AFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.

bh

Member
Per NEC 210.12(B) all dwelling unit bedroom outlets require AFCI. By definition, a dwelling unit must include permanent cooking facilities. If a single family home requires AFCI for the bedrooms why doesn't a motel if it has no permanent cooking facilities (NEC 210.18)? This doesn't make sense to me, can someone explain?
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
My explanation is that we are on step two of a nine step program that will eventually have AFCI breakers on everything, including your cell phone and your solar powered watch. Requiring them in dwelling unit bedrooms is the limit of what they could get us to swallow in two bites.

Or am I getting cynical in my old age? :wink:
 

bdarnell

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Re: AFCI

bh said:
By definition, a dwelling unit must include permanent cooking facilities...........why doesn't a motel if it has no permanent cooking facilities

Maybe I mis-read your post, but it seems that you answered your own question - because a motel room isn't a dwelling unit.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Perhaps you did. I think he is asking two things: (1) Exactly what is the hazard that the AFCI is design to protect against, and (2) Why is that hazard present in the bedroom of a house, but not in the sleeping area of a motel room?

I did not have a useful answer to the technical aspect of the question. But I believe I had the true answer nevertheless.
 

bdarnell

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Occupation
Retired Engineer
As I understand it, the AFCI requirement was born from a recognized hazard that exists in many homes. An extension cord is used to power lamps, etc. and is concealed under a rug to make it more asthetically pleasing. As traffic walks over the "zip" cord extension, it can become rubbed bare and a low magnitude fault can develop. The AFCI is designed to detect and open these faults before a fire starts.

In your application, an extension cord typically wouldn't be used in a hotel/motel setting.

That's the way it was explained to me when the technology first came out. I know that this isn't the only example, but as I said, I think that this is what gave birth to the requirement.

Hope that helps.
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
The AFCI requirement was begun, as has been said, in the most palatable way possible. Most fire deaths occur in bedrooms. This was extapolated to mean that most fires begin in bedrooms, which is not neccesarily true. Most bedrom circuits are fairly lightly loaded and a sleeping area is easy to identify. This made it easy to get the requirement passed for "dwelling bedrooms". Just as GFCI protection began in dwelling bathrooms and has expanded to cover many other areas, we will probably see the requirements for AFCI protection expand over the next several code cycles.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Brad,
As I understand it, the AFCI requirement was born from a recognized hazard that exists in many homes. An extension cord is used to power lamps, etc. and is concealed under a rug to make it more asthetically pleasing. As traffic walks over the "zip" cord extension, it can become rubbed bare and a low magnitude fault can develop. The AFCI is designed to detect and open these faults before a fire starts.
While that is what the manufacturer's promised way back in the 1995 ROP, there is still not an AFCI on the market that provides that type of protection. The combination ones, required by the 2005 code for installations after 1/1/08 is now promised to provide that protection. I'm not sure that it will given the track record of the manufacturer's promises.
Don
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
I agree with Don. It seems today that manufacturer's are able to get products into the code book without any real substantiation or documented record of the product's performance. I was talking with Ryan Jackson the other day and he brought up a good point. It has taken several code cycles to get gfci protection where it is today. It appears afci's are going to take a much shorter and expansive journey. It looks like we are going to go from just receptalce outlets in bedrooms to whole house protection in just 3 cycles. GFCI's have proven themselves, afci's have not. I think this is a little pre-mature.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
bphgravity said:
It looks like we are going to go from just receptalce outlets in bedrooms to whole house protection in just 3 cycles.

:!: :!:

Is this really going to happen? :shock:
And who is pushing this?
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
The manufacturer's! Who do you think? I made the mistake of trusting the manufacturers of afci's and proposed "whole house" protection in the 2005. It wasn't until after I learned of their incapabilities and flaws, mainly from this Forum.

It is my understanding that "whole house" afci protection also has the backing of the IAEI. I wonder if the persons involved are actually pushing for the the idea of afci's rather than the reality of them.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
While it is true that most deaths occur in the bedrooms, it is also true that in most of these cases there were either no smoke detectors or the ones that were there didn't work.

In the vast majority of new work, with properly installed and maintained smoke detectors. The AFCIs are not accomplishing very much. If you have a homeowner with a lot of nuisance tripping, they'll just replace with standard breaker anyway.

From a safety perspective, I think it would make more sense to force people to have built in furniture. That way the outlets could be placed such that there would be no need for extension cords under the carpets or rugs. :D
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
dlhoule said:
While it is true that most deaths occur in the bedrooms, it is also true that in most of these cases there were either no smoke detectors or the ones that were there didn't work.

Aren't most bedroom fires caused by smoking?
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
How much "nuisance tripping" are we getting with arc faults? I no longer work daily in the trade (I am an instructor) but I am not getting many reports of nuisance tripping from my students. Is there a real problem with AFCI's or are we just being reluctant to accept new technology? I remember a great deal of griping over GFCI's when they were being phased in, but I doubt that anyone would go on record now as saying that they are a bad idea. Just curious.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
dlhoule said:
Probably, but how are AFCIs going to help out on that?

They aren't. I'm just pointing out the fact that a lot of bedroom fire origins are not electrical in nature. I believe the bedroom fire origin data was used to push the AFCI into the NEC.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
haskindm said:
How much "nuisance tripping" are we getting with arc faults? I no longer work daily in the trade (I am an instructor) but I am not getting many reports of nuisance tripping from my students. Is there a real problem with AFCI's or are we just being reluctant to accept new technology? I remember a great deal of griping over GFCI's when they were being phased in, but I doubt that anyone would go on record now as saying that they are a bad idea. Just curious.
:) I do not say they are a bad idea, but I do question the costs versus benefits from them. How many deaths have there been in homes with properly working smoke detectors? The ones caused by drunken smokers who have been unconscious and didn't hear alarm from smoke detector wouldn't have been any safer with AFCI installed.
 

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
I don't know that the argument can be made that AFCI's are not as effective as smoke detectors, they serve two seperate purposes. Smoke detectors announce a fire that begins from any cause, electrical, cooking, smoking, etc. AFCI's prevent electrical fires, if they work. I would rather prevent a fire, than announce a fire. If AFCI's work, the electrical industry should be promoting them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If they do not work, the manufacturers should be pressured to make them work. If they cannot be made to work, then NFPA should be pressured to remove them as a code requirement.
FRom what I have been able to learn the devices seem to work and there have been relatively few cases of nuisance tripping. If others have had a different experience, let us hear about it.
We, as an industry, either need to promote these as a good idea, or lobby to have them removed from the market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top