SeanTek
New User
- Location
- California
- Occupation
- Engineer
Hello all, first post.
What are the advantages and disadvantages to including AFCI protection on circuits where only GFCI is required?
From my reading of the NEC 2020, AFCI is not required in the following locations in a dwelling:
The electrical panel being installed has breakers at various price points. Ironically, the dual-function AFCI-GFCI breakers are cheaper ($89.98) than the GFCI-only breakers ($119.00, a difference of $29.02). In other words, AFCI protection is "free" (and, in fact, discounted) if I want GFCI at the breaker. However, a standard breaker ($49.98) plus a single GFCI receptacle (~$20) would be slightly less than the dual-function AFCI-GFCI breaker.
From my understanding of the technology, AFCI protection is always "safer" in that it will protect against series and parallel arcs that could ignite a fire, but it costs more. Furthermore, a significant criticism of AFCI protection is nuisance tripping, which is more likely to happen with high-current motorized appliances (drills, saws, blowers, etc.), as well as with certain kinds of wiring jobs (backstab).
So, what are the upsides and downsides of adding AFCI protection to these GFCI circuits? Is there any prediction that future versions of the NEC may require AFCI protection in these areas, as technology gets better at distinguishing between harmless and harmful arcing events?
What are the advantages and disadvantages to including AFCI protection on circuits where only GFCI is required?
From my reading of the NEC 2020, AFCI is not required in the following locations in a dwelling:
- Garage
- Bathroom
- Outdoor Outlet (hardwired 120V: air conditioner, etc.)
- Outdoor Receptacle
- Sump Pump
The electrical panel being installed has breakers at various price points. Ironically, the dual-function AFCI-GFCI breakers are cheaper ($89.98) than the GFCI-only breakers ($119.00, a difference of $29.02). In other words, AFCI protection is "free" (and, in fact, discounted) if I want GFCI at the breaker. However, a standard breaker ($49.98) plus a single GFCI receptacle (~$20) would be slightly less than the dual-function AFCI-GFCI breaker.
From my understanding of the technology, AFCI protection is always "safer" in that it will protect against series and parallel arcs that could ignite a fire, but it costs more. Furthermore, a significant criticism of AFCI protection is nuisance tripping, which is more likely to happen with high-current motorized appliances (drills, saws, blowers, etc.), as well as with certain kinds of wiring jobs (backstab).
So, what are the upsides and downsides of adding AFCI protection to these GFCI circuits? Is there any prediction that future versions of the NEC may require AFCI protection in these areas, as technology gets better at distinguishing between harmless and harmful arcing events?
