AFIC & Smoke detectors

[roy anderberg]

Why does the code require that the smoke alarms be wired into the AFIC circuits? And yet they allow that the outside GFI's be connected to the same circuits also.

 

[dnem]

Why does the code require that the smoke alarms be wired into the AFIC circuits? And yet they allow that the outside GFI's be connected to the same circuits also.

Since you're talking AFCI, you're most likely talking residential, so I'll limit my comments to that.

When you used the word "allow" when talking about adding the outside plugs, you made a correct statement but one that is a bit misleading. . There are few restricted circuits in residential. . A quick basic count only turns up 5, unless we get into possible specific appliance equipment dedicated circuit requirements. . There are a minimum of 4 restricted circuits in 210.11(C) and one in 422.12. . But most loads are open to be grouped in any way you choose, including choosing to put the outside plugs on the same circuit as a bedroom(s).

When you used the word "require" when talking about the smoke alarms, that was a bit misleading also. Because it's not that the smoke alarms are singled out to be required to be put on an AFCI, 210.12(B) requires every item in the bedroom to be AFCI protected. . The smoke alarms could even be put on their own dedicated AFCI, if you choose. . If you wish to have the AFCI circuit leave the bedroom and pick up other loads, that's your choice. . You can add the outside plugs on that circuit if you wish.

The only restriction on how far you extend the AFCI circuit is the limits in 220.10. The problem with using 220.10 to calculate the limit of this proposed circuit is that the calculation is not based on number of plugs but rather square footage served and the plugs outside aren't serving an area that can be defined by square footage. I'm going to guess without thinking about it thoroughly and say that the outside plugs would fall under 220.14(L) and would account for 1 & 1/2 amps per plug.

David

 

[roy anderberg]

AFIC & Smoke Detectors

AFIC & Smoke Detectors

David,

Thanks for the clarification. The inspector in Washington State made me put the detectors on the bedroom arc-fault, and that's what I have been doing ever since.

 

[George Stolz]

The inspector in Washington State made me put the detectors on the bedroom arc-fault, and that's what I have been doing ever since.

That is correct, do you agree?

In some localities, they have even more restrictions on this area. Some require the smokes to be on a lighting circuit that will be missed if the AFCI trips. Some require the smokes to be dedicated. Some override 210.12 and require the smokes to not be AFCI-protected. Just offering that for some perspective.

 

[infinity]

And some don't require AFCI protectors at all. Like here in NJ. Although we follow the 2005 NEC AFCI protection is optional due to a AHJ amendment.

 

[al hildenbrand]

One other perspective, Roy, comes from reading the Code Making Panel (CMP) comments in the Report On Proposals (ROP) in the last two Code creation cycles.

I haven't taken the moment to look up any CMP comments to quote here, but there have been a lot of new code proposals that have spoken to the underlying concern in your question. That is, is it safer or not to put the smokes on an AFCI?

The gist of the CMP comments made, while rejecting any, and all, proposals to exempt smokes from AFCI protection, has been, "We intend to protect all the branch circuits that supply outlets in dwelling bedrooms." Period. No real rational.

When it comes to AFCIs, its the stuff that isn't talked about that causes me the most concern.

 

[dnem]

If panel #2 continues down the path toward whole house AFCI like they are pointing toward in the ROP, this has the potential to play out like a soap opera. . The ROP for 210.12(B) already has all the ingredients for a disaster.

If the NFPA doesn't handle this properly, they can squander alot of the respect that they've worked to build up thru decades of time. . I don't think it's common for states or municipalities to comb thru the NEC and pick and choose what they want to enforce. . I know it does happen in some places but adoption of the NEC as a whole is much more common.

There's the potential that this AFCI situation could start a lot of questioning of NFPA code panel integrity. . It's possible that states could move into enacting their own completely seperate electrical building codes. . If some states start to move away from adoption of the NEC, it could draw others into doing the same. . NFPA 70 could end up like NFPA 72, just a resource that the state uses to write its own code.

I hope there's somebody in the NFPA that's thinking about this concept while they're listening to industry lobbyists talk on and on about how wonderful AFCIs are. . I'm sure the manufacturers can provide page after page of test results that show that AFCIs are the best thing since sliced bread. . But tests, and particularly the interpretation of the results, tend to get manipulated by the dollar sign.

I hope somebody in the NFPA is looking at the big picture.

David

 

[George Stolz]

It's possible that states could move into enacting their own completely seperate electrical building codes. . If some states start to move away from adoption of the NEC, it could draw others into doing the same. . NFPA 70 could end up like NFPA 72, just a resource that the state uses to write its own code.

I hope it doesn't come to that. As long as AFCI-like incidents don't keep recurring, it shouldn't.

All the same, it might wake them up to the realities of their position.

 

[dnem]

I hope it doesn't come to that. As long as AFCI-like incidents don't keep recurring, it shouldn't.

All the same, it might wake them up to the realities of their position.

What I see as the most probable outcome is the NFPA passing the whole house 120v circuits AFCI requirement. . Then certain states will adopt the NEC but exempt the AFCI requirement, as they have in the past.

Its my hope that enough states exempt AFCI requirement to get the NFPAs attention. . There's probably a balance point in the number of states that choose to exempt that would get the attention of all of the rest of the states and get them to take a look. . I don't know if 5 states would be enough. . I'm guessing that it would take about 10 states before the other 40 say, "What's this all about ? . Should we take a look at this also ?" . That type of reaction could start a wholesale movement that could get 30 to 40 states exempting.

I'm sure that would get the NFPAs atttention

David

 

[don_resqcapt19]

David,
If things continue as they are now the AFCI requirement will go away all by itself. There are no products on the market that meet the 1/1/2008 requirement and it is not likely that there will be, so the section will become void as there is not a product that can comply.
Don

 

[al hildenbrand]

If things continue as they are now the AFCI requirement will go away all by itself. There are no products on the market that meet the 1/1/2008 requirement and it is not likely that there will be, so the section will become void as there is not a product that can comply.
Don

Isn't that somethin'. I have great faith in the "technological" solution to many things, but arc fault technology is not one of them. The manufacturer's silence about their individual hardware solution's structure and logic is so LOUD. . .