Cost of AFCI breaker vs Receptacle

Status
Not open for further replies.
hbiss said:
Hey, it took all their brain power just to come up with this cockamamie idea, now you want them to think of everything?:lol:

-Hal
Click to expand...

hbiss said:
Actually this looks like a way for device manufacturers (like Leviton) to get into the panel and breaker market.

By the way, 330.17 makes no distinction between steel and aluminum sheathed MC or AC cables. All must be protected from damage with nail plates where necessary where it is run through framing members.

-Hal
Click to expand...
My thoughts even before finding out about the Levition panels, they left a loophole in there for future product development. It is after all the manufacturers that got most of the AFCI related code written as it is. Same manufacturers that in the past have had effective dates published in the NEC - to give them time to get products not yet ready for the market into the code requirements, instead of waiting for next code cycle to get the code requirements published.:(
 
Sounds like a headache. Where in the code does it require a “listed breaker and receptacle combination?” Anyone have an Article no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Without seeing the actual installation it's hard to say. But in general, a commercial kitchen is not a place I would run any armored cable exposed on walls, equipment or fixtures. Exposure to corrosive sanitizers and frequent cleaning and washdown would be a violation of (in the case of MC) 330.12(2)(b)

-Hal
 
DrSparks said:
Sounds like a headache. Where in the code does it require a “listed breaker and receptacle combination?” Anyone have an Article no?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
210.12(A)(1) the general rule that is followed most of the time - requires a combination type (as in second generation type that detects both series and parallel arcing faults) to protect the entire branch circuit.

210.12(A) (2 thru 6) includes all the situations when other options can be used, with conditions for such uses.
 
JFletcher said:
If you have to use a listed breaker, one that is rated for use with a afci receptacle, and have to pull in MC or AC cable, why even bother?
Click to expand...
It's "or" not "and".

2014/2017 210.12(A) says that as an alternative to using a combination type AFCI breaker [210.12(A)(1)], you can use an AFCI receptacle in the first outlet box if you also use one of the following:

(2) A listed branch/feeder type AFCI breaker.
(3) A "supplemental arc protection" breaker (currently non-existent as far as I know).
(4) A breaker listed in combination with the AFCI receptacle (also current non-existent as far as I know).
(5) Metallic boxes and a metallic wiring method (including MC cable) between the breaker and the first outlet box.

Cheers, Wayne
 
So, if I wire a house completely with MC and steel boxes why would I need AFCI breakers? Seems to me they consider a house wired with NM and plastic boxes a death trap. :cool:

-Hal
 
wwhitney said:
It's "or" not "and".

2014/2017 210.12(A) says that as an alternative to using a combination type AFCI breaker [210.12(A)(1)], you can use an AFCI receptacle in the first outlet box if you also use one of the following:

(2) A listed branch/feeder type AFCI breaker.
(3) A "supplemental arc protection" breaker (currently non-existent as far as I know).
(4) A breaker listed in combination with the AFCI receptacle (also current non-existent as far as I know).
(5) Metallic boxes and a metallic wiring method (including MC cable) between the breaker and the first outlet box.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

Yes, to use an afci receptacle, you have to use one of the aforementioned sections 2 through 5. If you are running nonmetallic cable, you have to use an old-school afci, or one of two Breakers that do not currently exist. Either way you have to use something in addition to the afci receptacle to make it code compliant. That to me is an and statement, not an or.

That's what I was also getting out with mentioning using half a product... The afci receptacle is only half of the equation.

Eta: I see now what you were getting at... Yes you are correct, I should have written or instead of and
 
Last edited:
Cost of AFCI breaker vs Receptacle

Art 210.12(a)(5) states that if rmc, emt, mc, etc are used between ocpd and first outlet box, an outlet type afci can be used. It says nothing of a listed combination. Perhaps this only applies to rule 4 when NM is used?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wwhitney said:
It's "or" not "and".

2014/2017 210.12(A) says that as an alternative to using a combination type AFCI breaker [210.12(A)(1)], you can use an AFCI receptacle in the first outlet box if you also use one of the following:

(2) A listed branch/feeder type AFCI breaker.
(3) A "supplemental arc protection" breaker (currently non-existent as far as I know).
(4) A breaker listed in combination with the AFCI receptacle (also current non-existent as far as I know).
(5) Metallic boxes and a metallic wiring method (including MC cable) between the breaker and the first outlet box.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

Never understood the thinking behind #3 and #4.....Even if those products existed, what would be the point in using them over just a standard AFCI breaker? Only thing I can think of is if it is cheaper, but I dont see how that could be.
 
Face-it...AFCI is here to stay. 2020 proposals add AFCI to all other areas in a dwelling. If we all just bid the job with breakers...then there won't be disparity in the field. Then, we all do-it equally, like plumbers, we can all smile on the way to the bank.

Then the difference between one electrician to the next will be performance, reliability and neatness...not pricing.
 
hbiss said:
So, if I wire a house completely with MC and steel boxes why would I need AFCI breakers? Seems to me they consider a house wired with NM and plastic boxes a death trap. :cool:

-Hal
Click to expand...

shortcircuit2 said:
Face-it...AFCI is here to stay. 2020 proposals add AFCI to all other areas in a dwelling. If we all just bid the job with breakers...then there won't be disparity in the field. Then, we all do-it equally, like plumbers, we can all smile on the way to the bank.

Then the difference between one electrician to the next will be performance, reliability and neatness...not pricing.
Click to expand...

New construction isn't really a problem IMO. Dealing with existing circuits and/or obsolete panels is where it gets trickier.
 
hbiss said:
So, if I wire a house completely with MC and steel boxes why would I need AFCI breakers? Seems to me they consider a house wired with NM and plastic boxes a death trap. :cool:
Click to expand...

That wouldn't count as protecting the loads plugged in to the receptacles. Once you have your first outlet, it and everything downstream would need to be protected.

This should not be construed as any support for the concept of "AFCI protection" in any of its current forms.
 
MAC702 said:
That wouldn't count as protecting the loads plugged in to the receptacles. Once you have your first outlet, it and everything downstream would need to be protected.
Click to expand...

My question was rhetorical. I know the Code makes no distinction with regards to wiring methods which wouldn't affect whatever is plugged into a receptacle anyway. I'm just saying, because they seem so paranoid about a run of NM- what if NM and plastic boxes were outlawed? If that were to happen it would make me wonder if AFCI would have the little trade support that it does since all we would basically have to worry about is dropping a furniture leg on a lamp cord.

-Hal
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Face-it...AFCI is here to stay. 2020 proposals add AFCI to all other areas in a dwelling. If we all just bid the job with breakers...then there won't be disparity in the field. Then, we all do-it equally, like plumbers, we can all smile on the way to the bank.

Then the difference between one electrician to the next will be performance, reliability and neatness...not pricing.
Click to expand...

I should be close to retired by the time Virginia adopt the 2020 NEC. And the problem is not new installations or old installations, or forcing electricians to fix previously undetected wiring errors during rough-in, the problem is that that fancy Euro coffee pot, Keurig, Dyson vacuum cleaner, or even a walkie-talkie trips these things even when there is nothing wrong with the appliance or branch circuit wiring.that I should have to provide a warranty on such a product and eat a service call, no matter how rare it may be,
Or the customer having to pay for a service call and a newer generation afci, Well, I cannot print my true feelings on this message board...

The manufacturers have had 15 years to get this right. And even if they didn't nuisance trip, I've seen several videos of them not trippin under glowing connections or arcing. I have yet to see one video of an afci breaker recognizing a potentially deadly fault and tripping

However, I suppose you are correct, if everyone bids in all required afci Breakers, and assumes some problems that will invariably creep up with them, then we all be on equal playing field
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Face-it...AFCI is here to stay. 2020 proposals add AFCI to all other areas in a dwelling. If we all just bid the job with breakers...then there won't be disparity in the field. Then, we all do-it equally, like plumbers, we can all smile on the way to the bank.

Then the difference between one electrician to the next will be performance, reliability and neatness...not pricing.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly right. Look at it this way- customer was sold a crock of you know what by the media and manufacturers about how AFCIs will save their lives and the lives of their unborn children. So now the customer is having problems and calls an EC. EC spends a lot of time trying to solve the problem but alas, it's one of those all to frequent situations where the problem is the poor design of AFCI itself. If the lowly EC tries to explain that to the customer he is contradicting everything the customer was made to believe by the "experts". So what does that do for the credibility of the EC, especially when the customer goes on social media and makes him out to be incompetent and putting the lives of their family in danger?

See, this just isn't some benign thing which we install and replace it if it goes bad. Sometimes there is no fixing and there is no legal way for us to remedy it. The manufacturers don't care because they don't have to go out and handle the problems. They are too busy laughing all the way to the bank while their problems are dumped on us which make us, not them, look bad.

I also wouldn't say that AFCIs are here to stay. Hopefully soon legal action will be taken to expose the fraud that it really is.

-Hal
 
Last edited:
I can see it now: multi-gang boxes nippled to panels, filled with AFCI receptacles, with NM leaving them.
 
electricguy61 said:
Kinda sorta: I’ve had real problems with Panasonic bath fans tripping the AFCI’s as well as vacuum cleaners.
Click to expand...

We have installed hundreds of Panasonic fans on AFCI circuits without a problem. Every time I have heard of problems with Panasonic fans its because the red control leads are not tied together in the j-box or they are not connected to a control switch isolated from the power source. Panasonic's engineers get an F- in their design. The manual control should be a separate switched hot. Instead they decided to connect the manual control leads to the neutral of the circuit.

We pull 14/2/2 to the fans. Connect the black and white as constant hot. Red and with/red stripe get connected to the red control leads. Single pole switch gets connected to the red control leads. With Lutron HomeWorks it gets more interesting. We have to connect the red control lead to dry contact relays.
 
hbiss said:
Well, he's wrong. We in NY are on the 2014 code.

Aside from the code requirements, AFCI receptacles are like putting a GFI receptacle behind a refrigerator.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Sort of. 90.4 gives an AHJ latitude to waive requirements when similar results are achieved outside of code structure; an astute AHJ can waive 210.12 if they decide they are snake oil and standard breakers achieve equivalent safety.

I want his autograph... :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top