AFCI - Supplemental vs Combination vs Outlet Branch-Circuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leo1

Member
Location
Los Alamos, NM
In Article 210.12 it appears to indicate three different types of arc-fault circuit interrupters: a) listed combination-type, b) listed branch/feeder-type, and c) a listed supplemental-type. What are the differences between these three AFCI devices? From the code it appears if the listed combination-type is used the conductor length limitations cited for the other combinations does not applied. Is there a preferred configuration of AFCIs to use? Is one combination safer than the others? Is configuration more economical?
 
Branch Feeder : protects like a standard thermal magnetic breaker plus detects parallel arc's

Combination type: protects like a standard thermal magnetic breaker plus detects parallel and also series arc's ( older code)

supplementary : I believe there is no known such product. Was supposed to be a breaker that worked in conjunction with a outlet branch type afci device. (newer Code)

I know of no footage limitation. Only that under the 2014 code you may use a listed pair ( breaker and OBCD) However there is no listed device now or probably ever.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Branch Feeder : protects like a standard thermal magnetic breaker plus detects parallel arc's

Combination type: protects like a standard thermal magnetic breaker plus detects parallel and also series arc's ( older code)

supplementary : I believe there is no known such product. Was supposed to be a breaker that worked in conjunction with a outlet branch type afci device. (newer Code)

I know of no footage limitation. Only that under the 2014 code you may use a listed pair ( breaker and OBCD) However there is no listed device now or probably ever.
Click to expand...


Thank you! The footage limitation I mention is Art. 210.12(A)(3) and (4): 50 ft for 14 AWG and 70 ft for 12 AWG.
 
Leo1 said:
Thank you! The footage limitation I mention is Art. 210.12(A)(3) and (4): 50 ft for 14 AWG and 70 ft for 12 AWG.
Click to expand...


That exception and footage limitation only applies to where a listed breaker in conjunction with a OBCD AFCI. We have the OBCD's however there are no Listed supplementary breakers made. It is doubtful there will ever be one from what others here have said. Why would Sqd list a breaker they make to be used with a Leviton OBCD AFCI?
They would not.
Maybe Leviton will make a Universal breaker and list it with their outlet.
Doubtful but plausible.
 
Leo1 said:
Thank you! The footage limitation I mention is Art. 210.12(A)(3) and (4): 50 ft for 14 AWG and 70 ft for 12 AWG.
Click to expand...

It has to do with length being long enough to trip the breaker magnetically when shorted. An supplemental arc protection device is simply a standard thermal magnetic breaker with a known magnetic trip level, however UL did testing and confirmed that newer single pole breakers all trip magnetically under 500amps.
 
mbrooke said:
It has to do with length being long enough to trip the breaker magnetically when shorted. An supplemental arc protection device is simply a standard thermal magnetic breaker with a known magnetic trip level, however UL did testing and confirmed that newer single pole breakers all trip magnetically under 500amps.
Click to expand...

That may be so, however there is no supplementary breaker nor is there a listed pair of devices. Many feel there will not be. Eaton is one that has the ability to do so. Eaton makes breakers, AFCI breakers and outlets. They have the current ability to do so but have not.
 
Sierrasparky said:
That may be so, however there is no supplementary breaker nor is there a listed pair of devices. Many feel there will not be. Eaton is one that has the ability to do so. Eaton makes breakers, AFCI breakers and outlets. They have the current ability to do so but have not.
Click to expand...

Ive heard from Don19 is that the idea was scrapped. However I read the ROPs and there is debate about just using the same rule with standard breakers and AFCI receptacle devices.
 
Obviously Eaton isn't about to market a $100 DP larger ampacity combination afci that will do the job of (soon to be '17 requirement) 20 SP afci's @ $50 ea Sierra.

~RJ~
 
Sierrasparky said:
Huh?

Sorry if I don't follow your comment. :?
Click to expand...

This is shot of a 210.12 compliant sub panel Sierra>

siemensafcipanel_zpsbfbb08be.jpg


18 are afci's @ the consumers cost of $900

If a feeder listed double pole 60A afci were available @ say $100 pursuant to the same compliance, wouldn't you as the consumer opt for it?

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
This is shot of a 210.12 compliant sub panel Sierra>

siemensafcipanel_zpsbfbb08be.jpg


18 are afci's @ the consumers cost of $900

If a feeder listed double pole 60A afci were available @ say $100 pursuant to the same compliance, wouldn't you as the consumer opt for it?

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I would not and I would not recommend it.

You think your customers hate false triping branch circuits wait till you provide them with false tripping harder to troubleshoot feeders.
 
iwire said:
I would not and I would not recommend it.

You think your customers hate false triping branch circuits wait till you provide them with false tripping harder to troubleshoot feeders.
Click to expand...


My economic point aside , i'm sure i could advise even the average housewife over the phone to turn off every breaker , turn on the afci feeder OCPD, then turn on one breaker at a time until the culprit was outed Mr Iwire

Small inconvenience to pay for what may be a $1000+ savings

Which, may i add, Eaton is well aware of , ergo they'll not offer it marketed

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
i'm sure i could advise even the average housewife over the phone to turn off every breaker , turn on the afci feeder OCPD, then turn on one breaker at a time until the culprit was outed Mr Iwire
Click to expand...

That's some funny stuff there chickenman.

You seem to assume the culprit is a constant condition that will show itself quickly.

I know you know better than that.
 
romex jockey said:
My economic point aside , i'm sure i could advise even the average housewife over the phone to turn off every breaker , turn on the afci feeder OCPD, then turn on one breaker at a time until the culprit was outed Mr Iwire

Small inconvenience to pay for what may be a $1000+ savings

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I am picturing the average housewife standing in the dark with a flashlight in one hand and a telephone in the other trying to figure out how to hold the phone and the flashlight whilst re-setting the main AFCI and flipping breakers on and off trying to get it to fail again. When all is said and done, I am sure she will be very pleased to know her $275,000 house would have cost $276,000 in order to have the exotic luxury and decadence of only having one circuit shut down over a trip.
 
:lol: I guess we know who's out doing bids , and who's not ....

Perhaps some of you should investigate the Euro model , which is close in design , and survived 1/2 century of damsels in distress....

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
:lol: I guess we know who's out doing bids , and who's not ....

Perhaps some of you should investigate the Euro model , which is close in design , and survived 1/2 century of damsels in distress....

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I don't have to investigate anything. Michigan has no AFCI requirement.

:thumbsup:

But if we did, no way would I want a trip on a single circuit to take out a whole bunch more.
 
iwire said:
That's some funny stuff there chickenman.

You seem to assume the culprit is a constant condition that will show itself quickly.

I know you know better than that.
Click to expand...

Why do you become so fanatical when someone mentions a sub-main? And his name is Romex Jockey, no idea who chickenman happens to be.


Yes a submain makes trouble shooting much, much more difficult, but from a pure code perspective nothing stops you, or at least it should not. That and the fact if AFCIs did not nuisance trip, it actually might be feasible. I think thats what he was trying to say.
 
mbrooke said:
And his name is Romex Jockey, no idea who chickenman happens to be.
Click to expand...

He's Everywhere! He's Everywhere!

Sorry RJ, this isn't a pot shot at you. Chickenman, AKA 'Benton Harbor', was a favorite radio show of mine. Benton Harbor, in case you don't know, is a town in Michigan. Anything Michigan is cool to me.

Plus, Chickenman always saved the day. No matter how screwed up things got.

Iwire is about my age and probably has heard the show. BTW, that means Iwire isn't older than dirt, but may have a few years on most of the sod in the area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top