Afci

Status
Not open for further replies.
This wouldn't happen to be a cheap big box store Chinese fan perhaps 5 years old?

In an offline discussion with a SQ-D rep some time ago he mentioned that there was an initial rash of claimed "false trips" on fans. The eventual engineering analysis was that the fans were in fact bad and the devices were doing their job.

Something a little more reputable, like a Hunter, didn't exhibit any problems.
 
It was stated at the N.F.P.A. meeting that there is a voltage spike (300 to 400 volts ) that occurs when then control changes from one speed to another responsible for the "trips".
Tonyi, I think the rep for square D is in the business of selling breakers , perhaps blaming the fan for a problem with the technology, it also sounds like square D is one of the three..

Vermont should provide interesting data going forward on just how appropriate this technology is as a requirement .
 
Charlie:
I would say if the AFCI's were installed as an upgrade, they could be removed. Provided no other work was done to require them. See example below.

The Code is clear on GFCI's and grounded recep's when replacements are made. They have to be installed. No such requirment for AFCI's yet.

Heard from a guy yesterday about the inspector asking for AFCI's in the bedroom on a service change. House built in the 70's

Opinion of said inspector witheld.

So I asked the electrician:
Did he upgrade all required GFCI protected recep's?
Did he upgrade baths with a dedicated 20amp circuits?
Did he take the outdoor outlets off the SA circuits?
Did he upgrade counter recep's spacing in the kitchen?
I'm sure there was more that didn't comply with current Code rules!

Answer: No, No, No, No

Hey if were bring something up to Code, let's be thorough!!! wink wink!!!

I'm sure there are some structural and plumbing issues that need addressing also!!
 
M. D. said:
Larry, had those upgrades been made are you saying they could be removed?
Click to expand...

If they were made under false pretenses I would say yes. Except for the GFCI ones because the Code is specific under 406.3(D) that if you replace something there are specific rules to follow. That gets kind of sticky.

My example in post before is more to point out an overzealous inspector.

As far as the AFCI's go, let me put it another way. Example:
A house was built in 1980 and was never remodeled.
An AFCI breaker was put in to feed the bedroom outlets.
That was all that was done.
The requirement did not exist when the house was built.
Removal of the AFCI breaker does not constitute a violation.
 
It was stated at the N.F.P.A. meeting that there is a voltage spike (300 to 400 volts ) that occurs when then control changes from one speed to another responsible for the "trips".

Via what mechanism?
 
sandsnow said:
Example:
A house was built in 1980 and was never remodeled.
An AFCI breaker was put in to feed the bedroom outlets.
That was all that was done.
The requirement did not exist when the house was built.
Removal of the AFCI breaker does not constitute a violation.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Larry. 210.12(B) says circuits feeding bedroom outlets must have AFCI protection. It does not say older homes need not comply. It does not say it's OK to remove AFCI for older homes. It says, simply and clearly, that all bedroom circuits must have AFCI. All of them.

The only thing that allows circuits in older homes to be "continued in use" without upgrading to current codes is 80.9(B). But even that does not say that older homes never have to comply with current codes. What it says is that if an older home does not comply today, the owner need not upgrade it today. What you are suggesting is the opposite: even if it complies today, you can make it non-compliant tomorrow, because the house is older than the AFCI rule. That is not what 80.9(B) allows.
 
Last edited:
Same meeting N.F.P.A council July 14th 2004

Joe Engel:
..."When you change the speed,
16 you introduce like 300 or 400 volt 10 megacycle spikes
17 that get into the circuit and basically cause nuisance
18 tripping. It is not an arcing problem, not a ground
19 fault, but early designs of arc fault technology.

20 MR. DiNENNO: Thank you".

I think it has to do with the capacitors .
 
Larry I have to agree with Mr Beck here.

IMO the date that will make a difference will be when the permitted and inspected work takes place.;)

At some point I install voluntarily an AFCI in an old home. Of course I pull a permit and get it inspected. At the time of this inspection the AFCI is required, I can't go back later and remove the AFCI as it was required when I installed it.

That said....

charlie b said:
That is not what 80.9(B) allows.
Click to expand...

80.9(B) does not generally allow or prohibit anything. :)
 
al hildenbrand said:
It bears saying, there are whole States that are not enforcing AFCI requirements and there are also localities not enforcing.

There are also States (I believe such as Vermont) that require many more AFCI breakers than the National Electrical Code does.

Check with the local electrical inspector.
Click to expand...

There are also inspectors who don't enforce AFCI/GFCI requirements where K&T is involved. I recently had an inspector tell me that I didn't have to install GFCI protection when I replaced a light fixture with a metal one on a K&T circuit in a bedroom. He told me that AFCIs/GCFIs don't work on a lot of K&T configurations, so he wasn't going to make me install one.

I second Al's advice.
 
Charlie and Bob

Not quite on the same plane as you guys.

If I were to go to a house for a real estate home inspection (we used to do them in this City) and an AFCI was installed and not working and there was no other work done to require it, then I would have no problem removing it, as long as the house complies with hte NEC in force when it was constructed.

As much as I like Article 80, let's leave that out because it is not universally adopted (I wish it was).

I feel the Code is silent here. Replacements are mentioned specifically in 406 concerning receptacles, but nowhere else that comes to mind. So I'll use the old "if it is not specifically Not Permitted, then it is OK."

Please just don't say "agree to disagree". If we disagree, then we disagree. No hard feelings. That "agree to disagree" is just too polictically correct for me.
 
Larry I would hope that before you were to remove them you'd want to know why they would be tripping ,.... especially in an older home with who knows who doing "electrical work" over the years,

I can see it now ,......"But your honor the house was built before they were required,, yes they were tripping,.... that's why I removed them".

Good luck with that one.

If I were to have pulled a permit to install them there ain't an inspector within ten country miles of where I live that would allow another permit to remove them , unless I could demonstrate they were incompatible with the wiring system employed and installed inappropriately, In other words a mistake.
I guess I disagree.
 
I think were talking about something that would probably never happen. But....

What if they were tripping because the electrician connected a SP AFCI to a multiwire circuit??

My thought when I wrote the above, is that the AFCI itself was defective. I see your point that the tripping might indicate something wrong in the circuit.

Good idea or Bad Idea to remove aside, I don't see where the COde would require it to remain, if it was not required on the original dwelling.

I can see where the inspector would have a cow, but I don't believe he has a leg to stand on.
 
I think once the the job was complete and the inspector said "o.k." that protective device now relates to the "new" code
 
How about his one?

A detached garage at a one family dwelling. Power to the garage is not required, even by current code rules.

If the electric is all messed up in there, one way to remedy the situation is to simply remove all wiring in the garage back to the house.

Nothing in the code that says once you put power to the garage it has to stay there.
 
sandsnow said:
I don't see where the Code would require it to remain, if it was not required on the original dwelling.
Click to expand...
I am fully willing to avoid being politically correct, so I'll just disagree. My point is that the code currently requires it to be there. It has to remain because is has to be there.

If you wish to discuss "not required in the original dwelling," then I would ask you to point to the article that backs up that claim. I will point to 210.12(B). Your turn.

sandsnow said:
Nothing in the code that says once you put power to the garage it has to stay there.
Click to expand...
Not a valid analogy. The code does not state that power is required in a garage. But the code does state that all bedroom circuits will have AFCI protection.

The code does not address any building or component or facility or anything else that does not have power. Anyone can rip out all the wires in a house and tell the Electrical Inspector to go away. The NEC will have no jurisdiction. Of course, there may be other Inspectors who might have a say on the status of that house, but that's outside this topic.
 
Minimum NEC Requirement

Minimum NEC Requirement

sandsnow said:
Good idea or Bad Idea to remove aside, I don't see where the Code would require it to remain, if it was not required on the original dwelling.

I can see where the inspector would have a cow, but I don't believe he has a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting turn in the discussion.

Just where is that knife's edge balancing point that is the minimum NEC requirement in this situation.

I read Charlie B's point that if an AFCI is added to an existing circuit (with no new wiring added to that circuit), then 210.12(B), after the fact, requires the AFCI to remain.

In my opinion, Larry's example of wiring in a detatched dwelling garage gets to the heart of the question. The NEC tells us how to wire an existing garage, yet it does not tell us that wiring in an existing garage is a requirement. Going from wiring, good or bad, to less, or no, wiring, in an existing garage, is a legal possible choice.

I believe the NEC is, in fact, silent about this AFCI scenario for good reason. So called "Minimum Maintenance Code" , or code by other names to the same effect, is what regulates improvements to an existing occupancy, and thereby establishes the minimum requirements.

If a Minimum Maintenance Code doesn't exist in an enforceable form for a locality, then there is nothing other than the "new construction minimun Code", that is, the NEC, left to enforce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top