do we really need AFCIs

[don_resqcapt19]

... Sometime as I think back may it be that both SqD and C-H were in a race to see could get an AFCI to the market first? That may have influenced the push to get into the market.

As I recall, only C-H had a breaker ready to go at the time the 99 code was published, and because the code cannot require a product that is only available from a single source the rule was placed in the 99 code with an effective date of 1/1/2002.

 

[templdl]

As I recall, only C-H had a breaker ready to go at the time the 99 code was published, and because the code cannot require a product that is only available from a single source the rule was placed in the 99 code with an effective date of 1/1/2002.

I see from and old file that I have that SqD, C-H, as well as GE were releasing their versions of the AFCI in mid 1999. My records show that back in the 1996 code cycle there was an attempt to reduce the mag. Trip setting for residential breakers which the industry rejected because of a nuisance tripping issue. As a side not SqD does have a low mag as std with a high mag. Optional. C-h has just the opposite. I have found no literature which states that one provides significantly more protection than the other.
The GE document that I have states that in 1997 the NEC code panel 2 amended the 1997 NEC to require the use of the AFCI in 15 and 20a resi. Bedroom circuits beginning 2002. What is so awesome is that have a promotional document which boosts of some feathers that haven't been provided to date.
My file includes a document that the consumer products safety commission (CPSC) teamed up with UL way back in 1994 and electrical equipment manufactures like " SqD" to study ways to reduce the number of resi. electric fires to make homes safer.
This document appears to have been published by SqD.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I see from and old file that I have that SqD, C-H, as well as GE were releasing their versions of the AFCI in mid 1999. My records show that back in the 1996 code cycle there was an attempt to reduce the mag. Trip setting for residential breakers which the industry rejected because of a nuisance tripping issue. As a side not SqD does have a low mag as std with a high mag. Optional. C-h has just the opposite. I have found no literature which states that one provides significantly more protection than the other.
The GE document that I have states that in 1997 the NEC code panel 2 amended the 1997 NEC to require the use of the AFCI in 15 and 20a resi. Bedroom circuits beginning 2002. What is so awesome is that have a promotional document which boosts of some feathers that haven't been provided to date.
My file includes a document that the consumer products safety commission (CPSC) teamed up with UL way back in 1994 and electrical equipment manufactures like " SqD" to study ways to reduce the number of resi. electric fires to make homes safer.
This document appears to have been published by SqD.

I just assumed that (apparently incorrectly), based on the following from comment 2-68 for the 1999 cycle, that CH was the only one that had a breaker ready to go. The comment was from CH employee.

.... With respect to Panel member questions concerning availability of this product, this technology, is now available with Cutler-Hammer having gained UL listings for "Circuit Breakers also Classified for Mitigating the Effects of Arcing Faults" in December 1996 and July 1997. CSA certification was obtained in October 1997. The product was released commercially in September. The present AFCIs have similar dimensions to conventional Curler-Hammer breakers and can therefore serve both retrofits and new installations.
With respect to questions concerning availability for the load centers and panelboards of multiple manufacturers, it is noted that the UL listing is to UL Subject 1699 which is based on a draft standard developed by a NEMA Molded Case Circuit Breaker Task Force with input from UL. Five major circuit breaker manufacturers participated in the draft standard's development, and multiple manufacturers can certainly be expected to have listed products by the proposed January 1 st, 2001 effective date. ...

 

[jmellc]

Good luck with that, the inspector in the video was from Gary, the fire was in Indianapolis, he would not have that information even if it was recorded but I bet it wasn't.

I wonder how the Gary inspector became part of the story? I guess the reporter sought out any officials he could find that would talk to him? Is Gary close to Indy?

 

[peter d]

I wonder how the Gary inspector became part of the story? I guess the reporter sought out any officials he could find that would talk to him? Is Gary close to Indy?

Gary is near Chicago, Indianapolis is in central Indiana. They are not close together at all. :happyno:

 

[Fliz]

Interesting video I found on YT about Indiana and the AFCI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os2DdhXJHzc

I'll let you guys comment.

I'd like to join the "afcis don't work so they aren't necessary" but tests like this show that bandwagon tells you more about Indiana and its members than it tells you about AFCIs.

 

[jmellc]

I'd like to join the "afcis don't work so they aren't necessary" but tests like this show that bandwagon tells you more about Indiana and its members than it tells you about AFCIs.

I still say back stabbing should have been outlawed before AFCI's were even up for discussion. Anyone with service experience knows it is an inferior wiring method that should not be used. Some contractors will not admit it becuase they profit more by doing it. For an inspector or fire marshall not to even question wiring methods after a fire is a dereliction of duty IMHO.

 

[jmellc]

I could not find a direct e mail for the fire marshall so I sent one to him @indianapolis FD email on website. I also challenged him on the video itself. Wonder if I will get a response.

 

[gaelectric]

So we're at over 80 replies on this thread and not even one that has any love for the AFCI breakers. Even the one guy that thinks the technology is awesome says they have no practicality.

BTW. I've seen just as many bad connections on loose screw terminals as I have ever seen on quick wires going bad. I think it's workmanship more than the method. JMO

 

[jmellc]

So we're at over 80 replies on this thread and not even one that has any love for the AFCI breakers. Even the one guy that thinks the technology is awesome says they have no practicality.

BTW. I've seen just as many bad connections on loose screw terminals as I have ever seen on quick wires going bad. I think it's workmanship more than the method. JMO

I have seen screws loosen up or that were not snugged to begin with. But very few in comparison to stabs that have come loose or arced out the device.

 

[GoldDigger]

I have seen screws loosen up or that were not snugged to begin with. But very few in comparison to stabs that have come loose or arced out the device.

Is there any data on whether using the screwdriver release slot on a backstabbed connector has any chance of bending the internals to the point where the new connection will be less reliable than the original? Assuming you do not actually break the plastic, that is.

 

[tortuga]

Ok I read the study. Funny it mentions the 1969 code change that made equipment grounds larger, there was no science behind that code change that I can see. I would like to see us go with the Canadians on ECG sizing and just use NM-D cable.

UL did an investigation on hammer and staple damage to NM cable that indicates that the arc from that type of damage is too short and has too little energy to start a fire.

The study has some weak points like they used a 120V arc limited to SCCA of 100A or 12Kw in power, I can find receptacles with SCCA up to 900A or 108Kw arc potential almost everywhere.
It seems proven that the ONLY benifit from AFCI is from the RCD or Residual Current Device built into the breaker. What manufacturer has eliminated this?

<snip>
a GFP and faster acting breakers can do the same thing that the AFCI's can now do as they are now designed, the RCD system that Europe has had in use for some years probably has done more for the safety then the AFCI's have ever done,

How about amending 210.12 to allow a RCD as an alternitive to AFCI protection? RCD's are used like the Metric system almost everywhere else the cost and research could be shared world wide rather than making somthing for a market as small as the North American.

<snip>
they come up short in a few points, with out a EGC in a cord they are not effective for protecting after the receptacle, also since the RCD is in the mains (main breaker) the whole house goes dark rather then just having them on the branch circuits, as well as no extra protection for line to line or line to neutral faults, as far as for faster acting breakers goes well we all know the problem with motor and transformer loads and a faster acting breaker just doesn't work in these cases.<snip>

The RCD's are Main and branch breakers like a GFCI breaker. The miliamp (ma) trip of the RCD depends on the breaker size and the type of protection required. A Mains breaker would have a 300ma setting where branch breakers would have 10ma to 30ma.
Here is a summary of the requirements http://www.etci.ie/docs/ET214.pdf

And if we have such good protection now with AFCI what about eliminating 210.6 and allowing 230V to ground outlets in dwellings as long as the outlets are RCD or AFCI protected in the occupancies that need it?

 

[kwired]

It seems proven that the ONLY benifit from AFCI is from the RCD or Residual Current Device built into the breaker. What manufacturer has eliminated this?

I have not seen them myself, but I think I read on this forum that General Electric AFCI's no longer have the RCD component, and because of this can also be used on multiwire branch circuits.

 

[al hildenbrand]

General Electric AFCI's no longer have the RCD component, and because of this can also be used on multiwire branch circuits.

This is very true. I've installed a fair number of them over the last two years and not had any call backs that are worth mentioning. Just little things like the home owner learning not to put undimmable CFLs in a torchiere floor lamp with an integral incandescent only dimmer. . .

The GE single pole AFCI on one leg of a multiwire branch circuit runs perfectly (just wish I could actually test that statement!).

 

[electrofelon]

it seems that most of the blame on this thread for afci's has been toward the manufacturers but lets not let the NFPA off the hook.I am typically not a conspiracy theorist and I am a pretty logical person. The way AFCI's have been eased into the code makes no logical sense. if they are so great require them everywhere. if they aren't don't require them anywhere. Bedrooms? What about all the other circuits passing thru the framing of the bedroom? and just the bedroom thing in general doesn't really make much sense to me. eliminate backstabs and spend a little time enforcing proper wire not connections per the manufacturer's instructions and you will stop way more fires than arc faults ever will IMO

 

[kwired]

it seems that most of the blame on this thread for afci's has been toward the manufacturers but lets not let the NFPA off the hook.I am typically not a conspiracy theorist and I am a pretty logical person. The way AFCI's have been eased into the code makes no logical sense. if they are so great require them everywhere. if they aren't don't require them anywhere. Bedrooms? What about all the other circuits passing thru the framing of the bedroom? and just the bedroom thing in general doesn't really make much sense to me. eliminate backstabs and spend a little time enforcing proper wire not connections per the manufacturer's instructions and you will stop way more fires than arc faults ever will IMO

If someone would have invested as much time and money as AFCI manufacturers likely did into convincing NFPA the other side of AFCI's we may not have them in the NEC. Who is going to spend that kind of time or money? What do they have to gain (or lose) from doing so? AFCI manufacturers have a lot invested in R&D of a product, if they don't get it into code they will never recover any of that, sure seems like a great incentive to invest even more to convince NFPA it needs to be in code.

 

[mbrooke]

About the only place where I can see AFCI logic being of benefit would be in distribution reclosers and MV feeder breakers that protect overhead lines, not residential or commercial power systems. In my opinion AFCIs are not needed and at this point are nothing but a gimmick. They were put in the code as a way to increase profits for the residential side of power distribution manufacturers. Behind all pseudo science and deception is monetary gain. The only thing of benefit is the 30ma GFCI protection (that only some have), in that wiring errors and failing equipment are singled out. But the arc logic part is what more than often causes headaches for consumers. And the cost of them alone is a pain, and that excludes the extra home runs since MWBC cant be used. Much bigger areas exist in the improvement of residential electrical systems than AFCI logic in the OCPs. I did read the UL paper, and in my opinion their reasoning is correct and makes good sense.:thumbsup:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

it seems that most of the blame on this thread for afci's has been toward the manufacturers but lets not let the NFPA off the hook. ...

In general the NFPA does not write the NEC. The NEC is developed by the code making panel's action on proposals that have been submitted.

 

[mbrooke]

Ok I read the study. Funny it mentions the 1969 code change that made equipment grounds larger, there was no science behind that code change that I can see. I would like to see us go with the Canadians on ECG sizing and just use NM-D cable.

As would I, the smaller EGC would save copper and it works well in Canada. I think the reasoning behind it might come from the code making panel being worried about hacksters useing the EGC as a neutral. They will do it anyway, might as well lessen the risk?


The study has some weak points like they used a 120V arc limited to SCCA of 100A or 12Kw in power, I can find receptacles with SCCA up to 900A or 108Kw arc potential almost everywhere.
It seems proven that the ONLY benifit from AFCI is from the RCD or Residual Current Device built into the breaker. What manufacturer has eliminated this?

I agree with the RCD making a positive difference. I know GE has taken out the GFCI/RCD part so their AFCIs will work on shared neutral circuits, however Im sure others may have done this as well. LINK:

http://www.geindustrial.com/publibr...TNR=Application and Technical|DET-719|generic


How about amending 210.12 to allow a RCD as an alternitive to AFCI protection? RCD's are used like the Metric system almost everywhere else the cost and research could be shared world wide rather than making somthing for a market as small as the North American.

I think GFCI/RCD on all circuits (except the dedicated ones serving furnaces and refrigerators) should be the alternative to AFCI. RCD solves more problems than an AFCI. I however think the RCD should be on the branch breakers, not on a main or sub pain feeding multiple branch circuits like in the UK.



The RCD's are Main and branch breakers like a GFCI breaker. The miliamp (ma) trip of the RCD depends on the breaker size and the type of protection required. A Mains breaker would have a 300ma setting where branch breakers would have 10ma to 30ma.
Here is a summary of the requirements http://www.etci.ie/docs/ET214.pdf

And if we have such good protection now with AFCI what about eliminating 210.6 and allowing 230V to ground outlets in dwellings as long as the outlets are RCD or AFCI protected in the occupancies that need it?

I think that should be eliminated as well. 230 and 240 have big advantages over 120. Fewer circuits, less copper and more power for appliances; ie 1800 watts will no longer be the limit for appliances, 4800 wattss will be. 240 volt power already exists, so changing over would be easy. Older installs will just use the 240 already there while newer ones will go 240/415Y TN-S 60Hz like most of Europe (50Hz). The existing romex would see no problems. That could theoretically cut copper use in half to 1/4 in residential services and homeruns. A range circuit for example could be done with 14/3 w/g assuming a 415v 3 phase supply instead of 8/3 or 6/3. Cook tops can do 14-2 and Cothes dryers could 12-2 single phase. A branch circuit can now serve 2 bedrooms instead of say one. Major savings. And of course appliance manufactures would have to change much because they do it every day for the rest of the world.

I like your post above, Good points!

 

[jmellc]

it seems that most of the blame on this thread for afci's has been toward the manufacturers but lets not let the NFPA off the hook.I am typically not a conspiracy theorist and I am a pretty logical person. The way AFCI's have been eased into the code makes no logical sense. if they are so great require them everywhere. if they aren't don't require them anywhere. Bedrooms? What about all the other circuits passing thru the framing of the bedroom? and just the bedroom thing in general doesn't really make much sense to me. eliminate backstabs and spend a little time enforcing proper wire not connections per the manufacturer's instructions and you will stop way more fires than arc faults ever will IMO

I like the way you think.

I found out awhile back that a well known code instructor (not part of this org) had tried to get contractors to fight AFCI while they still could. I contacted him and asked where to sign up for the battle. He wrote back that he had given up the fight. He had spent too much personal and co. money on it. Said he could not get anyone on board. That is a lot of the trouble, that people in our trade will debate and fight something among ourselves but we will not take the fight to the authorities. I guess many of us think we have no chance. Torches and pitchforks can go a long way sometimes though.