AFCI receptacle, AC to first per 2008 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rwood3444

Member
I'm new, bear with me. The 2008 code states that if you use AC cable to the beginning of the line of receptacles that it can be an arc fault receptacle and it doesn't matter after that. I did some research and, maybe I'm missing something, but what is the difference between AC cable and MC cable? And, is there a type or style of MC cable that conforms to the intent of using AC cable to this 1st receptacle? Also, How has the ACFI receptacle done in actual applications as opposed to the breakers? I appreciate any input.
 
AFCI receptacles do not exist. The code provision is just there to permit their use if someone would get them into the market.
 
This is quoted directly from the "Allied" tube site. This explains the difference between AC & MC cables.

MC (Metal Clad) Cable

Type MC cables have 2 or more solid or stranded copper conductors in sizes 18 AWG and larger. The construction of AFC's 600 Volt MC cable consists of copper circuit and grounding conductors covered with thermoplastic insulation, an overall polypropylene cable assembly tape and an outer galvanized steel or aluminum interlocked armor.

AC (Armored) Cable

Type AC cable consists of 2 to 4 copper conductors in sizes 14 gauge to 1 AWG inside an interlocked metal armor of steel or aluminum construction. A 16 AWG aluminum bonding wire is inside of, and in physical contact with, the metal armor providing a low-impedance fault-return path required for the operation of overcurrent protection devices. The bonding wire is unique to Type AC cable and allows the outer metal armor in conjunction with the bonding wire to be used as the equipment ground.

:smile:
 
I know that the afci recpt. are not on the market as of yet. But I can see no advantage. By the time and material it would take to run AC or conduit you can install the breaker run the nm-b and charge the customer for the breaker. Job done
 
When the NFPA first mentioned they were going to require AFCIs, it was for 'receptacles'. All the manufacturers started gearing up their R&D sections to start making them. I've heard prototypes were made. Bring a circuit into a bedroom, hit the switch(es), then down to an AFCI recep and go 'round the room.

Then the NFPA (in their infinite wisdom) changed 'receptacle' to 'outlet'. AFCI receps went down the toilet and AFCI breakers hit the market instead.

Urban legend? May be. :rolleyes:

The only advantage of an AFCI recep I can see is if you need to AFCI protect a panel that doesn't have AFCI breakers available. Put an AFCI recep next to the panel and go from there.
 
AFCI receptacles

AFCI receptacles

Sorry for the stupid question, I did some research but after the replies I research MFG companies and they are not available.
 
peter d said:
And if the panel happens to be in the basement, garage, or other area requiring GFCI protection, the AFCI outlet would require GFCI protection as well. :wink:
Click to expand...

They got these spiffy things called GFI receps, too. Line/load one of those critters, and you're good to go.:grin:
 
480sparky said:
When the NFPA first mentioned they were going to require AFCIs, it was for 'receptacles'.

Urban legend? May be. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I remember AFCIs' debut years ago. The original intent was to reduce bed deaths caused by faulty lamp cords and receptacle strips used in bedrooms.

One must be at least a bit skepical when the entity that makes money making and selling a product is the one professing the life-saving benefits of its mandantory use.
 
peter d said:
And if the panel happens to be in the basement, garage, or other area requiring GFCI protection, the AFCI outlet would require GFCI protection as well. :wink:
Click to expand...
So, the GFCI should be first in the circuit.

On the other hand, since the entire circuit is supposed to be protected, the AFCI should be first.

Now, we'll have a new contradictory set of requirements, as well as contradictory inspectors.

"AFCI first!"

"No, GFCI first!"
 
Thay also have what I call a bald GFCI, it has no openings for a receptacle to plug into, just the line and load on the back, and are very popular for use on whirlpool tubs. maybe they will make them like these?:roll:
 
ceb58 said:
I know that the afci recpt. are not on the market as of yet. But I can see no advantage. By the time and material it would take to run AC or conduit you can install the breaker run the nm-b and charge the customer for the breaker. Job done
Click to expand...

The advantage I see is getting all those AFCI's out of the panel. I am still fearful of the added heat produced by them.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
AFCI receptacles do not exist. . .
Click to expand...
Actually P&S has one listed but never marketed it because of the restrictions.

480sparky said:
. . . Then the NFPA (in their infinite wisdom) . . .
Click to expand...
The NFPA doesn't write the NEC, the technical committees (code making panels) write the code.

There were 21 AFCI proposals this cycle. By just the hand vote there will be no increase AFCI requirements. However, the requirement may be changed to permit Type NM cable to be used to the first receptacle. This will permit the use of AFCI receptacles instead of AFCI circuit breakers. Keep in mind that the written ballot is not in yet and there is still the comment period, the NFPA Annual meeting, appeals to the Standards Council, and appeals to the Board of Directors. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top