2020 NEC AFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Stolz said:
I'm sure we are just squeamish about AFCIs because we don't understand how they work. What I could really use is an unverified instance where they caught a problem that maybe could have started a fire in a real world scenario, and then I will embrace them. After all, a two-thirds vote of educated people listening to a sales pitch thought it was a good idea, so how could it be wrong?
Click to expand...
That is part of the problem. If it has potential to save lives it has to be a good thing. As code making members you are (sort of) supposed to be blind to the cost (whether monetary or otherwise) of safety.

If you are an AFCI manufacturer - that is a big plus. They started out just requiring them in bedrooms - ease your way into this, and let the consumer be the test lab so you can fix some of the bugs before you push them to go into more places. Some of those "bugs" were actually poor wiring practices and us installers have learned about that aspect - which did make us better installers, but requiring more GFCI protection would have also caught many of those issues.
 
Ok I am ahead of this one! I just finished a total rewire of my 950 sq ft house, I put AFCI in for the bathroom...
 
kwired said:
That is part of the problem. If it has potential to save lives it has to be a good thing. As code making members you are (sort of) supposed to be blind to the cost (whether monetary or otherwise) of safety.

If you are an AFCI manufacturer - that is a big plus. They started out just requiring them in bedrooms - ease your way into this, and let the consumer be the test lab so you can fix some of the bugs before you push them to go into more places. Some of those "bugs" were actually poor wiring practices and us installers have learned about that aspect - which did make us better installers, but requiring more GFCI protection would have also caught many of those issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah I am curious how many of you would be opposed to at minimum class B GFCI's being required in all the places AFCI's are?
Like say the code was amended to allow a 30 miliamp GFCI protection as a substitution for AFCI.
 
tortuga said:
Yeah I am curious how many of you would be opposed to at minimum class B GFCI's being required in all the places AFCI's are?
Like say the code was amended to allow a 30 miliamp GFCI protection as a substitution for AFCI.
Click to expand...

Not convinced it would prevent fires, though not convinced AFCI will prevent as many fires as they claim it will either. Still would detect most of the same wiring issues as AFCI's though.

OTOH a little hard to start a fire if it trips on any little abnormality it sees and is seldom ever "on".
 
kwired said:
Not convinced it would prevent fires, though not convinced AFCI will prevent as many fires as they claim it will either. Still would detect most of the same wiring issues as AFCI's though.

...
Click to expand...
I would expect the 30 mA trip GFP would prevent more fires than would the newer AFCIs that do not have a GFP function would.
 
It is my understanding that the PI requirement to expand the AFCI rules did not pass "ballot" and will be reported as reject when the First Draft Report is made available in early July.
 
JFletcher said:
If plumbers were smart, they would lobby for sprinklers in residences over afci breakers. ...
Click to expand...
The two model residential building codes require one and two family dwelling units to have fire sprinkler systems. This requirement has been removed by most of the units of government that have adopted one of those model building codes. There are a number of areas that do require them. In Illinois, just over 100 municipalities require fire sprinkler systems for dwelling units. My small town is not one of them, but we have amended the NEC to say that if you install a code compliant fire sprinkler system that you are not required to install AFCIs.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I would expect the 30 mA trip GFP would prevent more fires than would the newer AFCIs that do not have a GFP function would.
Click to expand...
To have GF leakage you have to have something grounded to leak to. So yes some instances it may trip once a fault develops. Pinched zip cord on wood/carpeted floor - nothing to fault to that is conductive enough to carry any significant enough GF current. We don't necessarily know how well (combination) AFCI's respond to this though they claim they will.
 
I have no problems with GFCI's being required for everything, they work & are fairly cheap, still think AFCI's are snake oil.
 
norcal said:
I have no problems with GFCI's being required for everything, they work & are fairly cheap, still think AFCI's are snake oil.
Click to expand...

That sums up my belief and likely many others as well. Whole house GFCI protection makes perfect sense to me if a whole house solution is desired, although I don't think it's necessary. Given the choice between AFCI and GFCI, GFCI wins hands down. I really have no idea why the industry pursued AFCI when a proven technology was already available.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The two model residential building codes require one and two family dwelling units to have fire sprinkler systems. This requirement has been removed by most of the units of government that have adopted one of those model building codes. There are a number of areas that do require them. In Illinois, just over 100 municipalities require fire sprinkler systems for dwelling units. My small town is not one of them, but we have amended the NEC to say that if you install a code compliant fire sprinkler system that you are not required to install AFCIs.
Click to expand...

a most excellent and logical decision. Does this also apply to commercial buildings?
 
kwired said:
To have GF leakage you have to have something grounded to leak to. So yes some instances it may trip once a fault develops. Pinched zip cord on wood/carpeted floor - nothing to fault to that is conductive enough to carry any significant enough GF current. We don't necessarily know how well (combination) AFCI's respond to this though they claim they will.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that the vast majority of fires of electrical origin are from high resistance connections and that very often the heat from that issue will result in a ground fault before it starts a fire.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion that the vast majority of fires of electrical origin are from high resistance connections and that very often the heat from that issue will result in a ground fault before it starts a fire.
Click to expand...
I agree, but you must have something grounded to fault to or you won't have any "ground fault current"

Glowing connection on a receptacle termination - you ordinarily do have a grounded yoke in close proximity that it may eventually find a way to fault to. Other instances may not have anything grounded close by and are more likely to start the fire before a ground fault would develop. Many times the connection just burns itself until open circuit condition exists, whether it starts a fire or not depends on whether anything combustible is nearby. Placing receptacles in outlet boxes helps, but over time they can accumulate dust, lint etc. which may help with starting a fire.

GFCI and/or AFCI maybe can reduce the risk of a fire starting in such conditions - I am not convinced one can say they absolutely will prevent such fires. Then the more you try to make an AFCI detect any possible arc signature the more likely it won't filter out certain "acceptable" signatures and cause users and troubleshooters a lot of disgust with them.
 
peter d said:
So it looks like we'll get 100% AFCI "protection" on all 15 and 20 amp, 120 volt circuits in the 2020 NEC. :roll::rant:
Click to expand...

Really there isn’t much left unprotected from AFCI, other than 240V single phase circuits, in which, will be next. I think its comical how they came out with these in the first place, only in bedrooms. What? They think Arcing only happens in bedrooms but not in no other part of the house.
 
Few ask why, if afci technology is so great, it's not a worldwide phenomenon


the quick answer is, because it's existed outside the US for generations , under terms like RCD, differential and toroidal.



The reality being we're not 'leading edge' , we are mimicking the tried/true cloaked in the guise of marketing and packaging.



Right now NEMA has a 'road show' of numerous sparks that are proliferating IAEI and other trade org meetings, Manufacturers continue to write articles stating nefarious stats, have 'afci' websites ,and have essentially banded together creating a national narrative.


They've also taken great pains to silence the nay sayers ,and either buy or wait out any competition via a string of patent wars.


Only one voice exists, Joe Engel , whom was their leading R&D man

No trade rag will touch it (we've tried) , anyone connected with the NFPA will discredit and/or denounce it (as we've seen in this forum) , and CMP-2 refuses to opine on it


there's a reason for that, which is why it needs to be spread around more

thx

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
the quick answer is, because it's existed outside the US for generations , under terms like RCD, differential and toroidal.
Click to expand...
Those aren't the same thing. AFCI's may utilize some of the same features though.

Problem with AFCI is it mostly focuses on examining characteristics of the current wave form (I think, they kind of keep the details more top secret then national security issues:blink:) There are way too many possible patterns to recognize and there is potentially some that are acceptable that get rejected anyway because they are not acceptable in other situations. And anything unknown but questionable probably is rejected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top