Goal for AFCI Protection

[Little Bill]

A while back I started a thread called"AFCI Everything".
It was a little bit of "tongue & cheek".

But it appears I was correct in making that statement in the thread title.
According to this video of the changes to AFCI requirements for 2014, a statement was made that the original intention/goal of AFCI was whole house protection.

Listen/watch for yourself.

 

[GoldDigger]

A while back I started a thread called"AFCI Everything".
It was a little bit of "tongue & cheek".

But it appears I was correct in making that statement in the thread title.
According to this video of the changes to AFCI requirements for 2014, a statement was made that the original intention/goal of AFCI was whole house protection.

Listen/watch for yourself.

I listened carefully, and heard that the "whole house protection" was an idea put forward by CPSC and not NFPA. Recognizing that may put future discussion in better perspective. NFPA / NEC is concerned about practicality as well as safety (although some may argue about that historically where AFCI is concerned. )

 

[Little Bill]

I listened carefully, and heard that the "whole house protection" was an idea put forward by CPSC and not NFPA. Recognizing that may put future discussion in better perspective. NFPA / NEC is concerned about practicality as well as safety (although some may argue about that historically where AFCI is concerned. )

You might want to read 90.1(B), then consider the last sentance in your reply!

 

[mjf]

Once we're required to AFCI the whole house do you think panels will be sold with AFCI main breakers? A 200 amp AFCI breaker must cost less than 30 or 40 individual AFCI breakers. (I guess that would be a reason for manufacturers NOT to do it.)

 

[GoldDigger]

Once we're required to AFCI the whole house do you think panels will be sold with AFCI main breakers? A 200 amp AFCI breaker must cost less than 30 or 40 individual AFCI breakers. (I guess that would be a reason for manufacturers NOT to do it.)

Nuisance tripping would be a MAJOR nuisance though.

 

[templdl]

Once we're required to AFCI the whole house do you think panels will be sold with AFCI main breakers? A 200 amp AFCI breaker must cost less than 30 or 40 individual AFCI breakers. (I guess that would be a reason for manufacturers NOT to do it.)

Coordination would be a big issue. It may be less expensive but taking down main breaker because of a single branch issue may get some people a bit irritated to say the least.
But on the other hand AFCI breakers do get warm. Tests I'm sure have been done with a panel packed with AFCIs but I'm sure there is a significant amount of heat generated.

 

[GoldDigger]

You might want to read 90.1(B), then consider the last sentance in your reply!

Allow me to rephrase that. Regardless of what they may state in print, the code makers can be influenced by lobbying, practicality, and other such mundane concerns.

 

[eHunter]

Allow me to rephrase that. Regardless of what they may state in print, the code makers can be influenced by lobbying, practicality, and other such mundane concerns.

Are you suggesting politics may be involved? hmy:

 

[templdl]

Are you suggesting politics may be involved? hmy:

It's a question at to whom is on the code making counsel representing the manufactures. The manufactured do invest a great deal of money into the development of new products as evidenced by all the new products over the past 50 years or so. Each time a new product is introduced there are many that resist change until the product start to prove themselves to be worthwhile. AFCIs is certainly one of those produces. Personally I do think they work but I am still waiting with baited breath for some statistics as well as documented examples which would confirm my feelings. I was an applications and sales engineer with one of the leading manufacturers and new one of the design engineers personally. I will confirm that he as well as others worked their tails off developing the AFCI technology. If you are confident that a product will contribute to the protection of human life you have to get it to market some how. The first product that fits that description is the MCP years ago that contributed significantly to the reduction of fires caused by motor failures. I am looking forward to the AFCI reducing the instant of house fires and saving lives. Again, personally I want to see more statistics even those I believe that the do.
I would also like the insurance companies to look more seriously at compensating the homeowner of they retrofit their homes by installing AFCIs. When that happens we will gain more confidence in what AFCIs bring to the party.
Just a thought that I have.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
I would also like the insurance companies to look more seriously at compensating the homeowner of they retrofit their homes by installing AFCIs. When that happens we will gain more confidence in what AFCIs bring to the party.
Just a thought that I have.

I wonder if we will ever see that? Dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin are only about 10% of the total dwelling unit fires. I would think that insurance companies would go after cooking and heating equipment as they both cause 2 to 4 times as many fires as the electrical system.

 

[eHunter]

I wonder if we will ever see that? Dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin are only about 10% of the total dwelling unit fires. I would think that insurance companies would go after cooking and heating equipment as they both cause 2 to 4 times as many fires as the electrical system.

I would suspect that a majority of fires attributed to cooking and heating are actually end user negligence.

 

[templdl]

I wonder if we will ever see that? Dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin are only about 10% of the total dwelling unit fires. I would think that insurance companies would go after cooking and heating equipment as they both cause 2 to 4 times as many fires as the electrical system.

You would like to think that if AFCIs really reduce the incidence of house fire that the insurance companies would hop of providing incentives to retrofit existing homes. It is of my opinion that's really where the rubber meets the road. I am a big believer in the use of AFCIs. I also am a backer of the NEC requirements to make them a code requirement. What I am extremely disappointed in is how the insurance companies appear not to see them as beneficial in reducing insurance claims. As such is there really any documentation that they in fact reduce house fires.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You would like to think that if AFCIs really reduce the incidence of house fire that the insurance companies would hop of providing incentives to retrofit existing homes. It is of my opinion that's really where the rubber meets the road. I am a big believer in the use of AFCIs. I also am a backer of the NEC requirements to make them a code requirement. What I am extremely disappointed in is how the insurance companies appear not to see them as beneficial in reducing insurance claims. As such is there really any documentation that they in fact reduce house fires.

And I am on the opposite side of the AFCI issue. I have not been convinced that they do anything other than pass some carefully controlled tests to show that they meet the standard. As far as the insurance companies, they will not see any benefit for many years, if ever. About 85% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in units 20 or more years old. Even with 100% compliance with the rules in the NEC, very few fires will be prevented in the near term. Maybe that would change if they were retrofitted into existing dwelling units.

 

[Sahib]

About 85% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in units 20 or more years old.

Non-provision of fire alarm is also a major cause of fire casualties in homes. As provision of fire alarms could save lives, so do AFCI's, IMO.

 

[mjf]

Once we're required to AFCI the whole house do you think panels will be sold with AFCI main breakers? A 200 amp AFCI breaker must cost less than 30 or 40 individual AFCI breakers. (I guess that would be a reason for manufacturers NOT to do it.)

Nuisance tripping would be a MAJOR nuisance though.

:dunce: I really thought that one through, huh?

 

[Little Bill]

:dunce: I really thought that one through, huh?

mjf= Michael J. Fox?

 

[electricguy61]

And I am on the opposite side of the AFCI issue. I have not been convinced that they do anything other than pass some carefully controlled tests to show that they meet the standard. As far as the insurance companies, they will not see any benefit for many years, if ever. About 85% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in units 20 or more years old. Even with 100% compliance with the rules in the NEC, very few fires will be prevented in the near term. Maybe that would change if they were retrofitted into existing dwelling units.

Here Here! I couldn't agree more. AFCI's have been foisted on the trade by manufacturers creating a demand for a product that has very little proven value, but added inexorably to service issues.

You want to stop house fires, do what they've done here in California: mandatory residential sprinklers on new homes and remodels over a certain size (pretty big, but I can't remember the square ft or dollar requirement).

 

[templdl]

And I am on the opposite side of the AFCI issue. I have not been convinced that they do anything other than pass some carefully controlled tests to show that they meet the standard. As far as the insurance companies, they will not see any benefit for many years, if ever. About 85% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in units 20 or more years old. Even with 100% compliance with the rules in the NEC, very few fires will be prevented in the near term. Maybe that would change if they were retrofitted into existing dwelling units.

I do believe in AFCIs. BUT, other than my confidence in the manufacture's R&D work in developing the product which I feel is valid what I'm looking for is the proof is in the puding. If AFCIs are as good as I think they are why am I not seeing anything expressed by the insurance companies that touts the use a AFCIs in the reduction of fires? One one hand I think that they are a fantastic addition to fire prevention. But on the other hand I have seen very little if anything in regard to their reduction of fires resulting from electric failures. AfFCIs have been in use for about 15 years now and as such why am I not seeing any statistical benefits? The NEC appears to be making a bigger part of the code requirements. But other than what appears to be some fantastic technology there seems to be very little if any documentation as to any hard facts that they actually have reduced the incidences of electrically caused fires. Needless to say that has beeb a disappoint,sent to me.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Here Here! I couldn't agree more. AFCI's have been foisted on the trade by manufacturers creating a demand for a product that has very little proven value, but added inexorably to service issues.

You want to stop house fires, do what they've done here in California: mandatory residential sprinklers on new homes and remodels over a certain size (pretty big, but I can't remember the square ft or dollar requirement).

Here in Ventura County it's 0 sq ft and above.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I do believe in AFCIs. BUT, other than my confidence in the manufacture's R&D work in developing the product which I feel is valid what I'm looking for is the proof is in the puding. If AFCIs are as good as I think they are why am I not seeing anything expressed by the insurance companies that touts the use a AFCIs in the reduction of fires? One one hand I think that they are a fantastic addition to fire prevention. But on the other hand I have seen very little if anything in regard to their reduction of fires resulting from electric failures. AfFCIs have been in use for about 15 years now and as such why am I not seeing any statistical benefits? The NEC appears to be making a bigger part of the code requirements. But other than what appears to be some fantastic technology there seems to be very little if any documentation as to any hard facts that they actually have reduced the incidences of electrically caused fires. Needless to say that has beeb a disappoint,sent to me.

I've made this argument before and I will keep making it. Show me a statistic that tells you how many lives are saved by GFCI's every year. You will never find it, because those cases aren't reported. We can probably tell you how many people died, because they didn't have a GFCI somewhere. As was brought up before. How many millions of homes don't have AFCI's. If half of the homes that have AFCI's did not catch fire because of these devices, first you would never know and second, it wouldn't make a dent in the stats.