Stab-in's used on AFCI protected circuits?

[Kevin W Holland]

I recently had a troubleshooting job where the AFCI was continually tripping multiple times per day. The AFCI cct was providing arc fault protection for the Msr Bed/bath ltg. All receptacles were connected together via "stab-in" method. After I had re-made all the splices and connected receptacles via binding screw in every box on that circuit the nuisance tripping had subsided considerably. However, it was still tripping AFCI a couple times per week. I then replaced the AFCI breaker in panel and it has been holding to this day.
Question: Are there any proposals considered to dis-allow stab-in's when connected to AFCI protected cct?
Thanks in advance for any info on this topic.
Kevin

 

[kwired]

I recently had a troubleshooting job where the AFCI was continually tripping multiple times per day. The AFCI cct was providing arc fault protection for the Msr Bed/bath ltg. All receptacles were connected together via "stab-in" method. After I had re-made all the splices and connected receptacles via binding screw in every box on that circuit the nuisance tripping had subsided considerably. However, it was still tripping AFCI a couple times per week. I then replaced the AFCI breaker in panel and it has been holding to this day.
Question: Are there any proposals considered to dis-allow stab-in's when connected to AFCI protected cct?
Thanks in advance for any info on this topic.
Kevin

Though I think it is probably not a good idea to use such connections, and especially with AFCI's if you don't want random trips, I still think that is a design issue and code has no business making any such rules per it's own wording in 90.1.

That said the code is already full of violations of it's own rule in 90.1. A lot of rules are in there that should be design decisions and not part of the code.

 

[ptonsparky]

You most likely had other problems not related to the stab in connections. #1 being the AFCI itself. An older version.

 

[jim dungar]

That said the code is already full of violations of it's own rule in 90.1. A lot of rules are in there that should be design decisions and not part of the code.

90.1 does not say the NEC cannot contain any design requirements. It says it is not a complete specification or instruction manual, you cannot design a premises wiring system using only the NEC, there are many other codes and standards that must be followed.

I agree with ptonsparky, it was probably the AFCI. After all, don't AFCIs not respond to the arcing which might occur at a bad receptacle connection?

 

[Kevin W Holland]

You most likely had other problems not related to the stab in connections. #1 being the AFCI itself. An older version.

Some of the stab-in's just 'fell out' of their holes? And since the nuisance tripping lessened considerably after making up all splices with solid twists and using binding screws would that not indicate that the stab-in's were somewhat contributing to the nuisance tripping?
Thank you for opining on this issue!

 

[ptonsparky]

Some of the stab-in's just 'fell out' of their holes? And since the nuisance tripping lessened considerably after making up all splices with solid twists and using binding screws would that not indicate that the stab-in's were somewhat contributing to the nuisance tripping?
Thank you for opining on this issue!

Were these older devices or a new install? New install means PP workmanship.

 

[hbiss]

We've talked about backstabbing many times before. The consensus is that they should be OK but many, including myself, feel that they should be outlawed. It used to be that devices used with #12 conductors allowed backstabbing but to was apparently determined that it created an unsafe condition. So devices that allow backstabbing now are restricted to #14 conductors and 15A circuits.

My question is if backstabbing #12 conductors at 20A was deemed to be not reliable or unsafe, what makes backstabbing #14 any better (except the reduced current)?

Backstabbing was only created as a means to cut corners and reduce labor costs.

-Hal

 

[PaulMmn]

Since pressure-plate terminations have hit the market, I don't think anyone would be terribly upset if the back stab holes disappeared. The pressure plates have always seemed to be a better connection-- some of the back stabs let the wire -wiggle- a little bit! The Back Stabbers - The O'Jays

 

[hbiss]

Since pressure-plate terminations have hit the market, I don't think anyone would be terribly upset if the back stab holes disappeared. The pressure plates have always seemed to be a better connection-- some of the back stabs let the wire -wiggle- a little bit! The Back Stabbers - The O'Jays

I love pressure plates! The best of both worlds, no wrapping conductor around screw just strip, insert and tighten. Works well with stranded too! :hug:

-Hal

 

[synchro]

I love pressure plates! The best of both worlds, no wrapping conductor around screw just strip, insert and tighten. Works well with stranded too! :hug:

-Hal

:thumbsup:

And it can also accommodate 2 conductors using one screw.
If anything, I think it works even better with 2 conductors because with one conductor the plate and screw have to tilt sideways just a little bit . But with one conductor it still works very well and is a big improvement.

 

[Kevin W Holland]

Were these older devices or a new install? New install means PP workmanship.

Condo's that sat unfinished for some time after '08 crash and were first on tax rolls in '09. So...not really that old? But yes.... PP workmanship for sure. I am thinking that other EC's, when faced with this situation, just simply remove/replace AFCI with standard cct brkr? And hence all the service calls for similar problems are being routed to them?