ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Does your State Fire Marshal Agree? AFCI's are here to stay!!

I attended one of the national meetings and talked with the SqD group. They will have to market by spring/early summer a 'combination' type that protects the branch circuit and the cords. I received one of the same breakers as Joe and I am using it for examples of the technology at some presentations I do.

Pierre

All AFCIs are also GFCIs, the difference is that the GFCI for personnel are set in the range of four to six milliamperes, most of the AFCIs are set for around 30 milliamperes. I believe there are some AFCI/GFCI combinations but that does not make a combination type AFCI. I think this is going to get confusing.

In the time since this new technology was pushed thru the NEC, What effect if any have they had on fire statistics?
Listening to some of the salesmen all electrical fires would not occur if we installed them.
I am asking if any reliable statistics on incidents of fires show a directly attributal reduction of fires in areas that have enforced these as required in the code?
Do we have any reliable proof of the effectiveness of these devices other than the proponents theoritical claims?
How many fewer fires in homes have fire deptartments, on average for the jurisdiction, NOT have had to respond to?
IMHO these are still being sold with the tatics of snake oil salesmen. If such sales tatics are necessary and the only way the product is sold is thru force of law, I can not have much faith in the claims of those who profit from it
I will agree that something to reduce electrically caused fires is a good idea, I am not convinced AFCIs are the answer.

I wonder how to get those statistics? If an EC is called and Joe Homeowner is complaining about a #&$@ AFCI that keeps tripping. You go out and repair the circuit and then the AFCI holds, have you prevented a fire? Do you report it to anyone? Who do you make the report to, what agency is collecting the data?

IMO, we will never have statistics on the effectiveness of AFCIs. However, we may see the incident of fires decrease after the mandate of combination type AFCIs is required. Personally, I don't fell like the current (no pun intended) AFCIs do much. I also do not believe we should use the Code to force new and unproven products onto the public.

From your fingertips to God's ears!!!

Frankly I doubt we will ever have any measurable reduction in electrical caused fires. There are too many shadetree handy men, save a dime DIYers, and other untrained and ignorant individuals who will continue to mess aruond with electrical systems to allow any expensive new good idea toy to save them.

Charlie,
Sorry for posting an incorrect statement. I guess that my point should be that the NEC does not now require the use of "combination type" AFCIs, but will in the '05 code. From the ROP and ROC, it appears that the new rule requiring the use of "combination" type devices is to require the use of a device that will do most of what we have all been told that AFCIs could do. The big problem was that the branch circuit and feeder type AFCIs cannot provide all of the protection that the AFCI and safety people say that we need. There was a major "spin" program used to get the original AFCI requirement into the code, because the manufacturer's knew that the product that was available at the time of the acceptance of the current and previous AFCI rules could not do what they had implied.
I'm still not convinced that the AFCI is a cost effective method for preventing home fires. The major reason that I make this statement is because the fire loss statistics used to support the AFCI rules say that 85% of the dwelling unit fires of electrical origin occurred in dwelling units over 20 years old. This means that if the bedroom circuits in every new dwelling unit constructed this year gets AFCI protection, that we could expect to prevent less than 20 fires, of the 70,000+ that will occur this year. The other issue is the longevity of these devices. Can we reasonably expect that they will still be functional in 20 years when they may be needed? They do not fail safe, so when the electronics fail the become a standard thermal magnetic breaker. Yes, I know that the instructions require a monthly test by the home owner, but it is my opinion that few home owners will actually perform this test.
Don



[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 04-27-2004).]

Don, I would love to argue with you but I tend to agree with you. I do not expect a large percentage of the AFCIs installed today to be in service 20 years from now. What I do expect is that Joe Homeowner will generally replace the broken AFCIs with standard circuit breakers from the big box that will 'fit' his panelboard and it will have no interrupting current listed so it will only be 5k AIC. IMHO, not a good trade. I think most of the failures will trip open or will not reset when a circuit is deactivated for whatever reason. Voltage surges will destroy the internal circuitry just like we had problems with the GFCIs a few years back.

I agree with nesparky. I would be curious to know the details of the 83% of fires caused by arcing. If these were in older homes that were in desperate need of renovation or tear-down, then I imagine that the new homes that these AFCI's are being installed in would have to age another 20? 40? 60? years before it is likely there were candidates for a burn. And by then would the AFCI be operational anyway?

UL Information on AFCI's http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/