New models of AFCI

[templdl]

here is what one type does:

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=111163&highlight=test+switch

Thanks. That was great! I?ve had most breakers apart to see what makes them tick from the smaller 100a frames to the 2000A frames but I have never messed with the residential breaker. I do have some 1"/pole residential breakers that are molded with clear plastic such that you can see the inside thermal magnetic elements but none of the GFCI or AFCI breakers.
What was explained in your link is similar to testing electronic trip units on the larger breakers which is I recall correctly is secondary current injection where a test unit is plugged into the breaker that tests the various functions.
Thanks again for that link which I am going to review a couple more times at least.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

One of the issues is the question as to the existence of series arcs at dwelling unit voltages. There is also the fact that many heat producing poor connection faults are not really arcs, but just high resistance connections. The AFCI cannot directly detect a high resistance connection. The original branch circuit and feeder type of AFCIs all had a ground fault detection circuit. This would often be the detection method for a high resistance connection. As the heat damaged the insulation of the conductors a ground fault would occur and the ground fault detection part of the circuit would trip the breaker. Some new AFCIs do not have a ground fault protection circuit.
There is a proposal for the 2014 code that would require all AFCIs to have GFP protection.

 

[templdl]

One of the issues is the question as to the existence of series arcs at dwelling unit voltages. There is also the fact that many heat producing poor connection faults are not really arcs, but just high resistance connections. The AFCI cannot directly detect a high resistance connection. The original branch circuit and feeder type of AFCIs all had a ground fault detection circuit. This would often be the detection method for a high resistance connection. As the heat damaged the insulation of the conductors a ground fault would occur and the ground fault detection part of the circuit would trip the breaker. Some new AFCIs do not have a ground fault protection circuit.
There is a proposal for the 2014 code that would require all AFCIs to have GFP protection.

Thats the problem with any type of breaker, that they can only respond to the current vs time that they are designed to respond. We add a computer chip to detect ground fault then a chip that is programed to detect the algorithms of an arcing fault.
The breaker sits there monitoring the current which flows through it. Is the current events don't fall within what it has been designed to respond to it isn't going to trip.
But designing an AFCI without ground fault is unreasonable at best. The simplest thing that can be do with an AFCI is to detect a line to gound fault. I was always was of the belief that 30ma GF sensing was common place with AFCIs. However, it doesn't appear to be a required testing requirement by UL directly, that is an AFCI must have 30ma GF for example.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
But designing an AFCI without ground fault is unreasonable at best. The simplest thing that can be do with an AFCI is to detect a line to gound fault. I was always was of the belief that 30ma GF sensing was common place with AFCIs. However, it doesn't appear to be a required testing requirement by UL directly, that is an AFCI must have 30ma GF for example.

I agree that the GFP part of the AFCI is an essential part and should be required by the the UL AFCI standard. I don't even think that the UL standard has any requirement that has to do with a "series fault".

The combination type AFCI was supposed to make the AFCIs do what the manufacturers said they could do when the original AFCI proposals were submitted to the NFPA. The first combination type AFCI hit the market some 13 years after those original proposals. I don't think that the combination AFCI has any chance of being able to do what we were told it could do without the GFP part.

I talked with one of the Eaton engineers who was involved in their AFCI design program and he said that he thought upwards of 90% of the AFCI trips were from the GFP detection circuit. This is for both real and "nuisance" trips. Most of the "nuisance" trips are ground faults caused by poor installation practices. I kind of expect that the manufacturers are removing the GFP to eliminate the trips caused by poor installation practice.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
The breaker sits there monitoring the current which flows through it. Is the current events don't fall within what it has been designed to respond to it isn't going to trip. ...

It is also my undertanding that the AFCI does not look at the arc "signature" for a parallel arc unless the current exceeds 75 amps and does not look at the signature for a series arc (if that even exists at dwelling unit voltages) unless the current exceeds 5 amps. This makes the GFP part of the device even more important.

 

[DaveTap]

i have not changed the way (except for code changes) for 20+ years and now all of a sudden we need these AFCI's to better protect homes? i don't buy it
every house i have done is still standing, but how? ... i mean no AFCI to protect them

Flashback to 1900: "i have not changed the way (except for code changes) for 20+ years and now all of a sudden we need these fuses to better protect homes? i don't buy it. Every brick house i have done is still standing, but how? ... i mean no fuses to protect them"

(although I do agree NEC was premature in requiring arcfaults before technology was proven reliable and safe)

 

[Gac66610]

Flashback to 1900: "i have not changed the way (except for code changes) for 20+ years and now all of a sudden we need these fuses to better protect homes? i don't buy it. Every brick house i have done is still standing, but how? ... i mean no fuses to protect them"

(although I do agree NEC was premature in requiring arcfaults before technology was proven reliable and safe)

:ashamed: caught me on a really bad day
i've gone back several times and reread that statement i made ... couldnt believe i wrote it

did you REALLY have to bring it back the the for front? :lol:

 

[ptonsparky]

I agree that the GFP part of the AFCI is an essential part and should be required by the the UL AFCI standard. I don't even think that the UL standard has any requirement that has to do with a "series fault".

The combination type AFCI was supposed to make the AFCIs do what the manufacturers said they could do when the original AFCI proposals were submitted to the NFPA. The first combination type AFCI hit the market some 13 years after those original proposals. I don't think that the combination AFCI has any chance of being able to do what we were told it could do without the GFP part.

I talked with one of the Eaton engineers who was involved in their AFCI design program and he said that he thought upwards of 90% of the AFCI trips were from the GFP detection circuit. This is for both real and "nuisance" trips. Most of the "nuisance" trips are ground faults caused by poor installation practices. I kind of expect that the manufacturers are removing the GFP to eliminate the trips caused by poor installation practice.

Isn't one of the reasons theh wanted afci in the first place because of poor installation practices? Be it ours or the plumber, sheetrocker or whoever? Why in the world take out the one item that will check.up on us the quickest. I don't particularly believe we, as ele tri ians, have that many ground faults to begin with. If you do, i hope you work your butt fixing them because you deserve it. (If the shoe fits, wear it, my Mother would have said)

 

[Riograndeelectric]

some one had posted a white paper report that was done testing the CAFCI as compared to AFCI with GFP protection in which the engineer noted the AFCI with GFP protection was better.

I hope this this proposal passes and become code in 2014.

I wish they could make an AFCI with 5ma GFCI built in.

I working on a older home renovation built in 1959 and non equipment grounding conductor in the NM cable.
have to install CAFCI breakers on the new and existing branch circuits. along with GFCI protection for the existing Lighting and Receptacle circuits as we are replacing the lighting fixtures.

In situations like this having a 5ma GFCI along with AFCI protection would make things a little easier.

 

[ptonsparky]

Video released last year. http://youtu.be/EqNg7K59hVU

Diagnostics are optional on the BR and the flyer I got today indicates no ground fault on the BR, but it is on the CH. They do not indicate a level.

Oh, all those items that trip an AFCI are considered non-compliant. (The "not my fault" mentality)

I mentioned to my wife once that maybe she was driving to fast for the icy conditions when she slid thru a stop sign and ended up in a ditch. "NO! I was going slow. It was just to icy." She was safe, car unhurt. I did not challenge the reasoning further.

 

[ptonsparky]

Anyone have an idea why they would include an undervoltage trip?

 

[templdl]

Video released last year. http://youtu.be/EqNg7K59hVU

Diagnostics are optional on the BR and the flyer I got today indicates no ground fault on the BR, but it is on the CH. They do not indicate a level.

Oh, all those items that trip an AFCI are considered non-compliant. (The "not my fault" mentality)

I mentioned to my wife once that maybe she was driving to fast for the icy conditions when she slid thru a stop sign and ended up in a ditch. "NO! I was going slow. It was just to icy." She was safe, car unhurt. I did not challenge the reasoning further.

That's strange regarding the BR and CH breaker as one would think that it would have been as economical for Eaton to manufacture both electronics the same. IOf I still have my connections I would have looked into that farther.
And, good move regarding the wife. It about winning the battle and loosing the war. What's to be gained by being right when it comes to wives.