MWBC with AFCI

Dennis Alwon said:
Have you done it or do you know anyone who has?
Click to expand...
I’ve done it with two Siemens single pole CAFCI breakers in the pic ahd used the handle tie in the pic , the handle tie is listed, as well as identified for use with Siemens 1 pole CAFCI breakers
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2192.png
    IMG_2192.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 3
  • IMG_2194.png
    IMG_2194.png
    1,010.8 KB · Views: 3
RustyShackleford said:
Maybe we're going in circles here, but I still wonder if these will work with their AFCI breakers. Here's a pic of one (righthand pic), notice the handle is somewhat different than on a regualr Siemens one-pole breaker (lefthand pic).
Click to expand...
I posted a pic of the wrong handle tie earlier this is the correct one I’ve used and it’s listed/identified for use with Siemens 1 pole AFCI breakers
sonicelectric.com

Siemens ECQAFC Handle ties for 1P AFCI, 10 Pack

Sonic Electric offers top-quality electrical and lighting products for all your needs. Shop the Siemens ECQF3 Filler Plate (5 Pack)!
sonicelectric.com sonicelectric.com
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2194.png
    IMG_2194.png
    1,010.8 KB · Views: 0
My question was why GE has a connection for the load neutral and Siemens does not?

Side note: I think only the Siemens PON breakers will work on a MWBC.
 
Little Bill said:
My question was why GE has a connection for the load neutral and Siemens does not?
Click to expand...
It’s just the design and that’s a older link the ge afci have no gfp the neutral is for the electronics in the CAFCI device , and thats just the design of the newer Siemens pon 1 pole CAFCI , the dual function pon and gfci pon are the only ones the neural goes to the device , but Siemens does not include gfp in newer ones either
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The scope of UL 1699 says AFCIs are intended for use in 120 volt 60 hertz AC circuits. I assume that applies only to each individual pole of a two pole device as they see 120 volts line to neutral no matter if they are on a 120/240 volt system or a 208Y/120 volt system.
Click to expand...

Image from 2 pole QO CAFCI instruction sheet indicates not to use on 208Y/120. I think the phase angle of wye system has something to do with this.

1747520894570.png
 
kwired said:
Image from 2 pole QO CAFCI instruction sheet indicates not to use on 208Y/120. I think the phase angle of wye system has something to do with this.
Click to expand...
Having visions of industry captains making strategic decisions.

Maybe cost wont justify SQ-D AFCI updates without GFPE, or with 120/208Y developments built by laborers?

Schneider executives may believe it's going away, with xFCI amendments in 33 States, and 120/208Y mostly excluded.
 
ramsy said:
Having visions of industry captains making strategic decisions.

Maybe cost wont justify SQ-D AFCI updates without GFPE, or with 120/208Y developments built by laborers?

Schneider executives may believe it's going away, with xFCI amendments in 33 States, and 120/208Y mostly excluded.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the AFCIs are not good for much of anything and are completely worthless if they don't have GFP.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In my opinion the AFCIs are not good for much of anything and are completely worthless if they don't have GFP.
Click to expand...
So you advocate NEC 2-pole xFCI mandates, especially where it trips on shared neutrals?

GFP also trips on energy-efficient appliances, and smokes with utility excursions, just like AFCI.

So you agree insurance can deny casualty claims, for not checking test-button failure while energized, or for defective SPD?

Without expert maintenance xFCI is a boondoggle that drives profits with no industry accountability.

So occupants get screwed, regardless of safety-device compatibility with utility grid, lights, or appliances?
 
ramsy said:
So you advocate NEC 2-pole xFCI mandates, especially where it trips on shared neutrals?

GFP also trips on energy-efficient appliances, and smokes with utility excursions, just like AFCI.

So you agree insurance can deny casualty claims, for not checking test-button failure while energized, or for defective SPD?

Without expert maintenance xFCI is a boondoggle that drives profits with no industry accountability.

So occupants get screwed, regardless of safety-device compatibility with utility grid, lights, or appliances?
Click to expand...
No idea of how any of this relates to the post of mine that you quoted?????????????????????????????
 
ramsy said:
Never thought handle tie was available for Tandems.

Thanks for posting.
Click to expand...
Handle ties have be available for tandem breakers from all manufactures. They are designed to tie handles of 2 adjacent breakers not both handles of an individual breaker.
 
curt swartz said:
Handle ties have be available for tandem breakers from all manufactures.
Click to expand...
Would you believe those handles are not stocked by suppliers who sell the tandems?

And, that inspectors may identify wire threaded thru adjacent-breaker handles as an acceptable tie, per 240.15(B)
 
ramsy said:
GFP also trips on energy-efficient appliances, and smokes with utility excursions, just like AFCI.
Click to expand...
You frequently post that GFCI's and AFCI's don't work with many appliances and equipment. We have installed 1000's of GFCI's, AFCI's and DF breakers for the medium to high end custom homes we wire and get zero call backs for breaker trips.

The last 10+ years I have been purchasing exclusively SquareD breakers for residential so can't give much input on the other 3 manufactures. One of my long time employees that went out on hi own a couple years ago has been using Siemens and said he doesn't get call backs either. I guessing most of the tripping issues are poor workmanship for the field electricians.

Even back with AFCI's first came out most of the issues we had were older appliances especially vacuums and treadmills. Most of these older items have reached end of life and have been replaced with newer models that don't have the issues. Also the AFCI manufactures have refined the breaker firmware to be more compatible.

No to speak for Don but I think he and I are on the same page regarding AFCI's. The GFP of the breakers is/was the only part of the breaker that provides some real protection. Now that 3 of the manufactures have removed the GFP from some or all of their models those breakers have little value.

I believe when GE first dropped GFP from their breakers they claimed fewer false trips. The only reason there would be less trips is because they would no longer detect crossed/mixed neutral and EGC/neutrals. Those are not false trips. They are issues that should be fixed, not covered up by removing part of the detection from the breaker.

This is similar to GE pushing for GFCI protection of dishwashers due to thier unsafe internal wiring design. Instead of fixing their bad design they though the NEC should require GFCI protection to cover it up.

I have said all along I feel the NEC should just require GFCI protection for all 15- and 20-amp branch circuits instead of AFCI protection. Maybe AFCI's can detect some faults becoming fire that GFCI's can't. Many faults quickly become ground faults. GFCI's will also save more lives since they also protect from electrocution.
 
ramsy said:
Would you believe those handles are not stocked by suppliers who sell the tandems?

And, that inspectors may identify wire threaded thru the handles as an acceptable tie, per 240.15(B)
Click to expand...
All of the suppliers I have worked with the past 40+ years have stocked them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top