Arc faults will not trip

Status
Not open for further replies.
ActionDave said:
You guys obviously are not up to speed with the latest NEMA take on AFCI breakers. You don't know what you are doing and whatever it is that you are doing is wrong. Check out this quote from the other active AFCI thread...
Click to expand...

That NEMA take reminds me of a story Paul Harvey told about a baseball stadium on the West coast. He went through a list of requirements that it would take to hit an out of the Park HR. Essentially impossible, but it had already been done many times. Reality has a tendency to get in the way of theory. Not that I am saying those AFCIs are faulty, just suggesting a way to deal with reality.
 
It's monday :(

I'm going to have to take my three toed slothlike trade trashed body out and deal with reality.....


scarecrow-wizard-of-oz.jpg


~R:lol:J~
 
romex jockey said:
Their mag trip levels are lower Steve.....

~RJ~
Click to expand...
That is a possibility that it is tripping on high magnetic starting current.

AFCI is needed for the completed dwelling, it would not be a code violation to remove the AFCI protection for construction purposes as it is essentially a art 590 application during construction and nothing there requires AFCI.

Probably simplest to provide limited dedicated construction outlets with GFCI only protection on them.
 
romex jockey said:
I guess i'll have to do some field testing to see which are so , but i can't understand why they'd remove the only viable function Don

~RJ~
Click to expand...
I expect there are two reasons...one they found a way to meet the AFCI standard without the extra cost of the GFC circuit and. two, they didn't like fielding all of the calls from electricians who were in the habit of allowing ground faults when they wired devices.

The GE and Eaton's BR lines no longer have GFP. I am not sure exactly when this change took place, but it was after the "combination" AFCI hit the market. All of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had GFP.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I expect there are two reasons...one they found a way to meet the AFCI standard without the extra cost of the GFC circuit and. two, they didn't like fielding all of the calls from electricians who were in the habit of allowing ground faults when they wired devices.

The GE and Eaton's BR lines no longer have GFP. I am not sure exactly when this change took place, but it was after the "combination" AFCI hit the market. All of the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs had GFP.
Click to expand...

Why does it seem like the CMPs dont know or care about standing ground faults?
 
mbrooke said:
Why does it seem like the CMPs dont know or care about standing ground faults?
Click to expand...
The AFCI standard has never required GFP, but it is my understanding the only way they could get the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCI to pass all of the tests required in the standard was to use GFP. Now they have found a way to comply with the standard and not use GFP.

The CMPs do not write the code and the proposals called for the use of a listed AFCI device, they did not call for the use of a GFP device.

If you think that is what we need, then submit a public input for the 2020 code. You have until the first Friday in November, 2017 to get your proposal and substantiation completed.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The AFCI standard has never required GFP, but it is my understanding the only way they could get the original branch circuit and feeder type AFCI to pass all of the tests required in the standard was to use GFP. Now they have found a way to comply with the standard and not use GFP.

The CMPs do not write the code and the proposals called for the use of a listed AFCI device, they did not call for the use of a GFP device.

If you think that is what we need, then submit a public input for the 2020 code. You have until the first Friday in November, 2017 to get your proposal and substantiation completed.
Click to expand...

My understanding people, including Joe Engels have, only to be rejected. This shows the CMPs dont actually care about safety, only gimmicks.
 
iwire said:
Unless you where there you are making things up.
Click to expand...

From this paper:


http://combinationafci.com/resources/doc_ieee_combination_afci.pdf



The combination of arc fault and ground fault, in a circuit breaker, was and is the only solution to this recognized home electrical fire hazard. The author thought his demonstration, together with the UL report, would convince all to support his company’s proposal to add a 30mA ground fault requirement. This would require no product redesign, as all AFCIs at the time already including this feature. He was wrong.



The voting initially went as expected. Those not associated with NEMA and UL by in large voted in favor. The NEMA wiring device manufacturers voted against the proposal; this was expected and understood. Requiring every branch circuit breaker to provide ground fault protection could negatively affect their ground fault receptacle business. Next came a surprise: an AFCI manufacturer, whose product already included ground fault, voted against it. This made no sense, but the Panel still had enough votes to pass the proposal. A 2/3 positive vote was required to pass the proposal. It was expected that UL would vote in favor, they had on multiple occasions publically supported the proposal. Without explanation, UL switched position and voted against proposal. The 2/3 requirement failed by one vote.
Click to expand...


I would say (an educated guess) the manufacturer voted against ground fault because some nuisance tripping is caused by sloppy workmanship.
 
mbrooke said:
I thought I saw a proposal where he sent in asking for GFP to be mandated in AFCIs.
Click to expand...
But the CMP would be correct to reject such a proposal as that really belongs in the AFCI standard, not in the NEC, but I don't recall a proposal from him on that issue.
 
"All electrical equipment and any cord-and-plug connected appliance that is listed to a U.S. based electrical product standard (typically UL, but many CSA & IEC standards as well) will NOT trip an AFCI if it is operating under the normal parameters outlined in it's applicable standard. Period."

Most statements that contain absolutes are proven false.

Question is, did I fix the problem by replacing the 1 of 4 AFCI that kept tripping when the old lady plugged in her vac, or should I have replaced the three that didnt trip (and told her to replace her brand-new vac)? ;)
 
mbrooke said:
Then how do you change UL1699? Didnt UL1699 come from the NEC's mandate?
Click to expand...
The UL standards are consensus standards and developed in much the same way as the NEC is. There is a method to submit proposed changes to the standards, but I don't know exactly what that method is. I am sure is it on their web site somewhere.

I don't think the NEC had any AFCI requirements prior to there being a standard for the manufacturers to build the AFCI device to.
 
kwired said:
That is a possibility that it is tripping on high magnetic starting current.

AFCI is needed for the completed dwelling, it would not be a code violation to remove the AFCI protection for construction purposes as it is essentially a art 590 application during construction and nothing there requires AFCI.

Probably simplest to provide limited dedicated construction outlets with GFCI only protection on them.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i've been doing for years Kwired....~RJ~
 
JFletcher said:
"All electrical equipment and any cord-and-plug connected appliance that is listed to a U.S. based electrical product standard (typically UL, but many CSA & IEC standards as well) will NOT trip an AFCI if it is operating under the normal parameters outlined in it's applicable standard. Period."

Most statements that contain absolutes are proven false.

Question is, did I fix the problem by replacing the 1 of 4 AFCI that kept tripping when the old lady plugged in her vac, or should I have replaced the three that didnt trip (and told her to replace her brand-new vac)? ;)
Click to expand...

I'm becoming convinced over time that the lower afci mag trip level (be it electronic or no) and Xformer proximity are a better avenue to investigate with anything motorized than arc signatures commutator brushes, etc

As an aside, the nema people in an afci thread here blew up at me when this information was forwarded.
Thus, and greatly due to the fact that they knew this, and chose to not disclose it in the forum has peaked my suspicions that afci mag trip levels may in fact be the chief operational component.

That said , it appears an area of little interest to the average spark. So having a point of reference to assume a broader overview is a tad hard to come by. Thankfully, i'm not alone here....:)

~CS~
 
It is explicit in the description of some AFCI operations that "parallel arc" tripping uses what is *effectively* a low mag trip which is only active when an arc signature is detected at the same time. Not sure what the unconditional mag trip level is.
 
If it were privileged information, i'd be the last to know GoldDigger.

In fact, there's quite a lot written on the subject one can find , were one inspired to search a tad.

It's just not something pointed out in the repetitive 'why did my afci trip' pro threads.

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
If it were privileged information, i'd be the last to know GoldDigger.

In fact, there's quite a lot written on the subject one can find , were one inspired to search a tad.

It's just not something pointed out in the repetitive 'why did my afci trip' pro threads.

~RJ~
Click to expand...
In many of the "intro level" threads on AFCI it is never mentioned that there are qualifying current levels for parallel and series arc detection.
One of the consequences seems to be that with the parallel arc threshold so high all commonly reported nuisance trips are following the series arc flow chart or else GF. Or else starting surge of large motors while a spurious arc signature is present.
This also suggests to me that the start of the really high incidence of non-GF nuisance trips did not come until the introduction of the combo AFCI.
Any members care to share anecdotal data on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top