ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#14233 - 09/17/02 04:08 AM AFCIs...my turn
Redsy Offline
Member
Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2056
Loc: Bucks County PA
Well, after sitting on the sidelines with this topic, I now have some thoughts

After reading the thread in the other section of this forum, and learnig about the 75 amp trip requirement, Id like to ask what happens if an arc fault (parallel) occurs that has a high enough impedance to limit the current flow to 10 or so amps. Most of us know that arcs are so hot that a welding machine will melt steel at much less than 75 amps.
I was under the impression that these devices "recognized" the asymmetrical wave form associated with arcing, regardless of the magnitude. So what happens to a high impedance arc that limits the current to about 10 amps? Do we have to wait until a low enough impedance path results, or will they trip at the 10 amp level due to the "noisy" waveform?
Top
Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades
#14234 - 09/17/02 05:07 AM Re: AFCIs...my turn
electric-ed Offline
Member
Registered: 07/08/02
Posts: 175
Loc: Canada
It has been stated that AFCIs do not protect against any arcing faults of less than 75 amps. This is not 100% true. Some of the "carbonized path" arcing situations were tested with simulated load currents.(5 amps, 10 amps, and 150% of load)
The two Tables below are from a UL document titled "Arc Fault Testing and Arc Fault Scenarios - January 28, 2002"
http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf

Table 1 shows some details of the tests conducted. (X indicates which test was conducted)
(Combination AFCI) This is the (common breaker type) AFCI which complies with the requirements for both branch/feeder and outlet circuit AFCIs. It is intended to protect downstream branch circuit wiring, cord sets and power-supply cords.)



Table 2 shows which type of device provides protection under various conditions. Here again, "Series Arcing Protection" is assumed to mean - protection against arcing across a break in a single conductor, which progresses to a ground or parallel arcing scenario.



Ed
Top
#14235 - 09/17/02 05:35 AM Re: AFCIs...my turn
Redsy Offline
Member
Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2056
Loc: Bucks County PA
Maybe I'm stupid, but I can't see where table 2 addresses the level of current at which the device operates. Table 1 shows what type of test and the current level. Table 2 only shows whether or not it operates as an AFCI, but not which scenario it operates under.???
Top
#14236 - 09/17/02 06:09 AM Re: AFCIs...my turn
ElectricAL Offline
Member
Registered: 10/10/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Minneapolis, MN USA
Redsy,

Your question centers in on one of the black holes in the available information.

To my knowledge, the technical info on the contents of the black box "sophisticated technology" contained within the manufactured branch feeder AFCI units is not available to us, the end installers.

As I look at the UL1699 AFCI Test Scenarios that Ed posts above, I note that the low current (below 75 A) tests rely on enough physical damage occurring as a result of the failure, that a connection with the egc is established.

I presume that the "AFCI" then operates because of the add-on feature of also being built with a 50 mA (or thereabout) GFP. The manufacturers have stated that the AFCI portion ignores events below 75 A magnitude.

The branch feeder AFCI fails the low current tests when the wiring method is ungrounded (knob & tube, 2-wire NM, 2-wire zip cord).

The silence of the manufacturers about the construction of the microprocessor(s) and memory(ies) inside the branch feeder AFCI, and the silence about the progamming executed by the same, really concerns me.

Al
_________________________
Al Hildenbrand
Top
#14237 - 09/17/02 02:10 PM Re: AFCIs...my turn
sparky Offline
Member
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5303
it has many concerned Al,
and there is no harm in questioning this, or the authority(s) involved......

many simply wish for some straight answers, less double talk , but this will apparently not be so unless there is a strong enough voice from the trade and/or end consumer for it to happen.

people, products, companies, orginizations should be accountable or they simply loose much hard earned credibility...



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 09-17-2002).]
Top

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 02/23/13
Posts: 204
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box


Who's Online
0 registered (), 59 Guests and 9 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
 
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 51
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 17
Trumpy 16
Ruben Rocha 13
 
Newest Members
clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN, Regitest2, sureshazhagai

ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals