Smokes on/off AFCI??

[luke warmwater]

More on this debate:

Our state recently adopted the 2002NEC.

They have one amendment that requires residential smoke detectors not be provided with AFCI protection. It goes on to require that these smoke detectors be protected by a dedicated circut, secured in the energized positon by a breaker clip.

I guess that our state funding was cut, because everyone that I've talked to has yet to have receivd this notice from the state. It was seen on a flyer at a local supply house.

 

[brother]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Im still learning the trade, this 'breaker clip' suppose to keep the breaker from tripping?? then what is the pupose of putting it on the breaker? and what if the wires ever short and start pulling too many amps and melt? please correct me if im wrong in understanding what this 'breaker clip' is in 'keeping it secured in the ENERGIZED POSITION'.

 

[iwire]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Brother, The breaker clip or in my area we call it a breaker lock, only keeps the handle of the breaker in the "on" position.

Breakers will still trip when necessary regardless of what you do to the handle, the clip simply keeps people from easily shutting off a circuit that needs to stay on.

Bob

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

The 2002 NEC has also been adopted her in Florida very recently. As others are reporting, many inspectors here are not enforcing the smokes on AFCI issue.

One concern came up from a contractor that wires winter homes. The houses are only occupied for six months in the winter. This companies concern is that a nuisance trip of the AFCI circuit to the smokes will denenergize the smokes and therefore leave the residence unprotected if a real fire condition happens. Since no one was home to reset the AFCI, the smokes were never renergized.

This concern does not hold too much water considering that if no one is home to hear the smokes, they are of not much use.

Bottom line is that until the AFCI technology is perfected and the issue with smokes is cleared up, the existing code is all we have to go by. I personally do not want the liabilty of not putting smokes on AFCI's, and I know AHJ dont want it either. These same questions came up with the introduction of GFCI's and now no one really questions their use.

 

[romeo]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Well said BPHGRAVITY. I would like to add that smoke ditector have battery back up.Should the AFCI trip I am sure the home ouner will find a way to resolve the no lights problem in his bed room before the batteries need to be replaced.

The big question here is does the AHJ have the authority to change the code? I have been often asked how do you want it done in your town?

It is not my town it belongs to the residence my job is to require that wiring done in there home is up to the code as it is written not as I would like it to be written. I don't always agree w/the code but I try as hard as I can to inforce it.

A AHJ that makes his/hers oun rules is asking for trouble for the city/town. I would like to have some opionions about AHJ's making there oun rules.

Romeo

 

[hurk27]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Romeo this would be a good subject as here in N/W Indiana we have this problem even when the state law says that the local unit of goverment has to have the code go accross the state building commisioners desk before they can adopt it but they dont bother and just start telling you it there code.

 

[pierre]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Romeo
AFCIs are required in new work as far as the NEC is concerned. There are actually some guys who like the AFCI and are installing it elsewhere. The reason the NFPA has 'stuck to its guns' is documented in the ROP (Report on Proposals). It basically says the reason for AFCI protection is just that, protection. The Smoke detectors in new installations are supposed to be battery backup. They will still signal a fire if the circuit is opened by an AFCI. If the AFCI is removed from the smoke detector in the bedroom, then why even use AFCI protection on any other part of the bedroom? We all have heard the differences of opinion about the AFCI, but putting those opinions aside for a minute think about what I just wrote with an open mind. "A chain is only as strong as the weakest link".

There are some jurisdictions that have removed the AFCI from the smoke detector, there are some who have removed the requirement completely, there are some who have extended the requirement. What does all of this mean? It means that we will have a very good cross section of data to digest and help further the decision of whether or not to continue using the AFCI. Just my opinion.

Another thing I have learned about smoke detectors. It doesn't matter about education level or how wealthy a person is, the general feeling some people have is the smoke detector is a pain in the @#^%$&*((&^^$$### and they either disable them or want them in a corner (where in my opinion they are ineffective) or just say " I don't like the way they look in my new home"! Even architects have problems with locations of smokes.
AFCIs are only a small part of the problem with smoke detectors.

Oh yeah, AHJs and their changing the code to suit them. Most AHJs I have dealt with will work with you. They may have an 'opinion' of their own, but will work with you if you work with them.
Then there is the AHJ who is out to conquer the world. All I can say about that type is know your code, and know the process of going over his/her head if you think you are correct. I don't see this situation ever changing.

Pierre

 

[jake benninger]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

Although there were proposals to the 2005 NEC to delete the smoke detector from the AFCI circuit required by 210-12, none were accepted by that panel. However, there was a proposal accepted as ROP 3-236 to 760-21 that would not allow NPLFA circuit to be supplied by GFCI or AFCI circuits.
So, unless modified by the ROC process that will probably stand as a NEC requirement, subject as always to local modification and AHJ enforcement.

 

[jrdsg]

Re: Smokes on/off AFCI??

love you guys. pierre's comments are thought-provoking.

from a systems [low-voltage] pov, i have to agree that most of the 110v smokes that are installed for code-compliance are less than ideal. no wonder residential clients hate them.

not to mention ionization detectors and photoelectric detectors are often misinstalled in locations where the other would be more appropriate.

commercial clients rarely experience smoke-detector caused false alarms, since occupants at these sites generally do not cook, take showers, or otherwise trick their fire protection into a chicken little.

div 16 has a broad scope and a disproportionate share of the life-safety responsibility on a job site. perhaps only the door hardware guys come close. it kis incumbent on every electrician that touches fire protection equipment to be 100% confident in his training and experience in this area. a screw up is easy for the inspector to miss, and someone could end up dead as a result.

sorry for the long post. best regards,

james