Alumiconn Connectors

[Rick 0920]

A lot of contractors are using these in homes wired with aluminum conductors. These houses used the smaller metal switch boxes where the back of the boxes sloped thus limiting the cu. in. capacity of the box. This is big business as they are instilling fear in their customers of the problems involving aluminum wire. IMO, these products take up more room in the box than a wirenut because of the way you have to terminate them. Have any of you used these and do you think they fall under under the category of "small fittings" in the box fill calculations? In the few instances that I have seen, If they are not calculated, (which they are not) it makes it incredibly difficult to install devices even though the calculation determines it is code compliant.

 

[infinity]

Here under the 2017 NEC they do not count towards box fill.

 

[Rick 0920]

Here under the 2017 NEC they do not count towards box fill.

There is no mention of them in the 2020 NEC as well that counts them. I personally feel that by solving one problem you are creating another.

 

[LarryFine]

Have any of you used these and do you think they fall under under the category of "small fittings" in the box fill calculations?

They should be seen as similar to wirenuts. Small fittings are things like hickey fixture supports, internal clamps, etc.

As self-insulating miniature Polaris blocks, I have used them for making connections on motorcycles and in vehicles.

 

[petersonra]

Just put of curiosity can't you just replace the devices with ones that have terminals rated for aluminum and copper?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

They looked at this for the 2023 code and there will be a new 314.16(B)(6).

(6) Terminal Block Fill.
Where a terminal block is present in a box, a single volume allowance in accordance with Table 314.16(B)(1) shall be made for each terminal block assembly based on the largest conductor(s) terminated to the assembly.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Just put of curiosity can't you just replace the devices with ones that have terminals rated for aluminum and copper?

One issue with that is CO/ALR rated receptacles are not available in tamper resistant type....this is something else that will be addressed in the 2023 code, permitting the use of CO/ALR receptacles that are not tamper resistant where a receptacle supplied by aluminum wire is replaced in an area that requires TR.

 

[Rick 0920]

They looked at this for the 2023 code and there will be a new 314.16(B)(6).

That's great that they are recognizing that. Unfortunately, enforcing it will be difficult since the majority of these applications will be on non-permitted jobs. I guess it's up to the integrity of our electricians to do the right thing.

 

[James L]

I did a whole house remodel that had aluminum wiring. We used Decora receptacles. I changed out the boxes to 22.5 cu.in. fiberglass so that the alumiconns would fit. There was no way I was gonna try to stuff 3 of them into a tiny steel box.

 

[electrofelon]

One issue with that is CO/ALR rated receptacles are not available in tamper resistant type....this is something else that will be addressed in the 2023 code, permitting the use of CO/ALR receptacles that are not tamper resistant where a receptacle supplied by aluminum wire is replaced in an area that requires TR.

I find this interesting for two reasons. One, just that manufacturers do not make these in TR. I never noticed or considered that (but also don't recall ever having to use a CO/AL device). Why not?? Second, the NEC has never been bashful about requiring something when there is no product available for it. Kind of fascinating that they are acquiescing and making an exception for this. . It is unlike them.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I find this interesting for two reasons. One, just that manufacturers do not make these in TR. I never noticed or considered that (but also don't recall ever having to use a CO/AL device). Why not?? Second, the NEC has never been bashful about requiring something when there is no product available for it. Kind of fascinating that they are acquiescing and making an exception for this. . It is unlike them.

The manufacturers just said there will never be a CO/ALR that is TR and the code making panel felt that there is an increase in safety when an old, possibly damaged receptacle, is replaced even if it is not TR.

As far as using them, they were introduced into the market at the same time the new alloy aluminum was. The use of the new alloy alumimun for 10 and 12 AWG sizes was short lived in the mid 70s as the product could not over come the objections to older small aluminum conductors. Not sure if the new alloy was ever used for NM, but is was available as single conductors and I worked on a 100 unit apartment complex where we used the single conductor new alloy conductors along with CO/ALR devices in 76-76 as an apprentice.

 

[jimport]

They looked at this for the 2023 code and there will be a new 314.16(B)(6).

I understand the wording, but the Alumiconn is no larger than the Ideal Purple 65 that does not count. Older boxes are not going to have capacity to allow an additional 2 or 3 conductor counts.