GFCI Protection VS Arc Fault - Dwelling Unit

[Npstewart]

Good morning,


The picture probably probably makes a narrative useless but anyway...

I have a multifamily dwelling unit with a receptacle installed on the opposite side of the counter & sink (under the counter top) installed what I like to call a bar area, with bar stools.

Question #1: Should this be GFCI or AFCI in your opinion?

Question #2: I remember reading in the NEC that receptacles located in the dining areas of a dwelling unit are required to be fed from the small appliance branch circuit which by its nature is GFCI protected, therefore if this is required to be AFCI, and you fed it from the load side of a upstream GFCI, would you have to then provide a AFCI device receptacle? Otherwise you would have to feed the SABC from a AFCI breaker then provide a GFCI device. Alternatively one of those combo breaker units would work which I was told is $$.


As always, much appreciated.

 

[Npstewart]

Sorry the above picture is so large...

 

[kwired]

2014 NEC - likely it will need both. If a six foot cord plugged into that receptacle can reach the sink GFCI is needed, if it can't reach the sink then only AFCI is needed. Don't know the exact wording but that is basically one way to determine what is required from what I understand.

Prior to 2014 it did not require GFCI unless it happened to be serving the countertop surface. AFCI would have depended on whether or not it was considered to be serving the kitchen or not.

One dilemma in either code is whether or not it can be a part of a small appliance branch circuit - and that would come down to what kind of room/space is on that side of the cabinets. If a dining room or breakfast room then it can be on the SABC, if a living room then it would depend on if that receptacle is considered to be serving the kitchen or the living room.

 

[Npstewart]

Im still on the 2008 NEC. The issue is with an inspector whom is requesting a AFCI in lieu of a GFCI. It seems so much more likely that someone would plug a radio into that receptacle and set it on the counter then the receptacle arcing to a metal piece of furniture. I have seen GFCIs working on more then one personal experience and they function well. I have NEVER seen arcing from a receptacle nor have I ever had to go to my garage to reset an arc fault breaker. Furthermore, I have never even heard of anyone having to do that. A GFCI just seems like a superior device even if they have different purposes.

 

[kwired]

Im still on the 2008 NEC. The issue is with an inspector whom is requesting a AFCI in lieu of a GFCI. It seems so much more likely that someone would plug a radio into that receptacle and set it on the counter then the receptacle arcing to a metal piece of furniture. I have seen GFCIs working on more then one personal experience and they function well. I have NEVER seen arcing from a receptacle nor have I ever had to go to my garage to reset an arc fault breaker. Furthermore, I have never even heard of anyone having to do that. A GFCI just seems like a superior device even if they have different purposes.

There is more to an AFCI then protecting from things you mentioned - and in fact a GFCI will protect from most of what you mentioned. That said not everything about AFCI's is widely accepted either and many do not believe they will protect us from everything they claim they will, or feel they don't protect us from even greater probability events, a big one being the "glowing connection" at a loose termination. Others claim (and I do agree from evidence that I have seen) that 120 volts can not produce enough of a sustained arc to be reliably detected and offer reliable protection from this kind of event. Most trip events that people have had were either similar problems that would also trip a GFCI or were from items that had nothing wrong yet the AFCI did not like the current waveform produced by a particular item - and this is frustrating when a safety device trips on something that is not considered to have a problem.

All that aside AFCI's are in the code and we do have to deal with them like it or not. As I said earlier prior to 2014 that outlet does not require GFCI if it is not serving a countertop. Whether or not it requires AFCI depends on what kind of area it is considered to be serving. If it is considered to be serving a kitchen - it doesn't need AFCI. If it is considered to be serving a living room or a dining room then it does require AFCI - I believe this was also true for 2008. 2005 I believe AFCI was still just limited to bedroom circuits.

 

[Npstewart]

There is more to an AFCI then protecting from things you mentioned - and in fact a GFCI will protect from most of what you mentioned. That said not everything about AFCI's is widely accepted either and many do not believe they will protect us from everything they claim they will, or feel they don't protect us from even greater probability events, a big one being the "glowing connection" at a loose termination. Others claim (and I do agree from evidence that I have seen) that 120 volts can not produce enough of a sustained arc to be reliably detected and offer reliable protection from this kind of event. Most trip events that people have had were either similar problems that would also trip a GFCI or were from items that had nothing wrong yet the AFCI did not like the current waveform produced by a particular item - and this is frustrating when a safety device trips on something that is not considered to have a problem.

All that aside AFCI's are in the code and we do have to deal with them like it or not. As I said earlier prior to 2014 that outlet does not require GFCI if it is not serving a countertop. Whether or not it requires AFCI depends on what kind of area it is considered to be serving. If it is considered to be serving a kitchen - it doesn't need AFCI. If it is considered to be serving a living room or a dining room then it does require AFCI - I believe this was also true for 2008. 2005 I believe AFCI was still just limited to bedroom circuits.

Thanks for your insight. It seems a GFCI would be a better device to install practically speaking but from a black and white code perspective a AFCI would be more correct.

 

[suemarkp]

There's no reason you can't do both, AFCI and GFCI are not mutually exclusive unless you want a breaker to do both functions. And those combo breakers are coming, but just not here yet (except perhaps SquareD).

 

[kwired]

Thanks for your insight. It seems a GFCI would be a better device to install practically speaking but from a black and white code perspective a AFCI would be more correct.

According to NEC there is no "more correct" application. NEC is pretty specific where they require AFCI. NEC also has instances where both technologies need to be applied.

The "more correct" thing is a challenge by some to the NEC and to the manufacturers of AFCI's to prove that AFCI's do what they claim they will do, and is a cry to have the AFCI requirements removed from the code if they do not do what we are told they will do.

 

[tom baker]

Im still on the 2008 NEC. The issue is with an inspector whom is requesting a AFCI in lieu of a GFCI. It seems so much more likely that someone would plug a radio into that receptacle and set it on the counter then the receptacle arcing to a metal piece of furniture. I have seen GFCIs working on more then one personal experience and they function well. I have NEVER seen arcing from a receptacle nor have I ever had to go to my garage to reset an arc fault breaker. Furthermore, I have never even heard of anyone having to do that. A GFCI just seems like a superior device even if they have different purposes.

Sq D makes a dual function AFCI-GFCI. About $75