DOC
WEC-ART-008
CLASS
Selection · Material
TIER
Layer 3
Technical Article · Selection Guide

Nylon, Aluminium, Stainless Steel:
Which Material for Your Cable Cleat?

Published 2026-05-30Read time ~5 minCorrosion ref. C5-M
RELATED
Short-circuit forceSelection paramsTrefoil formation
§ 01
Introduction
§ 02
Nylon PA66
§ 03
Aluminium alloy
§ 04
Stainless steel
§ 05
Comparison
§ 06
Non-magnetic rule
§ 07
Summary

Material selection is routinely treated as a cost-tier decision — nylon is cheap, stainless is expensive, pick accordingly. In wind energy, that framing misses two things that actually matter: the corrosion environment determines service life, and whether the installation carries single-core AC cables determines a hard electromagnetic constraint that cost cannot override.

Nylon
PA66 Engineering Grade
Mechanical strengthLower
Corrosion resistanceMedium
WeightLightest
CostLowest
Non-magnetic✓ Yes
Aluminium
Cast Alloy (LM6 etc.)
Mechanical strengthHigh
Corrosion resistanceMedium (treat)
WeightMedium
CostMedium
Non-magnetic✓ Yes
Stainless
Austenitic 304 / 316
Mechanical strengthHigh
Corrosion resistanceExcellent (316 best)
WeightHeaviest
CostHighest
Non-magnetic✓ Yes (austenitic)

§ 01  Nylon (PA66): lightweight, insulating, UV-dependent

Glass-fibre-reinforced PA66 is the standard low-cost option. Its advantages — light weight, electrical insulation, no magnetic behaviour — make it well-suited to sheltered low-fault-current circuits.

Its limitations are clear: mechanical strength is lower than either metal, ruling it out for high fault-current circuits at extended spacing; it has a working temperature ceiling; and plain nylon will embrittle under prolonged UV exposure — outdoor or exposed tower locations require a UV-stabilised (weathering) grade.

Typical applications — Sheltered indoor runs, low fault-current control circuits, weight-sensitive installations where the short-circuit duty does not govern material choice.

§ 02  Aluminium alloy: strength without magnetic penalty

Cast aluminium — LM6 and similar alloys — combines high mechanical strength with significantly lower weight than stainless steel. It is inherently non-magnetic, making it fully compatible with single-core AC cable installations without the induction heating risk of ferrous materials.

Its limitation is corrosion resistance in aggressive environments. Bare aluminium pits in salt-laden or highly humid conditions; anodising or coating is required for offshore or coastal installations.

Typical applications — Onshore wind turbines, medium-to-high fault-current circuits, installations where weight matters and the corrosion environment is below C5-M.

§ 03  316 Stainless steel: when corrosion is the governing constraint

When the environment is the primary design driver, austenitic stainless steel is the answer. Grade 316 contains 2–3% molybdenum, which dramatically improves resistance to chloride pitting — the dominant corrosion mechanism in offshore and coastal environments. At C5-M corrosion category (marine), 316 is the standard selection; 304 is not recommended without additional surface treatment.

304 and 316 are both austenitic and essentially non-magnetic (relative permeability μᵣ ≈ 1.003–1.05), satisfying the single-core constraint alongside the corrosion requirement.

Typical applications — Offshore wind, coastal high-corrosion sites, installations requiring maximum service life with minimal maintenance.

§ 04  The critical rule: non-magnetic material for all single-core AC circuits

This is the most technically important — and most often violated — material selection rule for cable cleats.

A single-core AC conductor is surrounded by an alternating magnetic field. If a ferromagnetic material (mild steel, galvanised steel, or any steel with significant magnetic permeability) encircles it, that material forms a magnetic circuit. The alternating field induces continuous hysteresis and eddy-current losses in the cleat body — the cleat heats continuously in service, potentially reaching temperatures that damage the cable sheath and adjacent structure.

Magnetic vs non-magnetic cleat material around a single-core AC cable
FIG. 01 · Ferromagnetic cleat encircling a single-core cable generates continuous heat from hysteresis and eddy-current losses; non-magnetic materials avoid this entirely
PROHIBITED — Mild steel, galvanised steel, or any ferromagnetic material for cleats encircling single-core AC cables.

✓ Acceptable — Aluminium alloy, austenitic stainless steel (304 or 316), engineering nylon (PA66). All three are non-magnetic.

This rule applies to single-core installations regardless of formation — single-cable cleats and trefoil cleats alike. Three-core multicore cables present much less risk because the three-phase magnetic fields largely cancel externally.

§ 05  Decision summary

Compress the decision to one rule: match material to environment first, then confirm non-magnetic for single-core circuits.

  • Sheltered, low-fault, weight/cost sensitive → UV-stabilised PA66 nylon;
  • Onshore, medium-to-high fault current → aluminium alloy;
  • Offshore / coastal C5-M → 316 stainless steel;
  • Any single-core installation (any of the above) → confirm material is non-magnetic.

For the full six-parameter selection framework that places material within the complete decision, see Cable Cleat Selection Parameters.

[1]C5-M — ISO 12944 corrosion category; marine/high-salinity [2]316 SS contains 2–3% Mo; significantly better chloride-pitting resistance than 304 [3]Austenitic SS: μᵣ ≈ 1.003–1.05 — essentially non-magnetic [4]Short-circuit force: context for material strength requirement [5]Six-parameter selection framework