Arc-Fault Interuptor Breakers

I'm finishing the construction of a master bedroom add-on to our home. All the plugs in the room are on a single circuit on a 15-amp arc fault
breaker. Everything appears functional, but during cleanup, whenever I connect my 7 AMP shop vac to the circuit, it kicks the breaker.
I noticed a similar occurance with a 20 GFI breaker when I attempted to run an air compressor from it.
I have no problem with either power tool when running them from a straight 20 AMP circuit.
What's happening here? Are protection breakers just that much more sensitive?
TIA
Randell Tarin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is probable that your appliances have universal (AC-DC) motors with brushes, thus producing sparks and all sorts of voltage transients on the line. This is what the arc-fault detectors are designed to detect
I guess this means I can no longer run my Tesla coil in my bedroom... Bummer. :>
Beachcomber
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

What about vacuum cleaners and hair dryers, both appliances typically used in a bedroom? Well, I do have a 100 ft. extention cord...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Randell Tarin wrote:

A GFCI trip suggests the air compressor has hot-to-ground leakage.
Brush motors are not supposed to trip AFCIs. AFCIs almost always include a 30 mA ground fault trip (GFCIs use 5 mA). It is possible the shop vac has hot-to-ground leakage. If you plug the shop vac into the GFCI does it trip? Do you have more than 1 AFCI - trip the others also?
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| A GFCI trip suggests the air compressor has hot-to-ground leakage.
Or it could have neutral to ground leakage. If the neutral and ground are connected together at the load, the return current will split between those wires, and the GFCI will not see the same current level between hot and neutral. In either case, the compressor is defective and dangerous for use. It needs to be repaired or replaced.
| Brush motors are not supposed to trip AFCIs. AFCIs almost always include | a 30 mA ground fault trip (GFCIs use 5 mA). It is possible the shop vac | has hot-to-ground leakage. If you plug the shop vac into the GFCI does | it trip? Do you have more than 1 AFCI - trip the others also?
There is a history of some AFCIs being overly sensitive, or some motor loads having excess brush arcing, and tripping AFCIs (and not GFCIs). The OP should test the shop vac on a GFCI. If it is OK on a GFCI, then the AFCI should be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation (but they will likely also need more information to reproduce the problem, if not the actual shop vac). And the shop vac could be defective and have a kind of fault, or excessive arcing, that the AFCI should detect.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19 Apr 2007 15:04:59 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Most AFCI trips get traced back to ground/neutral faults. That is where the ceiling fans got that bad reputation. It was usually that big cludge wirenut vibrating into the hickey when the fan was running. The original AFCI designs (for the arc fault part) were only looking for short duration current spikes in the 70a+ range. They just detect dead shorts from line to neutral. The GFCI protection was added to find shorts from neutral or line to ground at the 30ma level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It's very likely the fault of the shop-vac. I ran the vacuum and a hair dryer without incident. It's on it's last leg and ready for replacement anyway.
Thanks guys.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:12:34 -0400 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On 19 Apr 2007 15:04:59 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |
|> |>| A GFCI trip suggests the air compressor has hot-to-ground leakage. |> |>Or it could have neutral to ground leakage. If the neutral and ground |>are connected together at the load, the return current will split between |>those wires, and the GFCI will not see the same current level between hot |>and neutral. In either case, the compressor is defective and dangerous |>for use. It needs to be repaired or replaced. |> |> |>| Brush motors are not supposed to trip AFCIs. AFCIs almost always include |>| a 30 mA ground fault trip (GFCIs use 5 mA). It is possible the shop vac |>| has hot-to-ground leakage. If you plug the shop vac into the GFCI does |>| it trip? Do you have more than 1 AFCI - trip the others also? |> |>There is a history of some AFCIs being overly sensitive, or some motor |>loads having excess brush arcing, and tripping AFCIs (and not GFCIs). |>The OP should test the shop vac on a GFCI. If it is OK on a GFCI, then |>the AFCI should be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation (but they |>will likely also need more information to reproduce the problem, if not |>the actual shop vac). And the shop vac could be defective and have a |>kind of fault, or excessive arcing, that the AFCI should detect. | | | Most AFCI trips get traced back to ground/neutral faults. That is | where the ceiling fans got that bad reputation. It was usually that | big cludge wirenut vibrating into the hickey when the fan was running. | The original AFCI designs (for the arc fault part) were only looking | for short duration current spikes in the 70a+ range. They just detect | dead shorts from line to neutral. The GFCI protection was added to | find shorts from neutral or line to ground at the 30ma level.
That's not what some aspects of what I read say. There have been documents (I didn't keep them handy) that described "series arcs" as arcs due to a loose connection that isn't a short circuit path. The arc transients would therefore have no more increase than what the load is, plus or minus any circuit/load reactive components affecting it.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Apr 2007 01:04:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

There are not any "series arc" detectors out there yet., Siemens is bragging about having one but it isn't really for sale. The "combination" AFCI refers to being able to detect parallel arcs in the wall plus an arc in a line cord. It is a lower level of current detection when looking at a potential arc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

A interesting source of information on AFCIs is: http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/03_a/magazine_03_gregmanche.htm from IAEI News, January/February 2003,The Truth About AFCIs (Part 1) (part 2 is at) http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/03_b/magazine_03b_gregmanche.htm (and a response to reader comments) http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/03_d/magazine_03d_gregory.htm
The currently required "Branch/feeder" AFCIs are required to detect 75A arcs. That will detect parallel arcs, but not series arcs.
"Outlet circuit" AFCIs are required to detect 5A arcs, which will detect series and parallel arcs.
The "Combination" AFCIs required by the NEC on 1-1-08 combine "Outlet circuit" and "Branch/feeder" requirements, so they will detect both series and parallel arcs (if the AFCIs ever appear).
Detecting a 5A 'bad' arc while ignoring an acceptable arc, like a brush motor, does not sound easy.
The ground fault detection level required in AFCIs is 5A. The article says AFCIs on the market detect at 50mA. The ones I have seen are at 30mA. I believe the theory is that an arc with a ground present is likely to soon arc to ground and be detected.
Among the information in the article is where the 5 and 75A levels came from.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the whole idea of AFCI's and their adoption by the US Electrical Code and Consumer Safety Organizations was because, there were, at most, one or two deaths per year caused by fires started in bedrooms caused by bedframes smashing into plugs/outlets. Americans in general, and the keepers of the NEC specifically like to error on the side of caution, especially if the economic cost is not too high. Also, just the fact that a plug/outlet was located behind the bed would increase the risk of fire.
That being said, most of the electrical devices used in bedrooms are going to be two wire devices, (lamps, electric space heaters, clocks, vacuum cleaners, radios, cell phone/cordless phone chargers, etc.)
Three wire arc-fault detection would be normally not add any greater protection for most applianced used in this location.
Thus, any fault to ground, even an arc-fault could conceivably be protected by conventional, less-expensive GFCI's (although not currenlty required in bedrooms).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I think the whole idea of AFCI's and their adoption by the US | Electrical Code and Consumer Safety Organizations was because, there | were, at most, one or two deaths per year caused by fires started in | bedrooms caused by bedframes smashing into plugs/outlets. Americans | in general, and the keepers of the NEC specifically like to error on | the side of caution, especially if the economic cost is not too high. | Also, just the fact that a plug/outlet was located behind the bed | would increase the risk of fire.
It would also help to require sufficient extra outlets in bedrooms so that the ones that do get covered up by furniture won't matter because at least one other nearby will be available. How about a duplex every 2 feet?
In my current home (I didn't design), I have 3 outlets, 2 of which are in bedrooms, with "permanent" extension cords because they are located where the only option for furniture exists, and another outlet is too far away. The builder clearly put the absolute minimum in to meet code. It would now be very expensive to stick in new ones to meet my suggested spacing.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Apr 2007 00:48:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

This is a design issue. If the designer can identify the likely bed locations they can place the outlets properly for the night stands. In my bedroom remodel this ended up being 4 quads and two 4 way switch loops with switches at 3 locations for the overhead and one switched receptacle in each quad. Most builders hitting a price point will not do this. In the quads that ended up being away from the bed location I swapped a duples for one of those green nightlights.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:35:03 -0400 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On 22 Apr 2007 00:48:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |>It would also help to require sufficient extra outlets in bedrooms so that |>the ones that do get covered up by furniture won't matter because at least |>one other nearby will be available. How about a duplex every 2 feet? | | | This is a design issue. If the designer can identify the likely bed | locations they can place the outlets properly for the night stands. In | my bedroom remodel this ended up being 4 quads and two 4 way switch | loops with switches at 3 locations for the overhead and one switched | receptacle in each quad. Most builders hitting a price point will not | do this. | In the quads that ended up being away from the bed location I swapped | a duples for one of those green nightlights.
I also think it is a code issue. The code writers _are_ legitimately concerned with safety, including those aspects that result in fires due to damage in cords plugged into outlets. That's one justification for AFCI requirements. Closer outlet spacing, especially in bedrooms, would also further the cause of greater safety.
Of course it is my intent to design a house with much better electrical wiring along the lines of my own desires. This will include more outlets than the code requires, including the previously mentioned extras in the bedrooms and other rooms where furniture may concentrate (all outlets may still be covered, but at least some will end up being behind light weight furniture, instead of behind a bookcase full of books). I don't know that I need quads in the bedrooms, given the extra outlets. But a few other places definitely will have them.
My kitchen pattern will be a little more complex. Each point will have 2x duplex 5-15R, 1x single 5-20R, 1x single 6-20R. The singles will be each on their own dedicated circuit. The duplexes will be on 2 circuits but will share the circuit with the outlet point 2 or 3 points down for a total of 4 or 6 circuits. My father knows an electritician who went to the extreme of every duplex on its own dedicated shared neutral in the kitchen. But I figure if I need more than the 4 to 6 multi-outlet circuits plus all the single-outlet dedicated circuits, I have other issues to worry about (like how to dump all the heat).
I'd like to do this in the kitchen: http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/ks-1.html but it would more likely have to be: http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/ks-2.html although these might be done with a 3 pole breaker for the right duplex: http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/ks-3.html http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/aee/ks-4.html
And no 3-way/4-way switches for me. Momentary up/down switches controlling relays (machnically latching in some cases, electrically held on in others) is my current plan at least for multi-point controlled lights and maybe a few others.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Beachcomber wrote:

I have never seen bedframes hitting plugs as a cause behind AFCIs. Electrical cords lying on the floor that get walked on, under rugs, or otherwise abused have been mentioned. There was an economic analysis done by the CPSC. It was based on the number of electrical fires with bedrooms a major point of origin. According to the analysis, AFCIs were cost-effective in preventing fire damage, injury and death. The analysis may be right or wrong, but there was a justification for AFCIs in bedrooms.
But I dont think there was any study that demonstrated the effectiveness of AFCIs that have been installed in bedrooms that was used as a basis for extending the use of AFCIs everywhere.

Two wire cord s produce parallel faults, which is what the existing AFCIs are required to detect. One of the UL AFCI tests is for parallel arcs in zip cord, which is the common electrical cord in bedrooms. The 75A parallel arc detection level is based on UL field tests of outlets that found 75A was available for a fault at all tested outlets and at the end of almost all plugged in lengths of 6 feet of #18.

One of the UL AFCI tests is for a series arc in Romex with ground. Since existing AFCIs dont detect series arcs I presume detection is by the series arc becoming at least partially a ground fault which will be detected.
Also UL did some tests on glowing connections - series arcs - at wire connections to receptacles. In 9 of 16 tests leakage to ground developed that tripped an AFCI. (In 6 of 16 tests the wire burned open.)

But that wouldnt detect parallel arcs that dont involve ground. Or, if the new AFCIs ever appear, series arcs that dont involve ground. And an arc fault with a ground present does not necessarily develop ground leakage.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The study I saw at Electrical Contractor Network forum pegged the price at several million dollars per fire prevented and a couple billion dollars per life saved. (using NFPA fire data and industry projections of AFCIs to be sold at $40 each.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I have never seen bedframes hitting plugs as a cause behind AFCIs. | Electrical cords lying on the floor that get walked on, under rugs, or | otherwise abused have been mentioned. There was an economic analysis
Including chewed on by animals.
| done by the CPSC. It was based on the number of electrical fires with | bedrooms a major point of origin. According to the analysis, AFCIs were | cost-effective in preventing fire damage, injury and death. The analysis | may be right or wrong, but there was a justification for AFCIs in bedrooms. | | But I don?t think there was any study that demonstrated the | effectiveness of AFCIs that have been installed in bedrooms that was | used as a basis for extending the use of AFCIs ?everywhere?.
Animals can get out of the bedroom.
|> That being said, most of the electrical devices used in bedrooms are |> going to be two wire devices, (lamps, electric space heaters, clocks, |> vacuum cleaners, radios, cell phone/cordless phone chargers, etc.) | | Two wire cord s produce parallel faults, which is what the existing | AFCIs are required to detect. One of the UL AFCI tests is for parallel | arcs in ?zip? cord, which is the common electrical cord in bedrooms. The | 75A parallel arc detection level is based on UL field tests of outlets | that found 75A was available for a fault at all tested outlets and at | the end of almost all plugged in lengths of 6 feet of #18. | |> |> Three wire arc-fault detection would be normally not add any greater |> protection for most applianced used in this location. | | One of the UL AFCI tests is for a series arc in Romex with ground. Since | existing AFCIs don?t detect series arcs I presume detection is by the | series arc becoming at least partially a ground fault which will be | detected. | | Also UL did some tests on ?glowing connections? - series arcs - at wire | connections to receptacles. In 9 of 16 tests leakage to ground developed | that tripped an AFCI. (In 6 of 16 tests the wire burned open.)
Loose plugs can also cause this.
Back in 1979 there was a fire that destroyed an entire apartment building in a large apartment complex I lived in. The fire was ultimately traced down to the receptacles being painted, and subsequent poor contact when a plug is pushed in. That's not exactly an AFCI issue, but in certain cases I could see where a series arc detection might catch this.
|> Thus, any fault to ground, even an arc-fault could conceivably be |> protected by conventional, less-expensive GFCI's (although not |> currenlty required in bedrooms). | | But that wouldn?t detect parallel arcs that don?t involve ground. Or, if | the new AFCIs ever appear, series arcs that don?t involve ground. And an | arc fault with a ground present does not necessarily develop ground leakage. | | -- | bud--
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| The currently required "Branch/feeder" AFCIs are required to detect 75A | arcs. That will detect parallel arcs, but not series arcs.
What about a 3/4 HP garbage disposal motor starting up against a drain jammed tight with the dinner waste?
| "Outlet circuit" AFCIs are required to detect 5A arcs, which will detect | series and parallel arcs. | | The "Combination" AFCIs required by the NEC on 1-1-08 combine "Outlet | circuit" and "Branch/feeder" requirements, so they will detect both | series and parallel arcs (if the AFCIs ever appear).
So the NEC require in less than a year (where AHJs adopt it all) a product that still hasn't shown up on the market?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

It is a simple overload, not an arc. The arc fault mechanism wouldn't detect it. But the normal overload mechanism of a branch/feeder circuit breaker would.

Yup.
The 1-1-08 requirement is in the 2002 NEC (like post dating a check). It may have been reasonable to expect the new AFCIs would be on the market when they wrote the 2002 code.
What IMHO was a irresponsible move was requiring in the 2008 NEC (assuming it hasn't been removed late in the code process) that almost all 15 & 20A 120V residential circuits be protected by AFCIs. These will have to be the new AFCIs that were not on the market when they wrote the 2008 code. It was likely the new devices would have little field experience before they were required 'everywhere'.
It will be interesting what changes jurisdictions make when they accept the 2008 NEC. If, for example, SquareD does not have the new AFCIs available does that mean you can't use SquareD panels.
-- bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They actually put AFCIs in the 99 code to be implimented in 2002 and that device did not really exist in retail channels in 1997 when the ROP came out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.