Combination AFCI/GFCI Circuit Breakers?

I have just attended the Northwest IAEI Section meeting in Anchorage Alaska where the 2008 NEC and Analysis of Changes was taught. A new
rule is requiring that all 120-volt, 15- and 20- ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination- type , installed to provide protection for the branch circuit. The combination-type means that the AFCI provides series and parallel circuit protection.
Also, the AFCI provides protection from bad arcs that cause fires but does not provide GFCI protection because the ground fault tip is set at 50 ma.
Now what came up during break was does anyone make a AFCI/GFCI that provides both the 5 ma GFCI protection and the AFCI protection and if they do, why not just go the whole course and require both? It turns out that Cutler Hammer does make such a device, but Square D does not. So now what should we do? Wait for the 2011 NEC or jump the gun and put these Cutler Hammer AFCI/GFCI devices in now?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The FIRE-GUARD™ Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter (AFCI) is a residential circuit breaker with an integrated processor which recognizes the unique current and/or voltage signatures associated with arcing faults, and acts to interrupt the circuit to reduce the likelihood of an electrical fire. With the Cutler-Hammer FIRE-GUARD AFCI, protection from arcing faults is combined with conventional thermal and magnetic overloads as found in standard residential circuit breakers protecting wiring from excessive heat or damage due to overloading or short circuits. FIRE-GUARD AFCI can also be equipped with 5 mA ground fault protection to protect from personal shock hazards. Now, there is a residential circuit breaker that provides protection from arcing faults, conductor damage due to thermal overloads and short circuits, as well as 5 mA ground fault protection in one integrated design.
from: http://www.fireguard.info /
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gerald Newton wrote:

When will someone develop the toddler with a paper clip detector circuit interrupter.
[8~{} Uncle Monster
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:41:14 -0500, Uncle Monster

It is called the tampre resistand receptacle and that is in the 2008 code too.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Oh my God! I'll bet the things will be like the so called child proof safety caps on pill bottles. Impossible for older folks to use.
[8~{} Uncle Monster
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The following information was interpreted using information from the Lawerence Livermore Labs. Charles Dalziel invented the GFCI in 1961. It is my understanding that he worked at these labs or nearby.
Experience has shown 5 mA can cause uncomfortable shock, and in cases of children or where persons are on an operating table, a current of 5 mA may cause serious discomfort and complications. By Figure 1 the UL Standard 943 performance curve requires the GFCI to open the circuit in 7 seconds at 4 mA, in 5 seconds at 5 mA, and in 0.04 seconds at 110 mA fault current. . However, the performance curve for the LM 1851 IC has .4 seconds at 4 mA, .2 seconds at 5 mA, and .02 seconds at 110 mA. Ventricular fibrillation that alters the heart's normal rhythmic pumping action can be initiated by a current flow of 75 mA or greater for 5 seconds (5-s) or more through the chest cavity.
To calculate the probability of ventricular fibrillation perform the following: To determine the 5-s current flow (in mA) necessary to cause a 0.5% probability of ventricular-fibrillation, multiply a person's weight (in lb) by 0.49. To determine the 5-s current flow (in mA) necessary to cause a 99.5% probability of ventricular fibrillation, multiply a person's weight (in lb) by 1.47. (Reference: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California.)
The 99.5% probability for a 6 pound infant is 1.47 x 6 equals 8.82 mA for 5 seconds. This is within the safe limits of the operational curve of a GFCI by a slim margin. However, the .5% probability is 0.49 x 6 2.94 mA. for 5 seconds. The UL and National Semiconductor operational curves do not require a GFCI to operate for less than 4 mA of fault current. Based on these formulae, operational curves, and calculations the operation of a GFCI can incur a possible 0.5% probability of electrocution by ventricular fibrillation for infants that weigh less than 8.2 pounds (4mA / .49). It should be remembered that for circuits protected by a GFCI circuit breaker there will be leakage current and this leakage current increases as the circuit length increases. If the leakage current is above 2.06 mA then the fault current required to trip the GFCI circuit breaker would only be 2.94 mA for an average GFCI. These conclusions are only possibilities. The trip time verses fault current curves allow for many other conclusions.
Poster's note: This calculation is not verifiable since we cannot experimnet with infants. It is very possible that the calculation is too liberal and in fact, 4 ma may cause ventricular fibrillation in infants.
Ref: http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/hsm/doc_16.01/doc16-01.pdf
The 2008 NEC rule to require tamper proof receptacles protects children, but we need GFCI's to protect adults. Can old people use these tamper proof receptacles? Good question. I guess we will find out.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:10:14 -0700, Gerald Newton
We didn't need a primer, idiot.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:04:36 -0500, Uncle Monster

That makes you afeared dunnit? :-]
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

Some of my older friends have problems understanding those newfangled GFCI outlets. I've had to show them how to reset the darn things and explain how they work. It's very hard for many old folks to see or push that little reset button. If the design of electrical outlets changes, I'm afraid many people, not just old people, blond women perhaps, will have a lot of trouble with the new devices.
[8~{} Uncle Monster
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the AFCI combined with the GFCI combined with the tamper proof receptacles is going to bring high tech to old people's receptacles and maybe become like operating a DVD player.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:43:53 -0700, Gerald Newton

The problem is there are already "insertion force" problems with the ridiculously expensive tamper proof receptacles out there now. Imagine how bad they will be when we get down to the ones builders use to hit a price point.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A coworker (engineer) installed the combo units (5ma trip) in his addition. One was tripping and we did some investigations to figure out why. Turns out there was a staple that had nicked the insulation of the neutral conductor and was shorting it to the grounding conductor. We duplicated this fault in my lab and tested a regular breaker, a GFCI, an AFCI, and a combo AFCI/GFCI (5ma). As expected, the regular breaker did not trip. Neither did the AFCI. The GFCI tripped as expected (half cycle or so). The combo tripped, but took much longer. I don't have the data in front of me, but it was something like 5 to 10 cycles. Now, is this a big difference? I don't know from a human survival standpoint. However, if my wife throws a toaster in my bathtub, I want the traditional GFCI that trips in half a cycle, NOT the slower AFCI/GFCI combo unit.
I am still not convinced of the usefulness of the new breakers and question the required investment verses the limited events that may be detected.
Just my personal opinion.
Charles Perry P.E.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tee hee!
As the line goes, "Look for the Money."
Conventional CBs in the popular sizes (15/20) are just dirt cheap. They also last "forever."
But an AFCI or GFCI has a bunch of "accident waiting to happen" electronics just waiting for a surge or excess humidity. Even if we "assume" the electronics are good for 30 years there's a significant replacement market out there.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The real problem with rushing all of this into the code is this is an evolving technology that still can't detect a series arc (the one from a loose plug, cracked wire and all of those "aluminium" problems). They already have millions of obsolete AFCIs out there mandated in the 1999 code and enforced in the 2002 code that can't detect the bad power cord they scared us with when these were first proposed. The original AFCI only detects shorts in the wall. Finding a short in a power cord is what the "combination" unit is supposed to do. None can find a loose connection or partially broken wire. Then you have a bunch of Square D units that don't work at all and have been recalled but there is no tracking on this recall so most still remain in the customer's home. The technology is so proprietary that the industry can't agree on what a tester should inject in the line to see if the product works. An arcing short that trips a Square D might not be seen by a Cutler Hammer and vice versa. It is clear this is a product that is not ready for the public yet but has been jammed down our throat by NFPA and Cutler Hammer, the inventor and who proposed in in 1997. It is being tested in our homes, by force of law and the customer is paying for it.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 14, 6:59 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

If what you say is true, I think we may have a problem adopting the 2008 NEC. The AFCI requirement is not going to be accepted without further investigation. We need additional information.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The existing AFCIs that detect parallel arcs should detect arcs in power cords from wire-to-wire. H-N arcs are supposed to produce enough current to trip the AFCI. And if there is a ground wire, I think the logic was that the arc would rapidly involve a ground fault so ground fault detection was included.

Are there any commercial "combination" (series/parallel) AFCIs on the market yet?
I agree it was stupid for the 2008 NEC to vastly expand the use of "combination" AFCIs, required only in bedrooms in 2008 by the 2002 NEC, when the devices didn't exist and did not have field-use experience.
Will be interesting what AHJs do with AFCIs in adopting the 2008 NEC.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Combination" refers to btranch circuit wiring plus line cord protection. The first swing at this required so much fault current (60-70a) that you could not reliably get that much in a lamp cord.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sep 14, 3:17 pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I did hear several panel members discuss the ground fault trip rating for AFCI's. They said that the first AFCI's were made to trip at 5 ma ground fault current, but his "competed with" the GFCI's so they run the ground fault trip up to 50 ma. Now what they meant is a mystery. Did they mean the market was competing or did they mean the AFCI wasn't working right when a GFCI receptacle was installed on the AFCI circuit?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:39:09 -0700, Gerald Newton

I am guessing they were just trying to avoid some nuisance tripping by making the GF protection higher. I do belive most of the real protection is coming from the GFP protection, not the snake oil in arc detection. Ground fault protection is a very simple technology and it responds to the first fault, not having to sort out locked rotors and inrush.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ground fault protection at "moderate" (as compared to 15/20/30 amp currents could likely be accomplished with 100% electro-mechanical stuff (just like the CBs) if you don't load on the requirement to detect G-N "shorts."
If the folks writing the NEC really want to install "smart" CB boxes perhaps a "ground up" solution can be devised.
I believe that about 20 years ago some folks were talking about "smart" wiring whereby an appliance would not receive any juice until the "smart wiring" determines that it's "safe" to so do. Does anyone know what happened to that?
Back to the AFCIs: the more I hear about these things the more convinced I am that there is a "hidden agenda." Not of the actual "fact" make sense.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% 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.