View Latest Blog Entries
Close
Categories
Testing & Assessment Certification Aging Wires & Systems Standard & Regulation Management Conference & Report Maintenance & Sustainment Protection & Prevention Research Arcing Miscellaneous
Popular Tags
Visual Inspection MIL-HDBK MIL-HDBK-525 AS50881 FAR High Voltage FAR 25.1707 Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Maintenance Wire System Arcing Damage AS4373
All Tags in Alphabetical Order
25.1701 25.1703 Accelerated Aging ADMT Aging Systems Aircraft Power System Aircraft Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) arc damage Arc Fault (AF) Arc Fault Circuit Breaker (AFCB) Arc Track Resistance Arcing Arcing Damage AS22759 AS22759/87 AS4373 AS4373 Method 704 AS50881 AS5692 AS6019 AS83519 AS85485 AS85485 Wire Standard ASTM D150 ASTM F2799 ATSRAC Attenuation Automated Wire Testing System (AWTS) batteries Bent Pin Analysis Best of Lectromec Best Practice bonding Cable cable testing Carbon Nanotube (CNT) Certification Chafing Chemical Testing Circuit Breaker circuit design Circuit Protection Coaxial cable cold bend comparative analysis Compliance Component Selection Condition Based Maintenance Conductor conductors conduit Connector connectors contacts Corona Corrosion Corrosion Preventing Compound (CPC) Cracking D-sub data analysis data cables degradat Degradation Delamination Derating diagnostic dielectric constant Distributed Power System DO-160 dynamic cut through Electrical Aircraft Electrical Component Electrical Testing Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Electromagnetic Vulnerability (EMV) EMC EMF EN3197 EN3475 EN6059 End of Service Life End of Year Energy Storage engines Environmental Environmental Cycling ethernet EWIS Component EWIS Design EWIS Failure EWIS Thermal Management EZAP FAA AC 25.27 FAA AC 25.981-1C Failure Database Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) FAQs FAR FAR 25.1703 FAR 25.1707 FAR 25.1709 fault tree Fixturing Flammability fleet reliability Flex Testing fluid exposure Forced Hydrolysis fuel system fuel tank ignition functional testing Fundamental Articles Future Tech Green Taxiing Grounding Harness Design Hazard Analysis health monitoring heat shrink tubing high current high Frequency high speed data cable High Voltage History Hot Stamping Humidity Variation ICAs IEC60172 IEEE Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Insulation insulation resistance IPC-D-620 ISO 17025 Certified Lab Kapton Laser Marking life limited parts life projection Lightning Maintenance Maintenance costs Mandrel measurement Mechanical Testing MECSIP MIL-C-38999 MIL-C-85485 MIL-DTL-17 MIL-DTL-3885G MIL-DTL-38999 MIL-E-25499 MIL-HDBK MIL-HDBK-1646 MIL-HDBK-217 MIL-HDBK-454 MIL-HDBK-516 MIL-HDBK-522 MIL-HDBK-525 MIL-HDBK-683 MIL-STD-1560 MIL-STD-1798 MIL-STD-464 MIL-T-7928 MIL-T-81490 MIL-W-22759/87 MIL-W-5088 Military 5088 modeling MS3320 NASA NEMA27500 No Fault Found off gassing Outgassing Overheating of Wire Harness Parallel Arcing part selection Performance physical hazard assessment Physical Testing polyimdie Polyimide-PTFE Power over Ethernet Power systems predictive maintenance Presentation Probability of Failure Product Quality Radiation Red Plague Corrosion Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) regulations relays Reliability Research Resistance Rewiring Project Risk Assessment SAE Secondary Harness Protection Separation Requirements Series Arcing Service Life Extension Severe Wind and Moisture-Prone (SWAMP) Severity of Failure Shield Shielding signal cable silver plated wire smoke Solid State Circuit Breaker Space Certified Wires Splice standards stored energy supportability Sustainment Temperature Rating Temperature Variation Test methods Test Pricing Testing Thermal Circuit Breaker Thermal Endurance Thermal Index Thermal Shock Thermal Testing Tin plated conductors Troubleshooting TWA800 UAVs USAF verification Visual Inspection voltage white paper whitelisting Wire Ampacity Wire Certification Wire Comparison wire damage wire failure wire performance wire properties Wire System wire testing Wire Verification wiring components work unit code

Light Weight and Normal Weight Wire Constructions

Testing & Assessment

Saving weight is a large part of any aircraft design. Naturally, the electrical system is not exempt from the goal of shaving off a couple of pounds. This often comes in the form of looking for lighter connectors, lighter clamps, and also lighter wire constructions. Those that have done this have undoubtedly come across two classifications of wire construction: “Normal weight” and “light weight”. Of course, if the EWIS has to go on a diet, then the “light weight” construction looks like a good substitute for the “normal weight”… after all, why would the wire be called “light weight” if not for satisfying weight requirements.

As with all parts of the EWIS, going to the light weight construction is not a simple swap. There are performance changes and requirements that must be addressed with making the change.

Dimension comparison between a light weight and normal weight 20AWG wire construction.

High Level

The difference between light weight and normal constructions is narrowed down to the insulation thickness. Comparing a 20AWG normal weight wire to a 20AWG light weight wire, the conductor size may remain the same, but the insulation thickness will not. In light weight constructions, to reduce the weight, the insulation thickness is decreased. In many cases, the light weight construction will have a wall thickness of 5 – 7 mils with the normal weight construction having a construction greater than 7 mils.

Save weight, lose what?

As with everything in engineering, there is a tradeoff for everything done. The use of the light weight wire construction is not without costs. For this example, we shall compare the performance requirements of AS22759/193 and /195. These are the light weight and normal weight variants (respectively) of the smooth surface PTFE-Polyimide construction with silver-plated extra high strength copper alloy conductor.

The following table shows the list of tests that are required for both construction types and have the same requirements.

Test

Requirement

Impulse Test Voltage

Same

High Frequency Test Voltage

Same

Insulation State of Sinter

Same

Lamination Sealing

Same

Insulation Blocking

Same

Shrinkage

Same

Insulation Resistance

Same

Wet Dielectric Voltage

Same

Insulation Strip Force

Same

UV Laser Contrast

Same

Finished Wire Identification

Same

Thermal Shock

Same

Thermal Mechanical Resistance (life cycle)

Same

Humidity Resistance

Same

Fluid Resistance

Same

Smoke Resistance

Same

Flame Resistance

Same

Wet Arc Resistance

Same

Dry Arc Resistance

Same

Dynamic Cut Through

Lower requirements on light weight construction

Force Hydrolysis

Same

Longevity Resistance (thermal index)

Same

Abrasion Resistance

Lower requirements on light weight construction

With the exception of two tests (dynamic cut through and abrasion resistance), both the light weight wire and normal weight wire share a common test basis. This makes sense that the chemical and thermal testing requirements are the same for both of the two wire constructions; the insulating materials are the same and so is the conductor. However, it is important to note that while the performance requirements are the same, this does not mean that they are the same.

For example, 5 mils of insulation will have lower dielectric strength than the same insulation if the thickness is doubled to 10 mils. Slowly increasing the voltage until the insulation is breached would undoubtedly find a lower threshold voltage for the 5mil wall thickness.

This also gives an insight into the performance of normal weight constructions. Even with a reduction of 20 – 30% of insulation thickness due to a physical trauma like abrasion, notch, or crushing, a normal weight construction would still be able to meet or exceed the performance requirements (given that a light weight construction is already thinner, made of the same materials, and has the same performance level).

What about Other Tests?

Other tests listed in the AS4373 but are not included in the qualification for the AS22759/193 and /195 constructions would similarly show performance differences between the wires. These include:

This is not to say that the performance differences are significant in every application, but there are applications where these factors should be addressed before selecting a light or normal weight wire construction.

Restriction of Light Weight

With the differences identified, next comes the application differences. The wiring bible of AS50881 is a starting point for this review. A casual reader of the AS50881 does not point to a limitation on the use of light weight wire constructions; there is no explicit limitation except that in section 3.8 “Wiring Selection” it states that, “the wire shall be selected in accordance with Appendix A of this specification”. Digging into the AS50881 Appendix A finds that there are two groups of wires, those that are permitted for use in open harness construction (with no additional sleeving protection) and protected harnesses (additional harness protection).

Those wires that are permitted for open wire harness construction are exclusively normal weight constructions while the protected harnesses may use either normal weight or light weight constructions. The light weight constructions may also be used in cables so long as the cables have an additional jacket.

And thus, determining the weight benefit of light weight constructions becomes more complicated. Before harness assembly, the clear winner for weight is the wire harness using light weight wire constructions, but after a secondary sleeving is added, the performance is not as clear. Since secondary harness protection comes in many shapes, sizes, and weights, not to mention the potential need to change clamp sizes, additional cost-benefit calculations are needed.

Wrap Up

Light weight wire constructions are a suitable alternative for those seeking to reduce wire weight, but their application requires calculating the additional factors of harness protection and/or using light weight wires in cables.

For those seeking to quantify the performance difference and get data applicable to their application, contact Lectromec. Our ISO 17025:2017 accredited lab can perform nearly all of the testing needed for comparative performance evaluations. We are here to help.

Michael Traskos

Michael Traskos

President, Lectromec

Michael has been involved in wire degradation and failure assessments for more than a decade. He has worked on dozens of projects assessing the reliability and qualification of EWIS components. Michael is an FAA DER with a delegated authority covering EWIS certification and the chairman of the SAE AE-8A EWIS installation committee.