Eaton / Cutler Hammer QBAF1020 Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter; 20 Amp, 1-Pole, Bolt-On

Status
Not open for further replies.
fbhwt

fbhwt

Electrical Systems Inspector
Location
Spotsylvania,Virginia
Occupation
Electrical Systems Inspector
I was wondering if someone knew the max wire size for this breaker, waiting on reply from Eaton/Cutler Hammer, thought I could get a quicker response here. Thanks!
 
Just checked a standard 20a bolt-in in another shop, says 6-4awg is the largest wire rating, just curious about the AFCI and what it's rating is. Saw the AFCI in a new building yesterday with #6awg feeding a room 100'-150' away.
 
Page 27 of this document says 14-4 for a single pole.

Note that the QBAF is a branch circuit/feeder type AFCI breaker, the current code requires a combination type AFCI which would be a QBCAF.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Page 27 of this document says 14-4 for a single pole.

Note that the QBAF is a branch circuit/feeder type AFCI breaker, the current code requires a combination type AFCI which would be a QBCAF.
Click to expand...

This is not a dwelling, this is a barracks, I guess this would be considered a dormitory? Where does it require they be combination type? I noticed they had both, one was yellow (test button) and one was green.
 
fbhwt said:
This is not a dwelling, this is a barracks, I guess this would be considered a dormitory? Where does it require they be combination type? I noticed they had both, one was yellow (test button) and one was green.
Click to expand...
In my opinion the NEC only requires AFCIs for dwelling units, and I don't see a barracks as a dwelling unit.
The code requires the use of the "combination" type AFCI (one that is said to be able to detect both series and parallel arcing faults, not to be confused with a "dual purpose" AFCI that provides the function of both a combination type AFCI and a GFCI) in section 210.12(A)(1).

The original AFCIs were the branch circuit/feeder type. The 2005 NEC required the use of the "combination" type with an effective date of 1/1/2008.

I think the only code use of the branch circuit/feeder type of AFCI is in 210.12(A)(2), but it must be used in conjunction with an "outlet type" AFCI at the first outlet on the circuit.
 
2014 NEC requires AFCI's in dormitories, but doesn't define what a dormitory is.

Merriam Webster definitions of barrack and dormitory seem to be similar enough that the base of the two definitions are the same.
 
Well, if AFCI is required by the NEC, then the part number in the OP is not suitable as it is a branch circuit/feeder type AFCI and the current code requires a combination type.
 
Thanks to all for the replies, I have been down this road before; does this building meet the definition of a "dwelling"? The only cooking appliances are microwaves in the individual rooms. These building are concrete and steel with fire protection. If the powers that be are calling these buildings dwellings then they should be combination AFCI type breakers according to 210.12(A)(1) as don_resqcapt19 said.
 
iwire said:
I don't think anyone was falling for anything.

The job specs require following the NEC.
Click to expand...

Don't government installations have the option of not following the NEC. I mean if they can legally tell civilian fire/police to leave a fire on their own property they can certainly exhibit authority over this?
 
mbrooke said:
Don't government installations have the option of not following the NEC.
Click to expand...

Yes and sometimes on the same job they follow it and ignore it. The ignoring parts come when they feel NEC requirements reduce security. (Think grounding or continuous metal pathways from inside a secure area to outside the secure area)

That said, I think it would be nuts to think someone in the Army Corp of Engineers* is going to put their butt on the line and opt out of AFCI requirements when the most all other areas of this country require them.

Think about it, put yourself in that persons position. Opt out of AFCIs to save an insignificant amount of money as a percentage of total job cost. No one is going to thank you for that.:happysad:

On the other hand if an electrical fire happens your career is kaput.



(*I am pretty sure it was the Army Corp of Engineers handling the barracks we did)
 
iwire said:
Yes and sometimes on the same job they follow it and ignore it. The ignoring parts come when they feel NEC requirements reduce security. (Think grounding or continuous metal pathways from inside a secure area to outside the secure area)

That said, I think it would be nuts to think someone in the Army Corp of Engineers* is going to put their butt on the line and opt out of AFCI requirements when the most all other areas of this country require them.

Think about it, put yourself in that persons position. Opt out of AFCIs to save an insignificant amount of money as a percentage of total job cost. No one is going to thank you for that.:happysad:

On the other hand if an electrical fire happens your career is kaput.






(*I am pretty sure it was the Army Corp of Engineers handling the barracks we did)
Click to expand...




It would need to be proven an arc faulted caused said fire. Plus I myself would speck fire sprinklers before any other fire saving measures.
 
fbhwt said:
Thanks to all for the replies, I have been down this road before; does this building meet the definition of a "dwelling"? The only cooking appliances are microwaves in the individual rooms. These building are concrete and steel with fire protection. If the powers that be are calling these buildings dwellings then they should be combination AFCI type breakers according to 210.12(A)(1) as don_resqcapt19 said.
Click to expand...
Depending on which NEC edition is being used, it wouldn't have to meet dwelling definition but could still be considered a dormitory or similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top