"Old" Siemens Brand Feeder AFCIs better than CAFCIs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

lah293

Member
Location
Waynesboro, PA
Hi All. New to the forum. I'm particularly interested in AFCI protection and their ability (or inability) to protect against series arcs due to poor connections at receptacles and switches.

Like most, I've been led to believe that CAFCIs are the be all, end all to arc fault protection. They claim to protect against series arcs as well as parallel arcs. I came across a great read by Dr. Joseph Engel that theorizes the older Branch Feeder type AFCIs are actually better at detecting series arcing due to poor connections because some older Branch Feeder AFCIs utilize (unadvertised) GFCI protection in the range of 30mA. This detects Neutral to Ground faults - which can cause Glowing Connections - and opens the circuit whereas CAFCIs only detect Line to Neutral and Line to Ground Arcs (parallel). Yes, CAFCIs claim to detect series arcs but I'm no longer a believer.

The latest code says we can't use the Branch Feeder AFCIs and must use CAFCIs where applicable. I'd like to do some controlled testing in the shop regarding Dr. Engel's theory...Does anyone know if the older Siemens Branch Feeder AFCI's have 30mA GFCI protection (like the C-H Branch Feeder AFCIs Dr. Engel was using)?

Thanks in advance!
 

mopowr steve

Senior Member
Location
NW Ohio
Occupation
Electrical contractor
If memory serves me right, Yes they did. I was told at the time that it was inherent to the design.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Welcome to the Forum.

Does anyone know if the older Siemens Branch Feeder AFCI's have 30mA GFCI protection?

All four manufacturer's Branch Feeder AFCIs had ground fault protection. The trip threshold varied from model to model, and as I recall, went as high as 50 milliAmps.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Yes, CAFCIs claim to detect series arcs but I'm no longer a believer.

Hello & Welcome to the Forum...

Just an FYI: the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, IAEI, NECA, UL, FPRF, and ESFI would all disagree with your assessment and the findings in Dr. Engels paper. The UL 1699 standard is consensus developed and peer/public reviewed. There is no conspiracy or impropriety in the development of AFCI technology, the product standard, or the requirements outlined in the NEC.

Every single product standard in existence have those that support and those that oppose the requirements therein. A dissenting view is not necessarily wrong, its just not consensus. If you have ever attended a code adoption hearing, city council meeting, committee meeting, or sat around a table having a meal with family and friends, you know that your views are not always the one that everyone agrees with. Even when you truly believe you have the correct view.

This Forum would likely not exist if everyone had a unanimous and agreed understand of the NEC and other issues associated with the electroindustry.

Just saying...
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Hello & Welcome to the Forum...

Just an FYI: the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, IAEI, NECA, UL, FPRF, and ESFI would all disagree with your assessment and the findings in Dr. Engels paper. The UL 1699 standard is consensus developed and peer/public reviewed. There is no conspiracy or impropriety in the development of AFCI technology, the product standard, or the requirements outlined in the NEC.

Other than the fact that AFCI manufacturers outright lied when they said they had a combination AFCI available more than a decade before that product actually existed. That is the definition of impropriety.

Again, I find it laughable that you continue to defend AFCI's and manufacturers of them when your very livelihood depends on it. Money and profit always has a way of biasing ones view.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Hello & Welcome to the Forum...

Just an FYI: the CPSC, NFPA, NEMA, IAEI, NECA, UL, FPRF, and ESFI would all disagree with your assessment and the findings in Dr. Engels paper. The UL 1699 standard is consensus developed and peer/public reviewed. There is no conspiracy or impropriety in the development of AFCI technology, the product standard, or the requirements outlined in the NEC.


All associations affiliated with billion dollar corporations. Of course they will deny such, otherwise it opens them to liability. And if anything NRTL docs show how difficult (if not impossible) for arcing to take place at 120 volts.



Courtesy of Mr. "Pharon", I much appreciate your dedication :)


__________________________________________________ __
2-65 Log #1274 NEC-P02 Final Action: Hold
(210.12)
__________________________________________________ __
Submitter: James W. Carpenter, International Association of Electrical
Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 2-153
Recommendation: We support the panel’s action for rejection of this proposal.

Substantiation: AFCI technology was first introduced in the early 1990s and has been included in the code development process in the 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 editions. AFCI requirements have been a progressive process, as well as substantiated over the past four NEC Code cycles.

Accordingly, this Code Panel has gradually expanded the AFCI protection
requirements over numerous code cycles with the intent to increase electrical safety in the home, but do so on a gradual basis. However, the expansion of AFCI requirements didn’t come without extensive deliberation by the panel, based on sound technical substantiation and data.

The following past ROPs & ROCs below clearly establish the Panel’s long
history and technical discussions, which has resulted in an equitable code that ensures a minimum level of safety.

NFPA 70 1999 Proposals 2-128, 2-129, 2-130
NFPA 70 1999 Comments 2-56, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-85
NFPA 70 2002 Proposals 2-102, 2-103, 2-106, 2-110, 2-112, 2-113, 2 115, 2-116
NFPA 70 2002 Comments 2-71, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82
NFPA 70 2005 Proposals 2-123, 2-133, 2-134, 2-142, 2-146, 2-149, 2 150, 2-134a, 2-161, 2-167
NFPA 70 2005 Comments 2-87a, 2-93, 2-105, 2-108, 2-110
NFPA 70 2008 Proposals 2-142, 2-126
NFPA 70 2008 Comments 2-95, 2-129, 2-137

As stated by CMP 2 Members F. Coluccio, R. LaRocca and J. Pauley, acceptance of this proposal would remove AFCI protection for parallel arcing faults from the first portion of the branch circuit, which is in direct conflict to past panel actions to increase safety. Rejecting this proposal will ensure the level of safety for these branch circuits are not reduced.

The submitter’s substantiation lacks merit as the Standard for AFCIs, UL 1699, doesn’t consider as a component, the proximity to an arcing source.

Regarding costs associated with metal raceways or cables, the submitter has not provided any cost analysis or data to demonstrate what is too cost prohibitive. In addition, CMP 2’s panel statement from the 2002 ROP (2-106) further supports this concept:

“AFCIs Listed to UL 1699 are available, and the standard addresses efficacy, unwanted (nuisance) operation and operation inhibition. Cost should not be an issue for the panel to resolve. The panel reviewed a large amount of data, heard presentations on various positions on AFCIs, and received public comment on the topic. Upon that review, the panel arrived at the requirements in the 1999 NEC and continues to support that established position.”

With respect to the state adoption, states throughout the U.S. continue to recognize and adopt the important safety provisions included in the 2008 NEC, despite the opposition from some industry groups. The panel needs to rise above the political battlefield and continue to move forward with what is in the best interest of safety for citizens.

In the panel statement ROP 2-166, the Code-Making Panel stresses that “AFCI protection is for protection from fire ignition for branch circuits.” Consequently, with this statement and others in the past... the entire branch circuit shall be protected.”

In the panel statement from ROP 2-155: “AFCI devices are widely available in the market and the panel notes that the cost has already come down since the introduction of AFCIs into the 1999 NEC.” Therefore, cost should not be considered.

With regards to the substantiation that “wiring insulation has dramatically improved in the past 50 years.” This is a consideration that should be addressed from the original proposal in 1999 and reviewed as to the comparison of Consumer Product Safety Commission fundamental data as to eliminate the AFCI requirement completely based on the introduction of 90 degree C insulation.

As indicated with this substantiation, the crisis with home structure fire civilian death, it appears that “Cord and Plugs” cord-and-attachment-plug connection accounts for the significant share in 2002-2005 concerning this issue. If it is the cords of appliances and equipment that are of apprehension, then AFCI and/or leakage-current detector-interrupter protection may need to be applied to the product standard as with NEC section 440.64 and addressed by Code-Making Panels 17 and 18.

Should we disregard the past panel action concerning AFCI outlets many other consequences will occur. This will challenge the wisdom that the electrical industry’s leaders have credible knowledge. We have discussed, assessed, informed, and legislated the concept of the entire branch circuit being protected as referenced from zone 1 Consumer Product Safety Commission study, where 36% of residential electrical fires occur. This change will provide the information for state and local jurisdictions to amend this entire section from the National Electrical Code.




Every single product standard in existence have those that support and those that oppose the requirements therein. A dissenting view is not necessarily wrong, its just not consensus. If you have ever attended a code adoption hearing, city council meeting, committee meeting, or sat around a table having a meal with family and friends, you know that your views are not always the one that everyone agrees with. Even when you truly believe you have the correct view.

Facts can not be argued, espeically when the other side makes claims without substiation. To this day I have yet to see evdience that arcing is behind 30,000 home fires, or why short circuits were relabelled as "arc faults". BPH, this is a very educational video, I hope you will take the time to watch it :):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxfsOUTkUg


This Forum would likely not exist if everyone had a unanimous and agreed understand of the NEC and other issues associated with the electroindustry.

Just saying...

I think we can agre here :)
 

lah293

Member
Location
Waynesboro, PA
Thank you all for the great responses to my question. I didn't mean to start any kind of conspiracy theory. I was hoping to simulate the test Dr. Engel performed in my spare time to see if it has any credibility. I will try to find one of the older Siemens Branch Feeder AFCIs to see if the "unadvertised" GFCI protection has any merit. Afterwards I guess I'll use it as a paperweight. I also have several of the latest generation Siemens CAFCIs on hand so I will try it with one of those too.

Mbrooke I will definitely check out that video link you posted. I tend to agree with your assessment...series arcs from poor connections in a 120 circuit probably don't cause even a tiny fraction of house fires. Even Engel himself had to intentionally cause a continuous arc by jiggling the intentionally loose connection. He didn't tighten the screw at all. More house fires occur when Harry Homeowner tries to power an entire basement by running a 16ga extension cord from the Dollar Store using a 15amp upstairs receptacle.

As for "real life" I will of course ONLY install CAFCIs where applicable. Thanks again!
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Thank you all for the great responses to my question. I didn't mean to start any kind of conspiracy theory. I was hoping to simulate the test Dr. Engel performed in my spare time to see if it has any credibility. I will try to find one of the older Siemens Branch Feeder AFCIs to see if the "unadvertised" GFCI protection has any merit. Afterwards I guess I'll use it as a paperweight. I also have several of the latest generation Siemens CAFCIs on hand so I will try it with one of those too.


Relax, you haven't started anything. :) As is the definition of conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful". Since no one has accused the CMPs or manufactures of intentionally trying to do harm, conspiracy would not be the right word.


FWIW (and not trying to bias you test results), but GFP was actually added to AFCI in order to pass UL1699 since arc signature analysis was not mature enough to catch all dangerous arc simulation in the lab.

GFP is the only viable function, it does not nuisance trip while catching many wiring defects and code violations that arc signature analysis will miss. In 230 volt countries where arc faults are a legit concern, RCDs (GFP) are used as the first line of defense since arcing in damaged cables is known to always take place line to ground (voltage here is 240 volts L-G btw):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPlELdH0KeM


And despite the above installation being very old lacking RCDs, the fault still managed to blow the 16 amp fuse, until of course someone decided to put a larger 32 amp version. :roll:







Mbrooke I will definitely check out that video link you posted. I tend to agree with your assessment...series arcs from poor connections in a 120 circuit probably don't cause even a tiny fraction of house fires. Even Engel himself had to intentionally cause a continuous arc by jiggling the intentionally loose connection. He didn't tighten the screw at all. More house fires occur when Harry Homeowner tries to power an entire basement by running a 16ga extension cord from the Dollar Store using a 15amp upstairs receptacle.

As for "real life" I will of course ONLY install CAFCIs where applicable. Thanks again!

Thanks :)


I agree, series arcs are not even a concern at 120 volts. The same makers of AFCIs openly admit this:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=174043



In fact Paschens law says the same:
 
Last edited:

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
In 230 V countries there are not two hots in any cable (at least for residential) so RCD is a more comprehensive protection than US GFCI.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Also, to sum the video with Paschens in the quote. The peak of 120 volts is 170 volts, while the peak of 240 volts 340 volts going over the actual threshold of 330 volts, hence why arc faults are a legit concern in 230 volt countries and US 277/480 volt services. The NEC was aware of the issue long ago hence why GFP is required for services 1000 amps and over having a voltage exceeding 150 volts to ground.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
In 230 V countries there are not two hots in any cable (at least for residential) so RCD is a more comprehensive protection than US GFCI.



Correct, the voltage is 230 nominal* line to neutral/ground making self sustained arcs a legitimate possibility, hence the mandatory requirement behind RCDs.



*By nominal the actual voltage ranges anywhere between 205 to 270 volts, so it is very possible to go over the 330 volt peak.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Thank you all for the great responses to my question. I didn't mean to start any kind of conspiracy theory. I was hoping to simulate the test Dr. Engel performed in my spare time to see if it has any credibility. I will try to find one of the older Siemens Branch Feeder AFCIs to see if the "unadvertised" GFCI protection has any merit. Afterwards I guess I'll use it as a paperweight. I also have several of the latest generation Siemens CAFCIs on hand so I will try it with one of those too.

Mbrooke I will definitely check out that video link you posted. I tend to agree with your assessment...series arcs from poor connections in a 120 circuit probably don't cause even a tiny fraction of house fires. Even Engel himself had to intentionally cause a continuous arc by jiggling the intentionally loose connection. He didn't tighten the screw at all. More house fires occur when Harry Homeowner tries to power an entire basement by running a 16ga extension cord from the Dollar Store using a 15amp upstairs receptacle.

As for "real life" I will of course ONLY install CAFCIs where applicable. Thanks again!

You have not started anything, but rather didn't know what you were jumping into. This is a good site so don't be concerned about the site in general, but this particular topic has much deeper roots then your recent new thread on the topic. You may just want to search this site for AFCI related topics and catch yourself up a little if you want to proceed in this conversation. Most of the things you have brought up are old news to those that have replied so far, but don't worry they will get you up to speed and have already started to.;)
 

lah293

Member
Location
Waynesboro, PA
Good point qwired I see this topic has been discussed quite a bit around here. It makes for a lively and informative conversation for a newcomer.

On a funny note, I suppose if (and I really don't) one subscribes to Dr. Engel's theory about GFCI in BF AFCIs offering "more" series AF protection AND wants to comply with the latest NEC (no more BF AFCIs)...he or she could always use a Dual Function CAFCI/GFCI breaker where CAFCIs are required and hopefully sleep really well at night. I would call this borderline overkill...

Thanks again!
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
Good point qwired I see this topic has been discussed quite a bit around here. It makes for a lively and informative conversation for a newcomer.

On a funny note, I suppose if (and I really don't) one subscribes to Dr. Engel's theory about GFCI in BF AFCIs offering "more" series AF protection AND wants to comply with the latest NEC (no more BF AFCIs)...he or she could always use a Dual Function CAFCI/GFCI breaker where CAFCIs are required and hopefully sleep really well at night. I would call this borderline overkill...

Thanks again!

Or common sense. The NEC should have just required GFCI protection on all 120 volt circuits and left it at that. Its not like GFCI protection will not eventually make it to all circuits as is.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
On a funny note, I suppose if (and I really don't) one subscribes to Dr. Engel's theory about GFCI in BF AFCIs offering "more" series AF protection AND wants to comply with the latest NEC (no more BF AFCIs)...he or she could always use a Dual Function CAFCI/GFCI breaker where CAFCIs are required and hopefully sleep really well at night. I would call this borderline overkill...

I work a lot with existing dwellings. Dwellings frequently including a core of Knob & Tube still in service on the original lighting circuits, along with BX, AC, Flex, Rigid Metal Conduit, EMT, NM, NM-B, and, lately, MC. . . ALL in a single dwelling, in most cases. The quality of installation of individual parts of the Premises Wiring (System) is highly suspect in probably 3/4 of the dwellings.

I am generally hired to install a new outlet or two, thus invoking the AFCI requirements. The more limited the area of AFCI coverage I install, the lower the possibility of a call-back for "AFCI tripping." That is, if I can ONLY put AFCI on the new wiring that I do, I am most likely to do so, trusting in my ability to install Premises Wiring that is good and stable while being continuously monitored by an AFCI.

Choosing to include ground fault protection included in the AFCI is an optional choice in cases where one can use the GE CAFCI. The GE CAFCI is pure arc-fault detection without any ground-fault detection. That's one less way I am possibly going to get a call-back, and the most likely way I am going to have a customer that is satisfied.

Here's the thing. ALL AFCIs are defined as working if they respond to their integral "TEST" button. Absolutely NO other test is recognized, for me as the installer, or for my inspector, as having ANY bearing on the testing of the AFCI. The successful operation of the TEST button defines the AFCI as working.

Whether the arc-fault detection is working, or not, I leave to the forensics investigator if property loss, injury or death brings them to investigate my installation. I will be championing the legal actions necessary to break down the manufacturer's stonewalls around just how their AFCI works.

The way I see it, the more pure CAFCI (without GFP) that is installed, the quicker a really messy product liability court action will result. That should help expose "the man behind the curtain."
 

lah293

Member
Location
Waynesboro, PA
Al that's a sad but true point you raise...I would liken it to learning through trial and error. Or incremental improvement to put a positive spin on it. The whole reason I started researching the GFCI + AFCI topic was to see if there is a realistic safety benefit as opposed to CAFCI alone.

Another member mentioned the future possibility of all 120v circuits requiring both types of protection. I could actually see that becoming a requirement in a future cycle. It's also brilliant from a business perspective. First we had GFCI, then two iterations of AFCI. Put them together and - looking back - a company would have made a great profit from "incremental improvement" and adoption in the various NECs over the years. If the concept of TFCI ever takes off (less likely) that would open up even more discussion and debate...and potential for manufacturers to profit.

Adding the GFCI component to AFCIs would detect neutral to ground faults and de-energize the circuit. It wouldn't actually detect any arcing because there wouldn't be any in that instance - it would eliminate the conditions that would cause the arc in the first place. A safety benefit for sure but limited in real-world experiences. Going back to an earlier post, the real world instances of arcing burning houses down is fairly rare...but that's why I posted my theoretical question in the Safety forum. Great discussion! I'll reply once I've had a chance to conduct my testing.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
It's also brilliant from a business perspective. First we had GFCI, then two iterations of AFCI. Put them together and - looking back - a company would have made a great profit from "incremental improvement" and adoption in the various NECs over the years. If the concept of TFCI ever takes off (less likely) that would open up even more discussion and debate...and potential for manufacturers to profit.

Yeah, it's definitely part of the information age. The next step after the incremental hardware and software upgrades, will be to figure out a business strategy that allows the licensing of the experience of "safety" which can be had for a subscription rate.

Even with a stable regulatory specification for the workings of AFCIs (or GFCIs or smoke detectors or etc.) the overcurrent protective device is populated with solid state devices that now have a half life of approximately thirteen years, and then it bricks itself. That alone dramatically increases the "market demand".

Nothing personal Mr. & Mrs. Occupant/Owner, Just Good Business.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
All associations affiliated with billion dollar corporations. Of course they will deny such, otherwise it opens them to liability. And if anything NRTL docs show how difficult (if not impossible) for arcing to take place at 120 volts.

And that's precisely why you will never hear BPH and his allies ever admit that manufacturers have any kind of culpability in this debacle. He must continue to tow the company line. Those of us who don't represent multi-billion, multi-national corporations aren't so biased.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
And that's precisely why you will never hear BPH and his allies ever admit that manufacturers have any kind of culpability in this debacle. He must continue to tow the company line. Those of us who don't represent multi-billion, multi-national corporations aren't so biased.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing blinds like greed. :happyno:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top