Let me clearly break this thread into two sections, "Reporting" and "My Opinion."

Reporting:
The current (Jan/Feb 2010) issue of theIAEI magazine has an article "Safety in Our States," by Thomas Domitrovich.

The article begins describing a "fire investigation" conducted by a homeowner and 'their electrician." A quote from the article: "... the wire had been punctured by a staple ans had started to warm the stud.Deteriorating and warming of studs .... are familiar words you will hear with respect to electrical fires."

The article contains several pictures of charred wood in the vicinity of badly heat-damaged wires. There are numerous descriptions of such bamage taking place along the path of the wire, as the wires crossed into different parts of the homes.

While the pictures are all of NM ("Romex"), the text also describes this happening with "BX."

The article equates 'parallel and series' arc faults with 'high and low energy' arc faults. The text alludes to AFCI's detecting arc faults.

The author closes by expressing his opinion that the value of AFCI's is "obvious," infers that opponents do not understand the value of AFCI's, and urges adoption of the latest AFCI requirements.

I'll voice my opinions in the next post.

Foul! I cry!

Let's begin with one fact: where the author alludes to the ignition of the paper backing on fiberglass insulation, he fails to mention that all UL-listed insulation has a paper that is very, very resistant in terms of spreading a fire or flame. How resistant? In flame-spread tests, the paper typically has exactly the same behavior as aluminum foil.

IMO, a fire, or heat source, caused by a staple damaging the wire would be a point source, and any fire / charring / damage would spread from that point is all directions - not solely along the path of the wire. Like a weldor at work, the heat is at the arc, and not in the cable.

I have seen a few examples charring like that in his pictures, and in every case the cause was massively overloaded wires, over an extended period of time. That is, the 30-amp fuses on the 15-amp wire. Such overlaoding is not relevent to arc-fault technology.

Even if a sustained arc took place in a BX assembly (no matter if it is really AC, MC, FMC, or LTFMC), I would think the arc would ground out through the metal jacket, and that the metal would serve to contain the heat within the cable, making complete circuit failure more likely.

Following up his emotional appeal by casting aspertions on critics is dispicable. Considering the resume listed at the end of the article, we can only assume that he speaks for his employer, Eaton, which manufacturers AFCI breakers.

I am more concerned by his description of a 'save' by AFCI's. "These events (presumably the event that I assume led to the AFCI tripping) saw the studs being warmed and there wasn't enough time for charring to begin to take shape." Wait a minute ... I thought the article started with 'the electrician' following the path of charring? I'm confused. Yes, we're talking the same person, the same event as at the start of the article.

As with the 'global warming' crowd, it appears that AFCI advocates are singing the same song: "Trust us, we know what's best for you. There's research, but we won't let you see the data. Anyone who opposes us is a bad guy."

I say: If the technology is that important, and he cares so much about our safety .... I expect him, and his employer, to enthusiastically endorse the use of AFCI devices, rather than opposing them. Let's make it both easy, and affordable, to extend this protection to the very homes most likely to have that penny in the fuse box.

Reno, if you really wish to post inverstigative reporting, you should start with the source(s) Dave Dini and Ray Marchand did a two part piece called 'The truth about AFCI's in NEC digest , about a decade ago.

These were two of CMP-2's 210-12 proponents, one an ex-UL man, the other an ex-square d rep

you could also reference the George Washington chapter of the IAEI about the same time, lot's of colorful banter to be had there

As to opinion, you'll not find any that yanks the lions tail (per se') in any trade mag. In fact a number of trade writers who used to post in electrical chat rooms disappeared after being confronted on this very topic, some pointing out forum disclaimers being their problem

One rarely finds an Op-Ed in any trade mag that directly confronts a manufacturer. And as this chat room is connected to one as well, it's rather obvious that any opinion going down the same road will be met with disdain and rejection. (and don't i know it)

That said, truth is like little bubbles, eventually rising to the surface. This , i predict, will happen when enough of us (the folks that actually DO the work, not the shill cheerleaders) are over their heads in afci-mania

~S~

Whenever I have confronted someone about cooking the books on the fires this thing might prevent I get the old saw back "well if it just saves one life...".
Unfortunately that is not how cost benefit analysis works.
We could make houses safer if we wired everything with MI cable but nobody could afford to buy one. All that safety would be thwarted when they plug in the space heater and put it too close to the bed spread.

Since I do fire investigations in support for the local FD. IE If they say it is electrical they have to get me to agree or find another cause. I have gone to fires where the investigating officer insisted the fire was caused by a heater plugged into an electrical cord only to prove the cord was not energized so I know how electricity is often blamed when ever the skill or knowledge of the investigator is challenged, I don't know how many fire will not happen because of AFCI breakers but I am sure that at least 4 would have not occurred if an afci protected those circuits. The too tight staple is not likely going to be revealed nor would the overloaded, over protected circuit. Bad splices are in my opinion the number 1 cause of electrical fires and in that category I would include poor screw terminations and the whole aluminum wire thing too.

The mechanism of Pyrolysis is fascinating in that you can actually lower the ignition point of paper or wood to a temperature lower than the boiling point of water. We have seen a fire caused by pyroforic action and a hot water pipe causing paper business records to ignite.
Most of the fires caused by wood burning stoves were caused by pyroforic action where by the constant heating of studs inside a wall changed the wood chemically until a fire starts inside the wall. These were originally attributed to errant sparks, electrical wires, and way too hot fires.

So AFCI breakers have become the next holy grail of fire prevention and I do believe there will be some benefit and less fires too. Of course other code things have changed too and we install dedicated circuits for more loads that used to get plugged into a general purpose outlet. We have more receptacles installed and less devices on a circuit too. All of these are in houses less than 40 years old so it will take a rather long time to garner any data either way.
AFCI do add a measure of protection from series arcs and some parallel arcs both of which tend to be less than 5 amps of current which no regular breaker would trip. these low voltage arcs just don't draw enough power to cause any breaker to trip on overload never mind over current. AFCI are supposed to recognize this condition and trip. The failure to detect the real cause is often related to the experience of the electrician to detect and reveal the problem. From my experience a lot of the problems I have seen with AFCI breakers has been traceable to an installation error and at least 1 nail. The most common error being the bond and neutral touching.
As a minor benefit AFCI do add a small amount of ground fault protection but don't think that is the same protection offered by GFCI as the trip levels are 5 times higher in an AFCI or around 30ma.

Mike, I really would hope you have access to the article - let me know if you don't - as I would like your take on the 'fire analyses' in it.

IMO, the author has forsworn dazzling us with his brilliance, and has chosen to instead try to baffle us. IMO, he's showing us a picture of a turkey and trying to tell us it's a chicken, tossing in a lot of fancy names for feathers in the process.

If your investigations are not likeely to reveal an over-fused circuit .... there's something wron there. Perhaps you mis-spoke?

I'll let this thread simmer for a bit before I return to the magazine. Trust me, there are plenty of whoppers in the other articles as well!

The AFCI situation is upon us here in NJ with adoption of the '08 NEC as of 10/26/2009. Up to today, the only AFCI installs I have seen are within one 55+ resi, 3 bldg project that started in late '05. Not 'code' required, but Architect mandated in the BR's. There have been no issues that I am aware of.

That said, I also teach at a County Vo-tech, and have obtained AFCI info from mfgs (Sq, Siemens, etc) in Powerpoint, video, PDF & print. I have a few items from NEMA also. I also peruse ECN, and note some of the discussions & problems.

Reno, I'm not an IAEI guy, I belong to NJEIA, and there has been a LOT of heated debates on AFCI since the days of the '05 NEC changes, even though NJ did NOT adopt AFCI's until now. Is the IAEI article you reference available to non-members? On line??

As to being a 'god send' (my words) to fire prevention; IMHO, it may help but there are other causes, ie: the space heater & overfusing & cooking wiring over long periods.

My opinion on 'electrical cause' from fire investigators should have a 'breakout' something like, extension cords, appliance failure, house wiring, etc.

BTW, whatever happened to that elusive "AFCI device"???

i had thought it predicated on the arc signature more than an actual threshold

~S~

Sparky You are correct. My point about current magnitude is related to tripping of a normal breaker. Series arcs in low voltage circuits don't draw enough current to make a regular breaker trip and allows that series arc to perpetuate and possibly ignite adjacent combustibles. An arc fault breaker recognizes the wave form or electrical characteristics of an arc and opens the circuit. The common misconception was that a regular circuit breaker should protect us from all the hazards. parallel arcs are usually revealed as a ground fault, phase to neutral or phase to phase fault. AFCI Breakers also are designed to detect ground faults and trip around the 30 ma level. These are not life safety GFCI which trip at 6 ma and should resist small leakage currents like we might see in a heating element.

Has anyone done an objective analysis an how well these AFCIs actually perform on series arcs? Series arc detection really didn't even show up until version 3.0
As a side note, how do you figure out which version you have?

Though I think that AFCI's promise sounds good. But the only live demonstrations that I have actually witnessed could be attributed to the GFI 30ma built-in protection or that a good quality quick trip breaker would likely have seen also. Noting that the AFCI have a lower instantaneous trip settting, who's to say that the rest of the electronics does much.

What would be helpful is if we could get our collective hands on the tests with complete data on the current waveforms and maximum amperage values for the tests with video. I would think that that would help in the conversion process. As I think about it, maybe I did see a video once that may have covered some of this, if so it was not memorable enough.

Sign me as a hopeful sceptic. (I have not installed them in my own home yet.)

I am planning on letting this technology mature a little more myself before I buy it for my house.
All you have to do is look at the progression over the 8 years that this has been mandated in the code.
The people who bought version 1.0 in 2002-2003 really didn't get much for their $50. It only claims to find a parallel arc inside the wall. Expanding this to parallel faults on the load side of the receptacle came later and finally the series arc detection fairly recently. There are examples of every version installed out there (along with a significant number of Square Ds that don't work at all).
Other than the recalled SqD, how does the average homeowner, or even the average electrician, know what they have?

Among the things that bothered me in the article .... remember it comes direct from one of the manufacturers .... was the very strong push for more AFCI's, on every household circuit.

The author plainly stated that he wants EVERY circuit in his home so proetcted. Later statements imply unkind things about those who don't share this opinion- and worse things about those who question or oppose this technology.

Which is an interesting detail: I can't speak for others, but I have nothing against this technology per se; I do have some issues with the idea of having every circuit in the home being REQUIRED to have this protection.

The ever-shifting basis used to argue in favor of this product has me sceptical - and questioning my morals and intelligence (as the author does) isn't going to ease my concerns. Quite the opposite, in fact.

210-12 does require all of 'em on an afci....

~S~

well it's been since the late 90's for us up here, but maybe i've missed something...

do you figure they'll get better ? version 4.0, 5.0.....

or do you figure the specifications will finally be revealed to us?

or do i open the box they come in to let it breath?

~S~

I am sure they will get better. As I pointed out, the 2002 version only claimed to detect a parallel fault (basically a short) inside the wall, not in the line cords on the load side of the faceplate. It was basically looking for spikes in the 60-70a range. There have already been 2 major improvements since then.
Like every other bleeding edge technology, the pioneers take all the arrows. I will wait until this settles down, the product starts actually starts doing what it promises and the price drops. I only wish NFPA had the same restraint ... but I suppose it isn't their money they are making people spend to beta test for CH and SqD.

actually the white book stated 'carbon' and 'non-carbon' arcing(s) at the time Greg.

this was taken by many to mean parrallel and series mitigation, with much ado .....





well there's the rub. they go for about $38 ea. now, depending on brand / supplier.

that's over $1000 on most homes w/200A 40 cir panels

at that point, the consumer is making an investment that we, the contractor, are obligated to validate.

unfortunatly, they make only one propietory tester that i know of, don't have a lockout mechanism like gfi's, and state on the paperwork to disconnect when meggering

so the reality is, if you live where there's surges, spikes, your investment may stop somewhat short of efficay, and mostly look pretty.

as i've installed many version 1.0's that have ten years tenure at this point, there spectre of an arc related incident isn't out of the realm of reality either

i often think (as contractors do) who would be liable with a code compliant install , and afci's that didn't do the job.

~S~

That is a good point about how many are still going to be working after a few years. This article is from the IAEI magazine and they found out in my area about a third of the device type GFCIs and over half of the breaker types were just "looking pretty" but did not work.

http://gfretwell.com/electrical/gfci1.pdf

The AFCI is more complicated than a GFCI and would be more susceptible to surge damage.

Well since i doubt there is actually anyone old enough to recall the introduction of molded case breakers I will make the assumption that the conversations were just like this one. Who would install a one dollar circuit breaker when I can use a 10 cent fuse and achieve the same degree of safety. Then there was XO and bull dog breakers etc. Regular circuit breakers took a number of iterations to get them to today. The science is always growing.
My real issue is how we as consumers become the test bed for these emerging technologies. Just look at the development of Windows. How many iterations until a new operating system is released and it actually works better than previous versions.
As for the subject of this thread. AFCI technology has made a great promise of improved safety but we all testify that it has included a lot on unfulfilled promises yet to be realized. It has great potential to add a real improvement over what was here before.

I really object to the argument , the claim, that safety improvement and new technology have 'always; been opposed by critics who gave since been discredited, or that cost is the only factor.

To correct the record: there was never opposition to replacing fuses with breakers, or that HFCI's were opposed as are AFCI's are today. The issues are as different as cheese and chalk.

Breakers were available for decades before they became common in homes, yet some homes were built with them anyways. IMO, the deciding factor was the convenience of being able to reset the breaker, and the ease of manufacturing a panel that would take multiple circuits.

Keep in mind that it was never mandated that fuses be replaced with breakers, that breakers continue to be made that can be installed in a plug-fuse holder, and that there is still a role for fuses.

The GFCI met with tremendous sceptcism, and was initially called for in extremely limited locations. It took several decades before it achieved general acceptance. Even so, devices are readily available, as well as are breakers. Yet, we have still not required that ordinary circuits use GFCI's; only when needed to address a specific risk.

Just as important, we can easily explain their operation, and readily test for it.

I do recall a great deal of dispute regarding the merits of adding a ground wire, and that dispute still festers in the background. Here, perhaps, is a parallel to the AFCI issue, in that the 'pro-bonding' side continues to expand the range of NEC requirements on the topic.

None of that is really relevant here; the author of the article is quite clear they he wants AFCI's on every circuit, and that anyone who disagrees is a terrible person.

For the first point, IMO, expect that the scope of AFCI's will continue to expand, ar, at least, that such proposals will be made. Expect continued opposition to AFCI devices.

As to the second, he fails to directly answer any concerns, and, instead, wastes a lot of paper with irrelevant and faulty "fire science."

I think Reno is right on point here. They still have not required that you "shall" use circuit breakers so that is a red herring argument. I can build a house tomorrow with a "Type S" panel.
The GFCI is also a red herring argument because the design specification is a very specific requirement that is easily tested with very modest test equipment, basically just a 22k ohm resistor.
The AFCI is based on snake oil and blind trust. It was mandated before the actual product was even in the field in 1999 code to be implemented 3 years later with the blind trust that they would actually have the product working by then. The product that was forced on the public was really a shadow of the promise. What do we say to those people in the housing boom that bought millions of AFCIs that do not meet the current code? Is CH, Siemens and SqD going to give them a rebate? I didn't think so.
This was rushed into the code based on a flawed premise, with flawed technology and the heavy hand of the governments that accepted this scam.

I would really like to see a survey of homes built 2003-2007 to see how many have defective AFCIs and how many have simply been replaced with a regular breaker because of nuisance trips that could not be resolved.
If you set the "over/under" at 50% "installed and working properly" I will take the "under" in the office pool.

me too, and Vermont could push that back to '99, because we adopted 210-12 that code cycle.

but then, i'd like a lot of questions answered about them that i'll probably spend what's left of my carear wonding about too.

in fact, i wonder if there's any accounatbility of ROP's juxtaposed to specific articles around, because i can recall seeing (because somebody posted it) what was an impressive list targeting 210.12 , maybe even a record one?

seems to me the issue isn't really new technology, it's the bigger concern of transparency and clarity the powers that be have imparting it

we're just left to howl in the ascii wilderness about it...

~S~

He reno
I read the article as it finally arrived. There is a huge disconnect between editorial and the photos from a Peoria, Arizona electrical inspector. None of the photos in the article are related to the article. Rebecca Jacoby's fire has no supporting photos but the story is credible and I have seen exactly the damage described.

On another point I said in one reply that parallel and series arcs don't draw enough current to trip a breaker. 1/2 wrong parallel arcs can draw a lot of current as they often manifest as a ground fault or wire to wire fault. Parallel arcs can cause OC devices to blow at their instantaneous settings. Series arcs are usually around 5 amps.
The illustrations are generally attributed to arc faults but it looks like the article has just added them as window dressing.

It's that disconnect that put me on edge. IMO, both the damage described and the damege shown in the pictures is from simple overloading - not a simple arc in one location.

If I'm right, both are completely irrelevant to the issue of AFCI's, and were only placed there for emotional appeal.

After making his illogical presentation, the author repeatedly implies that sceptic are uninformed, ignorant, or simply mean.

It's a low-brow repeat of the 'global warming' nonsense: unsupported, emotional appeals, personal attacks on opponents, and high-handed hijacking of the governing process.

Nor is mentioning that other issue irrelevany; the author claims credentials in that area (LEED), and probably thinks this is how you're supposed to construct your arguments.

"Science" is supposed to be neither anecdotal nor emotional. We have not had any real evidence for the effectiveness of AFCI's presented - just hype, supposition, and promises. The article adds personal attacks to the mix.

Is this just symptomatic of businesses creating products and then creating the market afterwards? There are parallels. The original deoderants were marketed on the basis of BO, [which does not exist in most folk if they use soap and water regularly]. They are now marketed differentially on their 'sexual attractiveness' quotient, when overwhelming evidence says that scent is not a factor in such things, humans do not have and cannot smell pheremones. Similarly, until a decade ago drug companies sold stuff to cure diseases. Now they market stuff which consumers swallow for future ills we ain't got yet- such as statins/aspirin/blood pressure reducers to lower the chances of heart attack in the future. Gigantic market. Neat.

We are in a marketing hype world and penis enlargement adds have reached late night television. Still snake oil but the TV adds are working as these companies sell a lot of those pills. If it actually worked we would buy this stuff from Pfizer or Roche or some other legitimate drug company.
I do believe that AFCI breakers work and that they can finally protect from series arcs which is usually the exact mechanism for fire causation. A hot connection is a series resistance that has to become a series arc to get hot enough to start a fire. A too tight staple can cause enough insulation damage that a parallel arc can form. AFCI breakers do that job. I appreciate Reno's conspiracy theory and to a point I agree that a lot of the crap we get is just Hype. I am on the fence about climate change and am enjoying the warmest January on record here in the north west. The key is "ON record". We don't have climatic records spanning thousands of years. Clearly the span of a human life is too short to make long term observations of things that happen on a geological scale. Regardless of the tree huggers embracing every nut position there is measurable proof that there is more CO2 in the air than at any time over the last 100 thousand years. There is proof the rate of increase corresponds to the industrial age. OK, but does any of it prove climate change? Well I guess that is the debate. The big word of caution is if the tree huggers are right we might never react in time to affect the oncoming warm period. I have no children so my personal stake in that discussion is almost non germane. Unless it turns my home into a desert I can enjoy the rising thermometer and take a warm winter cruise in the Arctic sea for my 80th birthday. The fact that California has burned to the ground and I can't get any cheap produce might affect my life but hey maybe they will start growing oranges in Manitoba and go to war with the US when it comes for our water.
I guess this isn't an electrical discussion anymore is it?
Back on topic. I believe AFCI breakers work and if I could I would replace the branch breakers to All AFCI, except I need to also change the panel to allow for 22 wide breakers instead of narrow FPE ones I have installed.

It's hard to bring up AFCI's without opening that entire can of worms. I would like to clarify a few things, though:

I do NOT hold to any manner of 'conspiracy' theory regarding AFCI's. I simply don't believe that the case has been made. I cannot think of any other time the code has required the use of a product that has not been yet made (as was done in the 96 edition), or where one code cycle attempted to bind the decisions of the next code cycle (AFCI's again, 96 and 02). That is bad law, however you look at it.

If there's a case to be made for AFCI's, the article certainly failed to make it. If anything, the effect was the opposite: it undermined the credibility of the presenter.

I mentioned the 'global warming' snafu simply because it has now been shown that the advocates were deliberately misrepresenting the data that they had. It was fraud, plain and simple. The behavior is similar enough in the two examples to make me ever more sceptical.

I sympathise with your panel problems. That is why I am puzzled as to the opposition there is to AFCI devices; isn't half a loaf better than none? That, though, is another discussion.

Remember: there are at least two instances in our lifetimes where firms have deliberately manipulated the code process for their own benefit. In both these cases, the crooks were screaming 'safety' as loud as they could - and in as dishonest a way as possible as well. Emotional appeals are, in my experience, rarely in my interest.

Emotional appeals. Exactly, but perpetrated by people who's interest is strictly $$$. Those climate data sets were manipulated to get Gummint grants.
Actually mikesh, we do have full, unimpeachable records of temperatures for England going back to around 1659. These can be correlated for the whole Northern Hemisphere and they show that the world is warming naturally at about one half a deg. F every hundred years. CO2 has little if any effect at all. I fervently hope that is not the case with AFCIs v. housefires stats.
Here's the data showing the trend for the last 350 years, with CO2 % superimposed as the black curve on the data set.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a7c87805970b-pi

What me worry? [c Electure ].

I am definitely on the side of AFCI breakers only. A device only protects downstream of the cord plugged into it but does nothing for the drywall screw between the panel and the Device. If the device had to be within 3 feet of the panel I suppose I'd be OK with that since it is likely that 3 feet of wire might be visible always. I took to the hype of AFCI pretty quickly since it was a promise to prevent the very kind of electrically caused fires I was investigating. None of the fires I would attribute to a series arc had a problem outside of the walls but always in concealed wiring or in a box with a device. We have been installing AFCI breakers for 8 years and except for a couple of bad breakers the first year or so almost all the problems I have found were errors or faults. Most problems were bonding wires touching neutrals. I heard of a case where the inspector and contractor almost came to blows arguing that the branch wiring was fine and the breaker was the problem. It took 2 breaker changes and some jury rigging with another manufacturers breaker to prove the problem was repeatable. Eventually the nail was found and the section of damaged wire replaced. So my experience supports AFCI technology and I am a convert, Regardless of those experiences I did see a lot of crazy demonstrations using a razor blade and a section of loomex. The demonstrator would use a makeshift guillotine and slice across a piece of loomex. the AFCI would trip and the branch circuit supplying the demonstration gear would not. It was a few years later I discovered the AFCI was tripping on parallel fault using the Ground fault protection. Pure BS and marketing by the salesman yet the breakers were tripping as per the claims of the manufacturers on series faults. It seems there are not enough sparks to make a good demonstration on a series arc.
I expect there is a time coming soon where all branch circuits are AFCI protected in residential applications since by far that is where people are dying. Most of the people dying in house fires are asleep or otherwise unconscious when the fire starts. I would feel a lot more confident that when it comes time to impliment that change that I couls rely on the sales pitch. Unfortunately salesmen tend to push what ever sells regardless of it meeting the claims. It is darn difficult to be a cynic and an optimist at the same time.

It is not the least bit surprising to me that CH would provide misinformation on this subject. The original proposals for the 1999 code to require that use of AFCIs said that the device that they had then (remember proposals for the 99 code were due in early November, 1996) said that they had a device that could do what they now say the combination type AFCI can do. The combo device did not come on the market until 13 years after the first proposal.

I had a number of very heated discussions about the function of the original device on this very forum. When you started to dig into the real information back then you could find out what the original device could do...detect a parallel arc that had a current of 75 amps or more. I was not sold on the AFCIs then and I still am not.

Another issue touched on in this thread was the cost benefit of the device. I did some work on this issue using the same fire cause and origin information that the AFCI proponents used along with the housing start information from HUD. For compliance with the 2008 rule, I assumed an additional cost of $400 per dwelling unit.

If we had 100% compliance with the rule, we could expect to prevent 435 fires in the first year9this assumes that the AFCIs are 100% effective, something even the manufactures do not claim). Based on the expected number of housing starts, the cost to install the AFCIs in all of the new dwelling units would be a little over 638 million dollars. The cost to prevent each of those 435 fires would be a little over 1.5 million dollars.

Even after 20 years (will the AFCI still be functional then? remember they are not fail safe) the cost to prevent each fire will exceed $170,000.

Don.,

Sorry to bother you but Did the UL or someone else did have the statement written sometime back ?? I did know couple of manufacter did make a statement but only issue I am looking is long term useage like you mention 20 years how many oringal AFCI will be functioning after X amout of years before failure.

Merci,Marc

I've been following this discussion since it started and have been surprised that I haven't heard anyone repeat what I heard about 5 years ago.

In Canada we only require AFCI breakers on bedroon receptacles. I heard (from another electrician) that the reasoning was due to somebody having determined that bedroom receptacles have a greater buildup of dust inside of them, then receptacles in other parts of the house. This greater dust buildup was due to people spending more time in bedrooms than any other room in a house and dust containing a high percentage of human skin. This buildup of dust can cause arcing and therefore fires.

Has anybody else heard this as well?

I'm only asking as it was actually the best reason I ever heard of why we only require AFCI protected circuits on bedroom receptacles. If the intent of AFCI's was to protect against over driven staples and loose connections, then that could happen on any circuit.

Bruce

Well, that's a new on on me!

I can't say I understand the 'only the bedrooms' requirement either, except to look at it as a toehold for future expansion of the requirement. After all, there is no code requirement to segregate the circuits by room.

I think that 'explanation' was vreative in the extrems.

I always understood the "bedroom" thing that if a fire started there while you were sleeping you had less time to get out of the house and more of a chance of being overcome by smoke. I was never sure that was true either.
I did understand the example of the cord, under the bed, covered in dust bunnies and pinched under the bed wheel but that would also be true behind the couch.

I am waiting for a call from the electrician at my wife's place about a real life arc incident. It was a warming element in a soup tureen that was "shooting fire". I am curious what he actually found and if he thinks an AFCI would have cleared the fault. (20a single breaker)

So i guess there's nothing new under the sun here fella's.

No supporting stats, no produce specifics, nothing from the powers that be at all.

I guess the afci steamroller trudges on....

Now in the grander scheme i have to ask, is there really any unbiased entity , some sort of electrical consumer reports (per se') that rates the products we install?

In fact, can you show me a pundit in Electrical Contractor, EC&M, NEC news, IAEI (et all trade mags) that suck up manufacturing ads like a cream fed kitten?

Honestly, Sisyphus had it easy...

~S~

Marc,
I don't recall any statement from UL or anyone else on the expected life of the AFCI. They are an electronic device and subject to damage by surges, but I don't really have any idea on how long they will actually remain functional. I know the the manufacturers expect the home owner to push the test button once a month to find out if the device still works, but I don't think that too many home owners will actually do that.

Don.,

Thanks for your reply with the answer and I do agree with your last part how many time do the homeowner ever check the GFCI breaker ?? almost never check unless they assumed the breaker is tripped I am pretty sure it will be the same thing with AFCI.

I think one reason why many homeowners kinda reclunet { hestanite } to hit the test button due they have to reset the electronic clock etc.,,

As far for European verison there is talk going on but nothing is written yet due we have good proctal allready set in is we have to megger everything before it can be engerized but as far you and I know noting is foolproof something will show up.

Anyway Don thanks again.

Merci,Marc

Perhaps, I add with tounge in cheek, that a 'self-testing' AFCI and GFCI will be on the horizon?

As to leaving the HO's to test monthly, good luck. I encounter the occasional 'final' upon which it is plain as day that the electrician/EC didn't do any 'testing'!

Don (Resqcapt)....thanks for the input & it's nice to 'hear' from you!!

Tongue in cheek? Too late

GFCI's made since 2003 have had some manner of 'self test' in them. The problem is, this electronic wizardry doesn't actually make any parts move, so the innards can rust solid and never work.

2003 also increased corrosion requirements, but there is still the need to actually trip the things.

Now we are faced with all manner of counterfeit breakers. With this push to get away from affordable devices, and rely upon brand-specific breakers (meaning more expensive), expect the problem to get worse.

What is to prevent some counterfeiter from simply making the 'test' button an 'off' switch - saving the trouble of counterfeiting the intricate innards?

With GFCI's, in most circumstances we can use a simple plug-in tester. Yet, there is no 'acceptable' tester for AFCI's. We are forced to rely upon that same test button - that is part of what might be a counterfeit breaker.

Folks, I have a problem with this situation.

As I read threads about AFCI's over the years, the discussions led me to believe that AFCI's being a good idea in theory their time has not come yet, and they are snake oil. I am wondering if a fire occurs in a AFCI equipped house & there is a loss of life/lives + the cause being deemed electrical in origin, if the trial lawyers are going to come crawling out from under the cow patties & go after the maunfacturers in court & the NFPA in the court of public opinion.......


Post Script: If it had been decided to expand GFCI requirements to everywhere, I do not have a issue w/ that, they work and are cheap too

The reason we started with bedrooms is precicely that for 8 hours a night the occupants are unconcious. Presumably with the smoke detector and the AFCI then we would get enough warning to get out of bed and maybe get out. During the day we are presumably awake and might notice the smoke or flames a little sooner.
I have been reading an article "Residential Electrical System Aging Research Program" It was written by David A. Dini P.E. from UL. It was written for the Fire Protection Research Foundation in July 2008.
The 450 fire a year are in homes mostly older than 40 years so we need AFCI there more than anywhere.
Most of the wire before thermoplastic insulation was rubber insulated and a great number of the discovered problems in the branch wiring is related to decomposition of that insulation.
If you can find this article on the internet I think it give an interesting perspective on electrical faults and the causes of residential fires.

Mikesh ... you've brought out two of the basic issues I have with most of the code changes since, say, the '70's .... and in particular, one of my gripes about the code aproach to AFCI's.

Older homes: Yup, no doubt. Yet, as the very study you cite makes plain, the older homes had quite a few very basic violations, the sort of stuff even Edison, maybe even Franklin, knew better than to do. For example, overloaded circuits. Improper splices.

Which brings me to the AFCI issue. Assuming the technology is what it is claimed to be, and the desire is to save lives ... would not the very highest priority be to add AFCI's to older systems, systems that may hve degraded over time, are probably already inadequate, and have most likely see some unqualified 'repairs?' This is a circumstance screaming for an AFCI device, since there is unlikely to be an AFCI available for the service equipment available.

Yet, the AFCI device has been staunchly opposed by the breaker makers. Having had the rug pulled out once already, it's no surprise the device makers are wary of entering the market now.

I'll go it one better: give me an AFCI device that also tells me WHY it tripped. Overload? Ground fault? Arc detected?

With the AFCI breakers also incorporating 30mA ground-fault detection, I also want to know why NONE of them are classified by UL for providing the 30mA ground fault protection where it is required for protecting equipment. UL is quite plain on this point: NO AFCI is listed for that use. What's the story?

Thanks Mike, That article refreshes memory what to look for when doing service upgrades.
I tried to up-load the file but it is too big.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/RESAReport.pdf

Good pictures too

i wrote Dave Dini a deacde ago asking if afci's on old K&T wiring would be a good idea.....~S~

I don't see AFCIs being very effective on any wiring system that does not include an EGC. It appears to me that most of the trips are from the ground fault circuit and not the fancy arc signature circuit. The GFP trips with a 30 to 50 mA fault, the arc signature circuit doesn't even look for faults with currents less than 5 amps.

but without specs, how would we know? all i really DO know is they are sold as ARC FAULT (i.e.-the wiring has a series or parralel arc, it faults)

ergo, the onus of proof remians it's marketed name and white book declaration(s)

in fact, i've recommended them on old K&T, as a temporary sauve until a rewire can be accomplished, which was the jist of my writing Dave D years ago

so far, i've one insurance company that's gone along with that....

~S~

Reno:

You wrote..."I'll go it one better: give me an AFCI device that also tells me WHY it tripped. Overload? Ground fault? Arc detected?"

As I don't profess to have a lot of experience with AFCI, as an EC or AHJ 'cause AFCI is 'new' here, I did find this. I don't have the info with me, but doesn't Siemens have LED's on the face of the AF breaker that indicate 'what' caused the trip?

As to installing AF on existing wiring, IMHO that will be a nightmare, based on what I have heard and read.

Boy Reno if only we could have an upgrade rule or this installation is licenced for X # of years and that at the end of the period an inspection would be done and any mandated upgrade be performed. Alas the structure of approvals and codes only apply to a new installation with small exceptions for maintenance or if a part of the electrical is improperly being used. Once an installation is finalized it is for ever assuming the conditions of use don't change.
I especially like the idea of a trip indicator that differentiates the possible trip reason. Clearly the troubleshooting exercise is different for overload vs. over current or arc fault.
I agree my initial enthusiasm for AFCI was tainted when I started reading the stories that series arcs are detectable in the 3rd generation breakers. This was part of the original promise and all the sales hype. Of course we got these new devices a little later than the US did so maybe we started at 3rd generation. I think we actually started mandating them before the series arc detection.
I wish the manufacturers would get these breakers listed for their GFI protection so contractors could use them for heat tracing circuits. The current 30 ma trip GFI breakers are $200.00 never mind the GFCI breakers yet an AFCI breaker that can detect 30 ma ground faults is only $60.00.
The bottom line is I still see AFCI breakers as an advancement in breaker technologies and look forward to their greater utilization in residential applications.

yes HotOne, two, g-fault & arc.....




well we in Vt were a code cycle ahead of the nation. The chief inspector here wanted them installed on all service upgrades

eventually, the verdict came from the nfpa that we didn't need to hold existing wiring to 210.12 , being there were so many multiwire circuits. (he actually argued that we should go back when they were marketed)

in the intrum, much ado occured, pro/con about usage on older wiring

in fairness, it's the older wiring that needs the protection an afci can offer in a state that has more non-license work in it than licensed work.

as it stands, i've ten years worth of them out there on a variety of vintage wiring

my only regret is their disngenous marketing, but as i do not represent the manufacturer, i feel the burden of validity is not (nor should be) on the EC

we can't fight city hall, and if any here have been listening to the recent 'gang of five' rulings, none of us is going to have a prayer of doing so from here on....

~S~

~S~

sparky:
Thanks for the info. Yes, I have to agree with the older wiring needing the AF. How much time/trouble would you say you spent installing AF on a service upgrade, or panel swap?

Well that occured here back in the short era when it was just bedroom recetptacle circuits , before the ruling was overturned. Quite frankly the multiwires made it mission improbable, we tried to split them up, but you know how that goes

I had more problems on renovation jobs trying to find afci's that fit older panels. There's more than a few older Challenger (for ex) panels around here with Siemens version 1.0 afci's in them , it became one of those things where the powers that be looked the other way for a while.....~S~

John,


Is this the page that you are looking for?

http://www.sea.siemens.com/us/inter...Circuit%20Protection/RPFL-COMB1-0807.pdf

Oh, Oh! It might be too long to paste here.

Harold:
Yes, that's it.
Thank you, I was going to 'find' it in my files tonite.

Hopefully, the others here will check it out.

for all appearances (key word) it seems they've improved...

~S~

Ground fault protection works on ungrounded circuits so the EGC is not required but does improve the performance of GF devices. To my knowledge all GF detection works by totalling the current out and the current returning. they must add vectorallyl to 0 or within the trip setting of the device 6ma for GFCI and Usually 30ma for a GFI device.
The series arc detection requires around a 5 amp threshold and arc signature. That may not have very much GF leakage and I suppose if the parallel arc detection is phase to phase you could be correct about not working without the arc signature. The fact that the current might travel through the studs or other path will activate the GF protection even without the EGC.

well Mikesh, wouldn't UL1699's wording address this? (is there a linguist in the house?)

clicky


The UL code states “By recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and functioning to de-energize the circuit when an arc-fault is detected, AFCI's further reduce the risk of fire beyond the scope of conventional fuses and circuit breakers. The UL page at http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/ leads to details of how AFCI breakers are tested in the UL laboratory. The UL 1699 defines the requirements for the new AFCI breakers. Work on AFCIs by the UL can be traced back to a 15 March 1996 UL report of Research on Arc-Fault Detection Circuit Breakers which was based upon research that extends back into 1994. While AFCIs are specified to detect several different types of arcing faults, they will not detect all types of arcing faults, http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/Dini.pdf. The UL 1699 Standard currently addresses four different types of arcing tests with different types of wires and insulation cuts, 15 different unwanted tripping tests, and 14 tests for overloads, short circuits, and mechanical operation

anyone have an update on this?

~S~

Mike,
My point is that there is not likely to be a ground fault path on an knob and tube system and so there will be no 30mA ground fault trip. The AFCI will have to see the 5 amp series arc current before it can open the circuit. 5 amps is more then enough to make enough heat to start a fire. Glowing connections have occurred with loads of 100 watts or less. In a system/circuit with an EGC it is likely that the series fault will cause a ground fault long before AFCI arc detection circuit will see the problem.
As far as 30 mA traveling through the studs or other non-metallic paths, I don't see that very likely in a typical dwelling unit.