKA / AXMR / AXPR

Aluminium cables is still in use for streetlamps, especially in the Europe and Russia. 90.191.190.76 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

CCA

There's still no mention of CCA, copper coated aluminium cable, which is an important part of ali electrical wire's history here in the UK, and presumably in various other countries too. Tabby (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

NEC (National Electrical Code) rules

In the copy of the NEC I have here (2002 edition), table 310.16 has a footnote saying "See 240.4(D)", which in turn says you must not use overcurrent rated more tahn 15 Amperes for 14 AWG copper or 12 AWG aluminum. You must use a larger aluminum wire for the same overcurrent rating of the circuit. Has this been changed in the last 9 years? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

12 AWG has always been the standard for ordinary 20A outlets, just look in any home with AL wiring, or look at the ratings on a new UF cable at Home Depot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.27 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

12 AWG copper, sure. But how do you get 20 amps out of a 12 AWG aluminum wire with an overcurrent device at 15 amperes? (Not too many 1970's houses left with aluminum wire to the receptacles.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are only very limited situations where you would be legally required to retrofit a 15A breaker onto a 12AWG circuit. Therefore copper offers no advantage for small circuits. For larger circuits, the ampacity depends more on the wire type (75C vs. 90C, buried or not) than on copper versus aluminum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.27 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Say what? I'm looking at table 310.16 (up to 3 conductors in cable), (2002 edition, we don't buy new code books for the US unless we have work there) and all the way down the page, for a given temperature rating of insulation (60 C), the aluminum wire has a lower rating:

• 14 AWG, 20 amps copper , no rating for aluminum
• 12 AWG, 25 amperes copper, 20 amperes aluminum
• 10 AWG, 30 A copper, 25 A Al

...

• 250 kcmil, 215 A Cu, 170 A Al

And so on. A copper wire in NEC rules (and CEC rules) is always smaller than an aluminum wire with the same rating. Your IP address doesn't come from Alcoa, does it? --Wtshymanski (talk)

So everyone agrees that 20 amps is the limit for 12AWG wire of any type. What is the disagreement here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.27 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You see the only case where copper gives you more amps is for larger cables, i.e., where it generally isn't used anyway. For 14-10AWG they have those asterisks so you are still stuck with 20 amps on your 12AWG copper cable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.250.27 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Aluminum conductors are required to be larger for the same current rating. Equivalently, the same size aluminum wire carries less current than a copper wire. Here's what Rule 240.4(D) says for maximum overcurrent size:

• 14 AWG - 15 amps copper, no rating for aluminum
• 12 AWG - 20 A Cu, 15 A for Al
• 10 AWG - 30 A Cu, 25 A for Al

The Canadian code is much simpler: Table 2 says 15, 20, 30 A for copper and Table 4 says no rating, 15 A and 25 A for aluminum, with no asterisks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft wire?

Could we get a reliable source for aluminum wire on aircraft? SO far Google Books is only turning up references to copper or silver-plated copper. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article in 2007 about the aluminum wire in the A380: http://power.elecdesign.com/Articles/index.cfm?ArticleID=14634&stylename=maroon Of course, it has the standard anti-aluminum bias. But it confirms that the wiring is still aluminum as recently as 2007.

That says that one aircraft design is using aluminum, it doesn't say that all aircraft exclusively use aluminum. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Termination problems

The description of termination problems in the 70's jumps all over the place, and misses the main point and the main fix. The core issue was creep, and the core answer (besides dropping aluminum on smaller wiring) was redesign of terminations (generally some aspect of spring loading) so that the were less likely to cause creep and more able to tolerate creep. Further, I think that the blame on installer technique is wrong and unsourced. I did not edit this because it would require substantial changes. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The core issue was incompatibility of connector and conductor, and poor installation practices. The National Bureau of Standards (Newbury, D. and Greenwald S. “Observations on the Mechanisms of High Resistance Junction Formation in Aluminum Wire Connections.” Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards (1980): 429-440) confirmed that properly tightened connections (even using the old-style aluminum and connectors) stayed tight. However, the connections made in the 1960s and 1970s were under-tightened and failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskt (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The primary issue was/is in fact poor workmanship per the Newbury and Greenwald study, followed by thermal expansion differences. Also the discussion of termination problems was all over the place, which I tried to clean up.

EagleRJO (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1990s?

From the first paragraph: "Utility companies have used aluminum wire for electrical transmission in power grids since the early 1900s." This is unsourced and at least for Europe is totally incorrect, I find it hard to believe it's correct for the USA either, was aluminium really not used for power grids in the USA before 1990? 109.207.29.2 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the office copy of the 1950 edition of the "Transmission and Distribution Reference Book" gives lots of tables for ACSR and it certainly wasn't new then. Or do you mean all-aluminum conductors? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

These comments are difficult to understand; the article says "1900s", which would mean the year 1900 and later. What does 1990 have to do with anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskt (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This was corrected to late 1800s to early 1900s in North America ... since the late 1800s is when power grids first started to be installed, and aluminum conductors started to be used shortly after that.

EagleRJO (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Pretty much universal opposition mainly on the basis of WP:RETAIN. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Aluminum building wiring → Aluminium building wiring – Although the article primarily discusses United States, the topic is not inherently geo-specific and therefore should use standard IUPAC spelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. 162 etc. (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RETAIN & MOS:TIES (the topic is geo-specific as far as I am aware - though that could just be my ignorance). catslash (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no earthly reason to impose a false consistency or to follow some "official" source. Remember color and orange (colour) Red Slash 22:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.