ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion Building Codes for Electricians anti oxidant on aluminum conductors

From the Canadian Electrical Code
12-118 Termination and Splicing of Aluminum Conductors
(1) Adequate precaution shall be given to the termination and splicing of aluminum conductors, including the removal of insulation and separators, the cleaning (wire brushing) of stranded conductors, and the compatibility and installation of fittings.
(2) A joint compound, capable of penetrating the oxide film and preventing its reforming, shall be used for terminating or splicing all sizes of stranded aluminum conductors, unless the termination or splice is approved for use without compound and is so marked.

Still checking some sources, but;
IAEI NEWS Jan/Feb 2006 issue had an article by Christel Hunter, (senior field applications engineer, B.Sc. engineering physics and electrical engineering) for Alcan Cable which includes information on terminating AL wire.
"If terminating a conductor with a set-screw connector, the bare connector should be wire brushed and an oxide inhibitor applied to the bare conductors." It also states "The screw should then be tightened using a torque wrench or torque screwdriver."
In a more recent article...
IAEI NEWS May/June 2007 article by Jacqueline Silvia with FCI BURNDY in the section "Proper Installation is essential"
Point three "Applied an oxide inhibiting compound to any exposed conductor surface before inserting the conductor into the connector."
If the people making the wire and the people making the connectors say to use anti oxide it sure seems like a requirement for 110.3(B)
We don't get to see the wire brush and Torque tool use, but we can tell if there is anti oxide.
Alan--

Alan, the problem with articles in magazines (regardless of who wrote them) is that they are not enforcible as code.

I do beleive that I have seen some manufacturers recommend using an inhibitor, and if this information is included as part of the installation instructions, then I agree it would be enforcible per 110.3(B.

Roger

The problem I see is these trhings just show up as "recomendations", not requirements.
It seems the wire manufacturers say you don't need it and terminal manufacturers "recommend" it.
Adding the "wirebrush the wire" thing really looks like something added by lawyers. As an installer, prove you did and that will be the out the terminal manufacturer can use if the joint fails.
I would "recommend" it too as an inspector but I am still not sure I could "require" it. I don't know how I could verify that the wire was brushed and if it was "properly" brushed, with the right brush. I know from aluminum welding that you are not supposed to use a steel brush or even a stainless brush that has been used on steel in the past.

One of the sources I'm still waiting to hear from is Alcan Cable.
I have never seen a reel of wire with installation instructions.
Therefore I am going to ask Alcan if they have installation instructions, or just recommendations.
Alan--

Sometimes there's a lot you simply can't "know." In a discussion, a dishonest person can use these uncertainties to keep things undecided indefinitely. After all, what is the meaning of the word "is?"

I mention this because I first saw this dialectic (or should it be 'lie-electric?') used back in the 70's, in the 'great aluminum wire debate."
Shown a failed connection, the aluminum wire makers quickly blamed the installer, and the connectors. The devices weren't listed for aluminum. There was no anti-oxidant used. If used, the anti-oxidant was ineffective because it was applied incorrectly. Screws were tightened too much, or too little.
Nevertheless, while still insisting that there was nothing whatever wrong with their wire, the wire makers decided to change the alloy, and limit production to #6 and larger.

Today, an army of representatives are out there, pounding the pavement, extolling the merits of aluminum wire. They are quick to say that the new alloy has over 20 years of field use and testing, proving it to be no more problematic than copper wire. You need not use anti-oxidant. Torque is critical, they say ... oh, and by the way, Greenlee doesn't know how to make crimpers. Their words, not mine.

I say this in preparation for the following pic, provided by Doug Wells:





Please note the evidence of heat at the connection that also lacks anti-oxidant. True, we have no way of knowing the alloy of the wire. Nor have we a way to verify torque after the connection is made.
We do have the reference to Canadian rules, requiring the use of anti-oxidant.

I'd say this pic is a pretty good argument for the use of anti-oxidant.

Reno, there doesn't appear to be any heat damage to the conductor itself, only the screw. For all we know, this could have been from a previous installation.

I would say there are many connections out there with out anti oxidant that don't even have a discolored screw.

BTW, FWIW, I do use it when I work with aluminum but our preferences and work habits are not codes. The bottom line is, there is nothing as far as any NEC wording requiring it, so unless there is a local code, the inspector is wrong to hold up the final.

Roger

I strongly agree with Roger here.

Unless there are specific instructions from the manufactures of the wire or terminal requiring paste it is optional.

I have installed some GE fused disconnects that required the use of paste when using AL conductors, that requirement was on the door of the disconnect along with the torque and conductor ratings of the terminals.

Thanks for the replys. Most of you said about what I thought you were going to.

UPDATE UPDATE

The building official responded to my question of substantiation on the anti-oxidant question by stating in his letter, " the use of corrosion inhibitors when installing aluminum wiring is both required by the NEC and by manufacturers specifications for installation" then quoting 110.14 as the NEC requirement, and sending me the Alcan Cable (suggested specifications for aluminum alloy conductors for distribution feeder applications with recomendations for connectors) as an additional requirement by the manufacturer for the anti-oxidant.

I don't really know how this relates, as I was using Southwire in a service entrance application, and there was no engineer on this job, nor any such suggested specification written for it. (no plans or specs) It was a service upgrade only.

Oh; and 110.14 as far as I can tell only requires that the lugs be identified and where employed that inhibitors shall be suitable for use and not adversely affect the conductors, insulation, or equipment.

So where oh where is the NEC requirement for the use of anti-oxidant?

Stay tuned for further updates.

It's not, the inspector is simply grasping for straws to save face.

Roger