By the way

[romex jockey]

This is just part of the long standing AFCI fight between breaker and device manufactures. It was a bone tossed to the device manufacturers by breaker manufacturers.

The breaker manufacturers "stacked" the vote at the technical session that adopted the 2017 NEC to keep 210.12(A)(4)(d) in the code as part of this same fight. There is not even a standard to create the breaker required by that rule. The evidence shows that for the size and length of wire specified in (4) that the standard breaker provides sufficient protection for the branch circuit conductors and without the reference to this non-existent device, the breaker manufacturers fear that they would lose sales to the device manufactures. (by "stacked" I mean that there were almost twice as many NFPA members that voted on the motion on this issue as on any other motion)

I believe the key term is 'supplemental' w/in 210.12A3, A "listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker" basically referes to the old non-combination afci ,prior to the '08 UL1966 change.

This was a term created by schnieder/seimens cmp2 reps who feared EC's would have had to return and/or trash a stockroom/van/jobsite of useless non-combo afci's

Or worse, suffer a recall of them

~RJ~

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the key term is 'supplemental' w/in 210.12A3, A "listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker" basically referes to the old non-combination afci ,prior to the '08 UL1966 change.

~RJ~

Where did that info come from?

 

[kwired]

I believe the idea behind this is to allow localized reset instead of at the panel.

Since it has to protect the rest of the circuit beyond the first outlet, I don't agree with "localized reset" theory. If it were only outlet on circuit or only supplied others in immediate vicinity yes it is "localized". But if you are in one bedroom, power is lost, aren't most people that are going to look for something to reset going to look in the panel for something to reset and not the adjacent bedroom?

"localized reset" works with GFCI's because by design you can choose to not feed through to any other outlets with the protection, AFCI rules require protection of the entire circuit not just individual outlets.

 

[Mgraw]

Since it has to protect the rest of the circuit beyond the first outlet, I don't agree with "localized reset" theory. If it were only outlet on circuit or only supplied others in immediate vicinity yes it is "localized". But if you are in one bedroom, power is lost, aren't most people that are going to look for something to reset going to look in the panel for something to reset and not the adjacent bedroom?

"localized reset" works with GFCI's because by design you can choose to not feed through to any other outlets with the protection, AFCI rules require protection of the entire circuit not just individual outlets.

Tell that to Eaton. Localized reset is their reasoning. If I remember correctly they also said it would be more advantageous in a dormitory.

 

[kwired]

Tell that to Eaton. Localized reset is their reasoning. If I remember correctly they also said it would be more advantageous in a dormitory.

Ok, it can be more localized, but don't mean it will always be.

I can't tell you how many times with something having no power a customer has told me no breakers were tripped, but I find a GFCI tripped somewhere they never even considered looking. Can even be confusing when the tripped GFCI is on same countertop as the receptacle that quit working, and they still look at the panel for a tripped breaker first.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

But the breaker and the outlet device need to be listed to be used together as a combination. Those old twin breakers may not be part of the combination. Don't know enough about them to say for certain.

The fact that Eaton is (presumably) the first one to come up with such combination of products isn't too surprising though. Eaton does own what used to be Cooper devices don't they?

Schneider and Siemens aren't making receptacle devices, and GE's power distribution products division was taken over by ABB. Eaton the only player with products made for both ends of this combination AFAIK.

I'm sure I will be corrected. I'm just trying to understand this correctly.
I thought the idea of this product is so we don't have to deal with the breaker in the panel, we just have to make sure that the product is installed within the specifications of the code.

 

[kwired]

I'm sure I will be corrected. I'm just trying to understand this correctly.
I thought the idea of this product is so we don't have to deal with the breaker in the panel, we just have to make sure that the product is installed within the specifications of the code.

I don't understand what you are asking. Code says breaker and device at first outlet need to be listed for use together, you can't have one without the other and still achieve AFCI protection that is suitable to code.

 

[peter d]

AFCI's :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[ramsy]

AFCI's :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

This one is for Peter D.

UL certifies System-Combo. AFCIs per 210.12(A)(4) under product category AWDT.
Breaker & OBCD AFCI must be packaged together, with "System-Combo." Panel stickers.
See attached Pg.1&2 from May-June 2018 IAEI NEWS

UL Category Guide here
Eaton's UL listing is shown here

Mikeholt.com won't allow attachment of 0.6MB PDF

 

[mbrooke]

I believe the key term is 'supplemental' w/in 210.12A3, A "listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker" basically referes to the old non-combination afci ,prior to the '08 UL1966 change.

This was a term created by schnieder/seimens cmp2 reps who feared EC's would have had to return and/or trash a stockroom/van/jobsite of useless non-combo afci's

Or worse, suffer a recall of them

~RJ~

^^^ This :happyyes::happyyes::happyyes::happyyes::happyyes:

 

[kwired]

^^^ This :happyyes::happyyes::happyyes::happyyes::happyyes:

(A)(3) and (A)(4) have some similarities, but seem to be talking about two different combinations of circuit breaker unit and outlet device to go into the first outlet. Only (4) the (a)(b)(c) of each is identical or very near identical, but (4) has (d) which says the two individual components must be a combination that is identified for use with one another.

Still convinced that it was at code making time of 2014 NEC about products that were in development but not available yet, apparently they still weren't quite there when 2017 came around. You can bet those that were making these products had some involvement in getting a product not on the market yet into code, who else has any reason to even submit such things for consideration?

(A)(2) is what addresses the old non combination AFCI breakers and an AFCI device at the first outlet.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I don't understand what you are asking. Code says breaker and device at first outlet need to be listed for use together, you can't have one without the other and still achieve AFCI protection that is suitable to code.

I just read the specifications again.
In short,I first thought CH had some kind of funky all in one device we install at the first receptacle in the circuit:slaphead:

 

[mbrooke]

(A)(3) and (A)(4) have some similarities, but seem to be talking about two different combinations of circuit breaker unit and outlet device to go into the first outlet. Only (4) the (a)(b)(c) of each is identical or very near identical, but (4) has (d) which says the two individual components must be a combination that is identified for use with one another.

Still convinced that it was at code making time of 2014 NEC about products that were in development but not available yet, apparently they still weren't quite there when 2017 came around. You can bet those that were making these products had some involvement in getting a product not on the market yet into code, who else has any reason to even submit such things for consideration?

(A)(2) is what addresses the old non combination AFCI breakers and an AFCI device at the first outlet.

UL had a supplemental arc protection breaker, which was just a guaranteed low mag trip breaker. The project was cancelled.

 

[kwired]

UL had a supplemental arc protection breaker, which was just a guaranteed low mag trip breaker. The project was cancelled.

Standard QO single pole 15 and 20 amp breakers have been low mag trip for years. Probably the first step in AFCI protection idea and it happened before they started calling things AFCI's, now they just need 30 mA GFP and forget the other crap they tried to add on.

 

[mbrooke]

Standard QO single pole 15 and 20 amp breakers have been low mag trip for years. Probably the first step in AFCI protection idea and it happened before they started calling things AFCI's, now they just need 30 mA GFP and forget the other crap they tried to add on.

Only reason we got branch feeder AFCIs was because they could not lower the mag trip below 150 amps.


At the same time: 75 amps was never reasonably proven as the lowest short circuit value in a dwelling. Many believed the cut off was higher. And in theory its still possible to go below 75amps, ie code does not enforce voltage drop.

 

[ramsy]

Standard QO single pole 15 and 20 amp breakers have been low mag trip for years. Probably the first step in AFCI protection idea and it happened before they started calling things AFCI's, now they just need 30 mA GFP and forget the other crap they tried to add on.

GFCI & mag trip requires load side amps, just like an OCPD.

AFCI matches any propagating waveforms from line, load, or space;
albeit, while using proprietary filtering at low magnitudes.

Therefore, Eaton just proved some AFCI outlet can detect line-side events with a standard Eaton breaker, to get AFCI System-Combo. certification under UL cat. (AWDT)
http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=AWDT.E497944

Remember, Eaton's class CL breakers, uniquely UL certified compatible in other panels, which is another expensive UL certification, not duplicated by others manufacturers.

 

[mbrooke]

GFCI & mag trip requires load side amps, just like an OCPD.

AFCI matches any propagating waveforms from line, load, or space;
albeit, while using proprietary filtering at low magnitudes.

Therefore, Eaton just proved some AFCI outlet can detect line-side events with a standard Eaton breaker, to get AFCI System-Combo. certification under UL cat. (AWDT)
http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=AWDT.E497944

Remember, Eaton's class CL breakers, uniquely UL certified compatible in other panels, which is another expensive UL certification, not duplicated by others manufacturers.

You have to remember that a parallel arc fault is nothing more then a short circuit which does clear within 8 half cycles.

 

[ramsy]

You have to remember that a parallel arc fault is nothing more then a short circuit which does clear within 8 half cycles.

You describe load-side events that trip OCPD's, but UL's (AWDT) test standard proves if AFCI outlets trip on line-side events.

 

[mbrooke]

You describe load-side events that trip OCPD's, but UL's (AWDT) test standard proves if AFCI outlets trip on line-side events.

Explain.

 

[ramsy]

Explain.

Without paying for access to UL's proprietary test standard, or reading how UL's test is conducted, I believe the circuit breaker has no AFCI functionality for UL's (AWDT) combo.

Therefore, the standard must require the AFCI outlet to reliably trip during test events that occur line-side of AFCI, along the home-run, before the first outlet, before the AFCI outlet.

Its no surprise that AFCI's trip on line-side events. I've seen AFCI outlets trip from deteriorating nearby breakers in same panel, separated by several bus stabs and 50ft of Romex.

I believe (AWDT) is the first UL standard that requires AFCI's to reliability demonstrate operation from line-side events, that occur before the AFCI.