Siemens New Tandem AFCI Breakers

[ramsy]

..there are at least 3 manufacturers who have found ways to pass all of the UL AFCI requirements without a ground fault function in the breaker

I don't believe they removed all current imbalance sensing, which is technically not considered GFPE, or any other Class of GFCI protection defined by UL 943/C.

GE & Eaton publish removal of UL-defined ground-fault sensing in their product brochures. Who is the 3rd manufacturer?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't believe they removed all current imbalance sensing, which is technically not considered GFPE, or any other Class of GFCI protection defined by UL 943/C.

GE & Eaton publish removal of UL-defined ground-fault sensing in their product brochures. Who is the 3rd manufacturer?

Based on the the information in this thread, it would be Siemens.

This is from GE about their AFCI breakers.

What makes the neutral “shared”?
In a typical application, a single #14/3 or #12/3 wire is run to a location that is close to the utilization area. The neutral wire is
then split, one goes with the red wire and one goes with the black wire. Ordinarily you would not be able to have just one
neutral coming back to a typical AFCI breaker. However, GE’s AFCIs have the ability to fully protect against arc faults without
monitoring the circuit neutrals. This allows you to wire a multi-wire or a shared neutral the same way you would with a thermal
magnetic breaker.

There can be no GFP in this setup as it would not work...unless the GPF was set to the handle rating of the breaker, making the GFP worthless.

 

[ramsy]

I know that they have single pole AFCIs that can share a neutral, so I am sure at least some of their breakers do not have GFP.

Yes, GE's 1-Pole AFCI's can be combined for use with a 2-pole MWBC circuit. The instructions don't care which pole gets the single neutral leg landed on the breaker.

One GE AFCI sees Zero return current, and the other sees between 100-200% return current.

Yet, when the neutral imbalance is somewhere between 30ma -100% it trips.

GE AFCI's force us to untie neutrals from different circuits, if that function is not a feature of monitoring for imbalance, then what?

 

[curt swartz]

Yes, GE's 1-Pole AFCI's can be combined for use with a 2-pole MWBC circuit. The instructions don't care which pole gets the single neutral leg landed on the breaker.

One GE AFCI sees Zero return current, and the other sees between 100-200% return current.

Yet, when the neutral imbalance is somewhere between 30ma -100% it trips.

GE AFCI's force us to untie neutrals from different circuits, if that function is not a feature of monitoring for imbalance, then what?

They don't have any GF protection other than the normal thermal magnetic protection.

What you are stating make no sense. If they trip on a 30ma imbalance then the multi-wire circuit would need to always have the exact same load (within 30ma) on L1&L2 all the time. Also the second AF with no load neutral would always see an imbalance since there is no load neutral connected to it.

GE was the first to remove GF protection from AFCI's then Eaton and now Siemens followed. Supposedly this helped with nuisance tripping but if the tripping is due to current returning on a path it shouldn't be the breaker is doing a good job. The wiring needs to be fixed not the breaker modified to ignore poor workmanship.

The NEC should have just required GFCI protection for all residential branch circuits instead of AFCI protection. A high resistance connection will most likely start leaking enough current to the EGC to trip a GFCI long before an AFCI trips. GFCI protection would also prevent many electrocutions which AFCI's provide no protection.

Its also much easier for equipment/appliance manufactures to limit leakage current. Every manufacture of equipment and breakers is on a level paying field. Unlike AFCI's that use secret algorithms that are constantly changing with revisions. How do you design something to work with an AFCI if you have no idea what the AFCI is looking for?

 

[ramsy]

Based on the the information in this thread, it would be Siemens.

Group think is not known for accuracy, and this forum relies on it heavily.

This forum thread relies on Siemens published product brochures showing photos of 1 pigtail for 2 pole twins, with 1-line wiring diagrams showing single lines for both load neutrals, & single lines for the pigtail(s).

Yet, another brochure shows 2 pigtails landing on each pole of that twin breaker.

Look carefully at the Twin on the right, and see the 2 pigtails.

I don't believe anyone has completely removed monitoring for neutral imbalance, much less Siemens twin AFCI.

 

[wwhitney]

The plug-on neutral Siemens tandem AFCI doesn't have a load neutral terminal on it, so I'm pretty sure it does not monitor the neutral. : - )

Edit: From their brochure, "Siemens CAFCI Plug-On breakers now have a single load lug(s) only. Wiring made easier with the neutral lug removed."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ramsy]

What you are stating make no sense.

I agree AFCI's are a black box, a subject of much speculation, and empirical observation in the field clash with arm-chair opinion on this forum.

How do you design something to work with an AFCI if you have no idea what the AFCI is looking for?

Since when do products that pass UL testing for their category, always get along with each other?

Dimmers didn't like fluorescent lights or LED's, and no referee was assigned to fix that problem in 1 day.

Plenty of energy efficient appliances that pass UL leakage tests have tripped 6mA GFCI's, and tempt people to violate fire code by removing the GFCI.

Amazon sells Internet of Things (IOT) lightbulbs, fixtures & appliances missing NRTL and FTC testing, only a CE mark, which also break AFCI's.

These things have always demanded some technical skill with procedure, checklists, and speaking the same language with product support.

Since when do we enable clients to violate fire code, because we are conscientious objectors, and is that really a sustainable business practice?

 

[ramsy]

The plug-on neutral Siemens tandem AFCI doesn't have a load neutral terminal on it, so I'm pretty sure it does not monitor the neutral.

Yes, I see your point. If load Neutral doesn't land on Breaker, how can it monitor any imbalance?

Can't be sure which picture to believe, until I have the breaker in my hand.

 

[romex jockey]

Any reading material to support AFCI's can't pass UL 1699 without toroidal coils?

maybe?>>>

COMBINATION AFCIs: WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO / combination-afcis-what-they-will-and-will-not-do.pdf / PDF4PRO

Manufacturer X provides a simple definition of a series arcing event [7]: “A series arc is an arcing incident across a break in a conductor. A common example is a cut across one of the two wires in a lamp cord, with a dangerous arc forming in

pdf4pro.com

https://iaeimagazine.org/2000/2000july/five-new-categories-for-afci-devices-under-ul-1699/

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

Yes, I see your point. If load Neutral doesn't land on Breaker, how can it monitor any imbalance?

exactly ........~RJ~

 

[Breaker-Box-Boy]

Can't be sure which picture to believe, until I have the breaker in my hand.

The picture in the flyer I believe is supposed to show 2 hots wired to a PON breaker demonstrating the yellow indicator flag feature. I agree it’s confusing because the wires are white instead of black there. Watch the video automation to see the wiring of a pigtail breaker, there is no load neutral. Got my hands on one and can confirm. Back to my original question, anyone have any experiences with these for far?

 

[ramsy]

No experience yet, but interested in trying it out.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, GE's 1-Pole AFCI's can be combined for use with a 2-pole MWBC circuit. The instructions don't care which pole gets the single neutral leg landed on the breaker.

One GE AFCI sees Zero return current, and the other sees between 100-200% return current.

Yet, when the neutral imbalance is somewhere between 30ma -100% it trips.

GE AFCI's force us to untie neutrals from different circuits, if that function is not a feature of monitoring for imbalance, then what?

How can it see that when the second neutral does not connect to the breaker?

 

[ramsy]

How can it see that when the second neutral does not connect to the breaker?

Keep in mind when outlet bombs are replaced existing "un-molested" homes rarely complain about my AFCI, or Dual Function AFCI/GFCI per 406.4(D&E)

A/GFCI breakers are considered when first opening doesn't exist, with switched plugs, spider-junction wiring, or first-outlet is buried behind furniture.

Most AFCI breaker surprises are with single-pole issues. Don't recall if 1 or 2 GE AFCI's trip during MWBC troubles.

When AFCI's force me to untie neutrals between circuits, I don't know if that black box is monitoring for neutral imbalance, or for opposite phase angles.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Keep in mind when outlet bombs are replaced existing "un-molested" homes rarely complain about my AFCI, or Dual Function AFCI/GFCI per 406.4(D&E)

A/GFCI breakers are considered when first opening doesn't exist, with switched plugs, spider-junction wiring, or first-outlet is buried behind furniture.

Most AFCI breaker surprises are with single-pole issues. Don't recall if 1 or 2 GE AFCI's trip during MWBC troubles.

When AFCI's force me to untie neutrals between circuits, I don't know if that black box is monitoring for neutral imbalance, or for opposite phase angles.

The GE system uses two single pole breakers for a multiwire branch circuit. There is no communication between the two breakers. The only thing you do is to use a handle tie to comply with 210.4(B).

 

[romex jockey]

The NEC should have just required GFCI protection for all residential branch circuits instead of AFCI protection

That's seems to be the direction anyway.....

~RJ~

 

[romex jockey]

The only thing you do is to use a handle tie to comply with 210.4(B).

welp....at least it complies with something Don...... ~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

That's seems to be the direction anyway.....

~RJ~

For the wrong reasons...

 

[ramsy]

The GE system uses two single pole breakers for a multiwire branch circuit. There is no communication between the two breakers. The only thing you do is to use a handle tie to comply with 210.4(B).

Thank you, sir.

 

[ramsy]

maybe?>>>

COMBINATION AFCIs: WHAT THEY WILL AND WILL NOT DO / combination-afcis-what-they-will-and-will-not-do.pdf / PDF4PRO

Manufacturer X provides a simple definition of a series arcing event [7]: “A series arc is an arcing incident across a break in a conductor. A common example is a cut across one of the two wires in a lamp cord, with a dangerous arc forming in

pdf4pro.com

https://iaeimagazine.org/2000/2000july/five-new-categories-for-afci-devices-under-ul-1699/

~RJ~

I see your reading material may be an adopted code proposal, a mention of 30mA GFPE removed from CAFCI, and subsequent failure to extinguish an arc, and some feature not part of UL 1699.

The author claims removing 30mA GFPE removes certain arc detection, without disclosing model & date of AFCI used in 2012. I remember similar DIY YouTube demonstrations, but nothing published by an NRTL. However, for sake of argument lets say AFCI's can't extinguish arcs after removing ground fault or hot-neutral imbalance detection.

The damage with existing wiring & devices in older buildings is more from smoldering than arcing, and not detectable by a GFCI or thermal-magnetic breaker, but it does fail inspection per 110.12(B), and its correction resolves AFCI issues.

AFCI's have forced me to improve my field skills: led me to burn-damage at outlets, burnt bus stabs, crushed cords under furniture, and forced me to engage occupants; to demonstrate reset button, and unplug all appliances before calling me back under warranty.