POWERTECH

25 July 1990
File: H180E1

POWERTECH LA13S INC.

12388-88th Avenue
Surrey, British Columbia
Canada V3W 7R7
Phone (604) 590-7500
Fax (604) 590-5347

Continental Industries Inc.

4102 South 74th Avenue
P.O. Box 994
Tulsa, Oklahoma
74101
Attention: Mr. Rex Smith
Dear Mr. Smith:
RE: ThermOweld Connector Use on Solid Copper Conductor
This letter is written in response to our telephone conversation with reference to the report
"Continental Industries ThermOweld Connector Test", Project No. 1622-23, June 1990.
The tests were performed using #4/0 AWG medium hard drawn, 7 strand copper conductor. In
my opinion, testing of exothermic type connectors (of which ThermOweld is a brand) with
stranded conductor is equivalent to, or possibly more severe than, testing with solid conductor.
My reasoning is as follows.
With stranded conductor, a bond forms between the connector bulk material and the surface of
the outer strands over about half of the circumference of each strand. Adhesion to the centre
strand, however, occurs only at the strand end and over a short length. where the molten
connector material flows between the strands, This, effect was seen when the tested connectors
were cross sectioned. Despite the limited bond area to the centre strand, the tested connector
performed well. This indicated a good quality bond.
With solid conductor, the bond should form over the entire conductor circumference within the
connector. There is no centre strand with possible limited adhesion. In a discussion with the
welding engineer in our metallurgical section, he said that he would expect the quality of the
exothermic bond to remain the same on the solid conductor. For this reason, I believe an
exothermic type connector is likely to perform better on a solid conductor.
My reasoning does not extend to compression connectors. The quality of the latter depends on
the "cold weld" established between the contact surfaces during

A Subsidiary of B.C. Hydro

compression. This in turn depends on a large number of factors, including the conductor
cross sectional area, material hardness, and the amount of abrasion which occurs between
surfaces during compression. A connector which performs well with a stranded conductor
may not adequately crimp to an equal size solid conductor. This is particularly true for
conductors at the low end of the range when connectors are designed to fit a range.
I hope this answers your questions. If you have further questions please feel free to call me.

Yours truly,

V.L. Buchholz, P. Eng.

Power Engineering

FILE: H180E1

POWERTECH LABS. INC.

Continental Industries
Thermoweld Connector Test
Confidential Report for:
Continental Industries, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma
PROJECT NO. 1622-23
JUNE 1990

PREPARED BY

TESTING BY:

_________________
V.L. Buchholz
Electrical Engineer

_________________
R.D. Pidcock
Power Engineer

1. ITEM TESTED
Sixteen samples of ThermOweld connectors on #4/0 AWG medium hard drawn, 7 strand
copper conductor. The samples were produced using the M208 Mold, B106 Clamp, and #90
Weld metal according to manufacturers directions.
2. TEST STANDARD
The tests were performed in accordance with the requirements of IEEE Std. 837-1989, "IEEE
Standard for Qualifying Permanent Connections Used in Substation Grounding".
3. TEST WITNESSES
V.L. Buchholz PEng., Engineer, Powertech Labs Inc.
R.D. Pidcock, Technician, Powertech Labs Inc.
Norbert Neufeld, Technologist, Powertech Labs Inc.
Tom Stefanski, Engineer, Powertech Labs Inc.
4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Samples met the performance criteria of Section 5 of the standard for the Mechanical Tests
and Sequential Tests (acid and alkaline).
During the Pullout Test there was no visible movement of the premarked conductor with
respect to any of the four connector samples at the pullout value of 500 lbf. One sample was
pulled to 2100 lbf. with no visible movement.
In the Electromagnetic Force Test after three current pulses (77 kA peak, 0.2 s duration), the
four connector samples remained intact with no visible movement of the premarked
conductor with respect to the conductor. The maximum resistance increase was 8%.
Prior to the sequential tests, the maximum initial resistance of a sample plus conductor was
208.8 microohms compared to the control conductor value of 204.1 microohms.
The maximum connector temperature during the current cycling portion of the sequential test
was 343 C compared to a control conductor temperature of 361 C.
After the sequential tests, the maximum connector resistance increase was 3%. The
connector samples were cut open and visual inspection showed no signs of burning or other
damaging effects to the connections.
The measured resistance of all connector samples with installed conductors was very nearly
equal to the resistance of an equal length of control conductor. This led to very low or even
negative values of connector resistance when applying Section 5.34 of the standard. A more
precise calculation method was therefore used which included the length of the connector in
the calculation.

5. TEST PROCEDURES
5.1 Mechanical Pullout Test Procedures
This test was conducted in the Mechanical Test area of Powertech Labs Inc. on 10 May
1990. Four samples were made up for testing. The samples were loaded to 500 lbf. on the
Instron Tensile Testing Machine. Figure 1 is a photograph showing the test setup. The load
rate was 10 lbs/sec giving a crosshead speed of .03 in./min. The samples were visually
checked for any movement of the premarked conductor with respect to the connector.

Figure 1. Photograph showing the mechanical

pullout test set-up.

5.2 Resistance Calculation Method

Sections 5.3.4 of the Standard is ambiguous in the method of calculating connector
resistance. This ambiguity shows up when the resistance of the conductor plus connector is
very nearly equal or less than the resistance of the control conductor alone. We assume that
the intent of the standard is to ensure that a connector resistance after testing does not
exceed its initial value by the specified margin. The allowed increase is 50% after the
Electromagnetic Force Withstand Test and 150% after the Sequential Tests. Calculation
method used is as follows:

Rcon = Rcon & cond - Rcont

(Lcon & cond - Lcon)

Lcont

where,
Rcont
Lcont
Rcon&cond
Lcon&cond
Lcon
Rcon

=
=
=
=
=
=

measured resistance of control (microohm)

length of control (49.62 inches)
measured resistance of connector and conductor (microohm)
length of conductor with connector installed (49.62 inches)
length of connector (1.62 inch)
resistance of connector (microohm)

All measured resistances are corrected to 20 C. using the equation:

R(20) = R

(234.5 + 20)
(234.5 + T)

where,
R(20)
R
T

= resistance at 20 C.
= measured resistance (microohm)
= temperature when resistance was measured

After the acid bath, a compensation was made for variation in conductor cross section. the
diameters of two outer conductor strands were measured every 10 cm. Each diameter was
squared and the average taken. The calculated resistance of the connectors were then found
as follows:
Rcon = Rcon&cond - Rcont x (Lcon&cond - Lcon)
Lcont
where,

< Dcont2>
< Dcond on con2>

< Dcont2>
= Average diameter squared on the control
= Average diameter squared of conductor on connector sample
< Dcond on con2 >

5.3

Electromagnetic Force Test Procedures

This test was performed in the High Power Lab on 29 March 1990. Four samples with a
control conductor were prepared as shown in Figure 2 of the standard. The equalizers were
made by crimping a copper tap connector (YC26C26) around the conductor using a Y-46
hydraulic crimper. Figure 2 below shows the spacing of the equalizers.

Figure 2. Drawing showing the spacing of the

equalizers.

Resistances were measured between equalizers. The samples were mounted on a 4 ft. x 8
ft. sheet of plywood and held down with U-bolts. Figure 3 is a photograph showing the test
set-up. Figure 4 is a photograph showing an installed connector.
The test consisted of three surges. Each surge was repeated after the conductor was
allowed to cool to 100 C. or less. The value of the short circuit current was calculated using
the formula taken from Appendix B of the Standard.
Resistances were measured after the final short circuit surge when the conductor had cooled
to ambient.

Figure 3. Photograph showing the electromagnetic force test set-up.

Figure 4. Photograph showing an installed connector.

5.4 Sequential Tests Procedures

Two sets of four samples each with a control conductor were produced. Equalizers were as
in the Electromagnetic Force Test. Resistances were measured between equalizers.
Set A was subjected to the:

Current-Temperature cycling test

Freeze - Thaw test
Nitric acid test
Fault-Current test

Set B was subjected to the:

Current-Temperature cycling test

Freeze-Thaw test
Salt-Spray test
Fault-Current test

Set A and B were connected in series for the Current-Temperature Cycling Test. This test
took place in the High Current Lab from 16 March 1990 to 5 April 1990. Equipment used in
the testing is listed in Appendix A. The control conductor was maintained at approximately
350 C for one hour in each cycle. The current necessary was between 1010 and 1090 A.
After one hour the current was shut off and the conductor was allowed to cool to room
ambient. This sequence was repeated 25 times with resistance measurements taken after
every 5 cycles. The current and temperatures were automatically measured by a Hewlett Packard 3852A Data Acquisition System. The current was measured using a 3000/5 current
transformer across a 0.1 ohm shunt. The temperatures were taken using #30 AWG Type E
thermocouples.
The Freeze-Thaw Test involved submerging Sets A and B in water so that they were covered
by at least an inch of water. They were then placed into a freezer where the water was
cooled to -10 C. or less. They remained at this temperature for at least two hours then they
were removed from the freezer. The samples were allowed to warm up to room ambient and
remain at this temperature for at least two hours. The samples were subjected to 10 freezethaw cycles. Resistances were measured at the end of the freeze thaw cycle after the
samples had been dried in an oven at 100 C. for 1 hour and allowed to cool to room
ambient.
Set A was immersed into a vat containing a 10% solution of nitric acid. The test samples
were submerged until the cross-sectional area of the control conductor was reduced to
approximately 80 % of its original value. Resistance measurements were taken at the end of
this test after the samples were rinsed in water and dried in an oven at 100 C. for 1 hour.
Set B was placed into a salt spray chamber for 500 hours. The chamber met the
requirements of Standard ANSI/ASTM B117-85. Resistance measurements were taken at

the end of this test after the samples were rinsed in water and dried in an oven at 100 C. for
1 hour.
Each set samples was subjected to three short circuit surges which took place in the High
Current Laboratory on 22 May 1990. The conductor was allowed to cool to 100 C. or less
before the short circuit was repeated. The value of the short circuit current was calculated
using the formula taken from Appendix B of the Standard.
The short circuit duration was controlled by the data acquisition system. The short circuit
duration and value were measured using a Nicolet digital oscilloscope. The final resistances
were taken after the samples had cooled to room ambient.

6. TEST RESULTS
6.1 Mechanical Pullout Test Results
After subjecting the four connectors to the mechanical pullout test and examining them it was
determined that no movement had occurred. After examination one of the samples was
loaded to 2100 lbf. Again it was examined and no movement had occurred.
6.2 Electromagnetic Force Test Result
The measured values of the first peak of the asymmetrical test current and the short circuit
duration were:

76.9 kA peak with a duration of .204 seconds

76.9 kA peak with a duration of .212 seconds
77.8 kA peak with a duration of .204 seconds.

Appendix B contains the oscillogram showing the short circuit measurements.

Resistances between equalizers in microohm, corrected to 20 C, along with the calculated
values of connector resistance are given in the Tables I and 2.
The percentage increases are well within the 50 % increase allowed by the standard. There
was no visible movement of the premarked conductor with respect to the connector samples.

Connector Sample Number

#2
#3
#1

#4

Control

Initial

208.1

205.5

206.7

208.1

206.2

Final

206.4

204.1

205.6

206.4

204.4

Table 1. Resistances between equalizers in microohm, corrected to 20 C, before and after

the Electromagnetic Force Test.

Connector #
1
2
3
4

Rcon
(before
short
circuit)
8.7
6.1
7.2
8.6

Rcon
(after
short
circuit)
8.7
6.4
7.8
8.7

% increase
0
4
8
0

Table 2. Values of connector resistance in microohm, calculated according to Section 5.2 of

this report, before and after the Electromagnetic Force Test.

6.3 Acidic Sequential Test Results

The measured values of resistance between the equalizers at each stage of the sequential
test is given in Table 3. Also given in Table 3 are the maximum connector temperatures with
corresponding control temperature measured during the current-temperature cycling test.
The calculated values of connector resistances and the percent increases from the beginning
of the test are given in Table 4.
After the nitric acid bath there was considerable variation in the cross sectional area of the
conductors. This was seen by measuring the diameters of two outer conductor strands of
each sample and the control every 10 cm. The resistance of the connectors was calculated
using the method detailed in Section 5.2 of this report.
For the acid tested samples, the measured short circuit values and durations were:

6.6 kA rms and 9.335 sec.

6.6 kA rms and 9.935 sec.
6.7 kA rms and 9.955 sec.

During the first short circuit. the conductor for sample # 4 fused. During the second short
circuit, the conductor for sample # 3 fused. The conductors were jumpered to carry on with
the short circuits but this prevented us from getting final resistance measurements on these
two samples.
Each sample was cut perpendicular to the conductor in three locations. A visual inspection
revealed no burning or damage. Figure 5 is a photograph which shows a sample connector
cut 1/4 inch from the exposed conductor.
6.4 Alkaline Sequential Test Results
The measured values of resistance between the equalizers at each stage of the sequential
test is given in Table 5. Also given in Table 5 are the maximum connector temperatures with
corresponding control temperature measured during the current-temperature cycling test.
The resistance of the control was not measured after the samples were removed from the
salt spray. The calculated values of connector resistances and the percent increases from
the beginning of the test are given in Table 6.
For the salt spray simples, the measured short circuit values and durations were:

7.7 kA rms and 9.95 sec.

7.7 kA rms and 9.96 sec.
8.0 kA rms and 9.96 sec.

Each sample was cut perpendicular to the conductor in three locations. A visual inspection
revealed no burning or damage. Figure 6 is a photograph which shows a sample connect to
cut 1/4 inch from the exposed conductor.

10

Connector Sample Number

#1
#2
#3

#4

Control

Initial

205.9

205.3

205.7

206.9

203.5

After 5 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.8

206.6

206.3

206.9
341.3

204.9
376.2

After 10 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

204.4

204.3

204.1

204.9
342.6

202.8
365.4

After 15 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.0

205.7

205.8

206.5
343.3

204.2
360.8

After 20 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

205.7
339.5

205.4

205.3

206.0

204.0
363.3

After 25 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.1
338.0

205.5

205.5

206.0

203.9
364.1

After freeze-thaw

206.9

206.9

206.9

207.7

207.8

After nitric acid

Average conductor
Dia. squared(mm2)

244.9

244.5

267.7

262.0

244.9

16.51

16.28

15.16

15.64

16.76

After short circuit

238.1

236.9

-----

-----

236.6

Table 3. Resistances between equalizers in microohm, corrected to 20 C, and maximum

temperature at each phase of the Acidic Sequential Test.

11

Connector Sample Number

#1
#2
#3

#4

Initial Resistances

9.1

8.5

8.9

10.0

After 5 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.7
-4

8.4
-1

8.1
-9

8.7
-13

After 10 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.3
-9

8.2
-4

8.0
-10

8.8
-12

After 15 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.5
-7

8.1
-4

8.3
-7

9.0
-10

After 20 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.3
-8

8.0
-5

8.0
-10

8.6
-14

After 25 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.9
-2

8.3
-2

8.3
-7

8.8
-12

After 10 freeze-thaw
cycles
% increase

5.9
-34

5.8
-30

5.9
-33

6.6
-33

After Acid Bath

% increase

4.4
-50

0.7
-89

5.8
-33

8.2
-17

After short circuit

% increase

5.8
-35

1.4
-82

--------

--------

Table 4. Values of connector resistance in microohm, calculated according to Section 5.2 of

this report, at the each phase of the Acidic Sequential Test.

12

Connector Sample Number

#1
#2
#3

#4

Control

Initial

206.5

205.0

206.4

208.8

204.1

After 5 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.8
331.4

206.2

207.9

207.8

204.4
376.2

After 10 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

204.4
330.3

204.9

205.7

206.5

202.8
365.4

After 15 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.7
336.9

206.8

207.5

207.5

204.2
360.8

After 20 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

206.0

206.4

206.9

207.2
323.0

204.2
363.3

After 25 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

205.9

206.8

207.0
326.0

207.6

204.2
364.1

After freeze-thaw

207.1

208.3

208.5

207.8

206.8

After salt spray

208.3

209.2

208.8

207.6

-----

After short circuit

202.8

203.0

203.9

208.9

203.8

Table 5. Resistances between equalizers in microohm, corrected to 20 C, and maximum

temperature at each phase of the Alkaline Sequential Test.

13

Connector Sample Number

#1
#2
#3

#4

Initial Resistances

9.1

7.6

9.0

11.3

After 5 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

9.1
0

8.4
11

10.2
11

10.1
-11

After 10 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.7
-5

8.7
14

9.5
6

10.3
-9

After 15 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

9.1
0

9.2
21

10.0
11

10.0
-12

After 20 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.4
-7

8.8
15

9.3
3

9.7
-14

After 25 heat cycles

Maximum temp.

8.4
-7

9.3
21

9.5
5

10.1
-11

7.0
-22

8.2
8

8.4
-7

7.7
-31

After salt spray

% increase

-----

-----

-----

-----

After short circuit

% increase

5.6
-38

5.8
-24

6.7
-25

11.7
3

After 10 freeze-thaw
cycles
% increase

Table 6. Values of connector resistance in microohm, calculated according to Section 5.2 of

this report, at the each phase of the Alkaline Sequential Test.

14

Figure 5. Photograph showing a typical sample after the Acidic Sequential Test.

Figure 6. Photograph showing a typical sample after the Alkaline Sequential Test.

15

APPENDIX A
HIGH CURRENT LAB TEST EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

Description
Manufacturer & type
Model #
Serial #
=====================================================================
Digital micro-ohmmeter

APT electronics

DMO 400

Portable thermometer

Fluke

52

Safety Contactor

Klockner-Moeller 400A

DIL-8A-44

Tapped autotransformer

Wismer & RawIings

600,480.360,240,120v
Taps

4100146

3466

Variac

Powerstat 0-120V 350A

60MB1156D

Test Contactor

Klockner-Moeller 400A

DIL-8A-22

Dual test transformer

Wismer & Rawlings

600:20v 1250 A per
winding

3465

Wismer & Rawlings

600:20v 1250 A per
winding

3504

Dual test transformer

Current transformer #1

BP14208T

English Electric
5000/4000/3000:5

OF-8

109539

Data Acquisition
System

Hewlett-Packard

3852A

1428A01483

Controller

IBM compatible
computer

Oscilloscope

Nicolet

Explorer3

APPENDIX B

High Power Lab Short Circuit Oscillogram