210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

[lroselle]

THE exception was added to provide alternate means of accomplishing the desired protection. It is important to note that a metallic raceway or metallic-sheathed cable must be used and within 1.8 m(6') of the panel as part of this exception requirements.Where unfinished basement are present GFCI device are required to protect the AFCI device(receptacle) will there be failure of two safety devices? GFCI trips and lose of afci protection and smoke detector" Needs work

 

[tom baker]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

Smokes were clearly intended by the CMP to be on the AFCI protected circuit. Do you have a proposal for this issue?

 

[petersonra]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

Originally posted by tom baker:
Smokes were clearly intended by the CMP to be on the AFCI protected circuit. Do you have a proposal for this issue?

I wonder why this would be? Do smoke detectors have a history of causing fires?

 

[ryan_618]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

Originally posted by petersonra:

Originally posted by tom baker:
Smokes were clearly intended by the CMP to be on the AFCI protected circuit. Do you have a proposal for this issue?

I wonder why this would be? Do smoke detectors have a history of causing fires?

The AFCI is designed to protect the branch circuit wiring, not the device.

 

[petersonra]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

I thought the purpose of AFCIs was to prevent fires from arcing normally seen from damaged extension cords (or the like).

I just don't see how smoke detectors wiring gets damaged. If thats a worry, than why not make Square D a big Xmas present and force every circuit to be an AFCI?

 

[wirenut1980]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

I recently saw a house on an Air Force Base where a loose connection in an overloaded junction box above a fan arc'd and sparks rained down on a young child. Fortunately nobody was hurt and no fire was started. I believe an AFCI would have prevented this.

 

[charlie]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

David, unfortunately, the AFCIs of today would not have prevented that fire. A loose connection is called a series arc fault and it will take a combination type device to detect the problem. Right now it takes 75 amperes for the AFCI to even start to recognize a parallel fault. Only in 2008 will the AFCIs start doing what we were led to believe that they would do.

January 1st, 2008 is when the combination type is mandated to be used. As of right now, they have been designed and listed but they are not on the market. In other words, the product we have now is not much good and the good ones are not on the market.

 

[lroselle]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

in NJ 2002 afci was rejected on a state base due to the fact that it was felt that smokes should not be on this circuit If the afci when drop smoke power was also down due the fact that all devices in bedroom be required to be on afci circuit. Point was If the GFCI tripped due to error power would be lose to all device pass GFCI
Also the recall on some AFCI Breakers( Square D) has people taking a second look at devices.sorry for not the point clear

 

[lle]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

Building codes do require that all smokes be interconnected with a battery backup. THis includes the commercial "alarm wiring" which houses a battery at the main panel where the "bells and whistles" eminate from.

In theory....when a battery is low and alarms sound....it will be replaced by the owner...which is why smokies are being pushed into the AFCI bracket.....

The ASSUMPTION that the owner(s) will change the battery when needed.

We all know how things work in theory compared to reality.

 

[radiopet]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

This is probably a dump question but I have been researching this AFCI issue and can say I was not much of a believer in it back a few years ago but today and starting to understand it more.

However, In the case of Smoke Detectors on the AFCI circuit is to me a blind leading the blind issue...for these reasons...

Is it not true when we install a fire motor we set it to run until it completly burns up as it should be...However, in a smoke detector situation is it not possible the AFCI fails and does not stop or shut down the circuit until it reaches a point that it does..all the while the arc causes a fire before this happens and the smoke detector curcuit is shut down in that room.

Yes, they are battery backed up......as long as the resident actually keeps track of that..anyway my questions is why not simply interlink all the smokes as we do now and demand their own circuit rather than placing them on AFCI systems.

Ok...might be a dumb question but I find myself not feeling a smoke detector should be on a circuit like that as i feel it should be designed to work over and above the AFCI system it is helping protect.

[ February 01, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: radiopet ]

 

[charlie]

Re: 210.12(B) AFCI PROTECTION code change 2008

This thread is obviously not going to result in a proposal so I am moving it to the NEC portion of the forum.