Definition of "combination AFCI" - NEC headed for the cliff?

It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing document).
I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).
I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able to know all the issues involved.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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:

As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC.
Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at: http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf
They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I have read).
A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work and what shouldn't cause them to trip.

My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was that specifically Combination?
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on |> some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC |> failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very |> expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing |> document). |> |> I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has |> GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a |> combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder |> AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in |> terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI |> were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device |> (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive). |> | | As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC. | | Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at: | http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf | | They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I | have read).
Cutler-Hammer has them, AFCI + 6ma GFCI.
| A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at | http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf | It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work | and what shouldn't cause them to trip.
Seen it. It's part of the contradictions I've mentioned.
|> I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not |> even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able |> to know all the issues involved. |> | | My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now | available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was | that specifically Combination?
They were panel type. I don't know what they were marketed for.
I know Cutler-Hammer has combination types of the definition of AFCI+GFCI and has them in both 6ma and 30ma, and in 1-pole and 2-pole.
http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_CUTAWAY.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_UL_SPECIAL_SERVICES_INVESTIGATION.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/DWELLINGAFCIFIRES.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/DWELLINGELECTRICALFIRES.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/IL00301044E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/PUB49216REV5.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/PUB49217REV4.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402003E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402005E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402006E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402008E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/SA00402001E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/SA00402002E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TB00300001E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TD00308001E.PDF http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TD01201036E.PDF
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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:

What I was trying to say is that AFCIs are not required to have a 6mA ground fault trip. The CH devices are a combined AFCI and normal GFCI.

I wasn't impressed by the clarity but I don't remember it was that bad.

Looks like CH is combined AFCI and normal GFCI. That is not what UL or the NEC had in mind for "Combination AFCI". Among other things, "Combination" adds series arc detection.
-------------- No rumors on what is going on with "Combination" development?

http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_UL_SPECIAL_SERVICES_INVESTIGATION.PDF Interesting link - UL report - for a "glowing connection" at a receptacle binding screw an AFCI may (or may not) eventually trip on its ground fault function.

Also interesting - stats on room of incidence of electrical fires
bud--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |
|> |> It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on |> |> some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC |> |> failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very |> |> expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing |> |> document). |> |> |> |> I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has |> |> GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a |> |> combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder |> |> AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in |> |> terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI |> |> were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device |> |> (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive). |> |> |> | |> | As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC. |> | |> | Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at: |> | http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf |> | |> | They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I |> | have read). |> |> Cutler-Hammer has them, AFCI + 6ma GFCI. |> | | What I was trying to say is that AFCIs are not required to have a 6mA | ground fault trip. The CH devices are a combined AFCI and normal GFCI.
However, certain circuits _are_ required to have 6ma level protection. If you're going to have AFCI to virtually all 120 volt circuits in the house, that would probably include bathroom and kitchen, too. So one option is to combine the AFCI and the required 6ma GFCI in the same unit.
I guess that is a reflection of my own bias because I happen to think that GFCI receptacles are ugly. My intention all along has been to go with either a "hidden" (accessible, but located more like where one would place a panel) GFCI receptacles that control the ones that will be in the kitchen, or just use a GFCI breaker. The latter choice is more expensive. But I could also add AFCI protection at the same time with the Cutler-Hammer breakers. And I could also do so for 240 volt circuits.
Personally, I don't care about the bathrooms. Having AFCI+30maGFCI in the breaker, and 6maGFCI in the receptacle, is fine there. It's the kitchen where I am trying to have a very specific kind of look, and GFCI receptacles are not a part of that plan. So it most likely will be AFCI+6maGFCI in double pole breakers.
|> | A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at |> | http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf |> | It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work |> | and what shouldn't cause them to trip. |> |> Seen it. It's part of the contradictions I've mentioned. |> | | I wasn't impressed by the clarity but I don't remember it was that bad.
I'm not even sure it's all that accurate with respect to the fine details of things like what's in the UL 1699 document (which I don't have because such things are very expensive).
|> |> I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not |> |> even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able |> |> to know all the issues involved. |> |> |> | |> | My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now |> | available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was |> | that specifically Combination? |> |> They were panel type. I don't know what they were marketed for. |> |> I know Cutler-Hammer has combination types of the definition of AFCI+GFCI |> and has them in both 6ma and 30ma, and in 1-pole and 2-pole. |> | | Looks like CH is combined AFCI and normal GFCI. That is not what UL or | the NEC had in mind for "Combination AFCI". Among other things, | "Combination" adds series arc detection.
And this _is_ my point about the contradictions. Some documents say or hint at one thing, and some say or hint at another. NEC is doing a poor job of explaining by merely making reference to the UL 1699 standard that hardly anyone will ever see. I believe they should literally spell out exactly what protections they expect to be present.
| No rumors on what is going on with "Combination" development?
I have no idea. I've just seen the products that both Square-D and Cutler-Hammer have. I just note that Cutler-Hammer have a sufficient product line for me to put in reasonable levels of protection for some rooms in my future house.
I'm planning to have "double duplex" receptacles in my kitchen. These will be a total of 4 outlets in a 2x2 arrangement, with the left on one 20 amp pole and the right on another 20 amp pole. This will be fed with one cable with the origination of the circuit being a two pole breaker. Whether this will be shared neutral or not I don't know at this time. If it were allowed to mark the BLUE wire as GRAY to make it be a 2nd groundED conductor (200.6 requires this) in a cable assembly, then I could avoid a shared neutral by using the cables intended for three phase WYE. I've heard that cables specific to this are available, but I've never seen then sold anywhere, either in stores or online. In any event, this finally leads me to planning to use an AFCI+6maGFCI two pole breaker, one for each of the 2x2 (since I do not want to have any daisy chaining of shared neutral). Other options include conduit with singles of all the right colors, or larger than 6 AWG (that would be absurd for a 20 amp circuit, of course).
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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 27 Sep 2006 20:44:17 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:

Hmmm and sone "industry types" from Cuttler Hammer (who sell this device) on CMP2 made this rule happen..
,... But it isn't a marketing thing, yeah right!
Fcking snake oil with the power of law!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it cannot detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I would favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will acquire AFCI protection.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
| I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it cannot | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I would | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will | acquire AFCI protection.
Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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:

Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tom Horne, Electrician"wrote

cannot
would
the
I have never heard of getting a new use and occupancy permit when you buy a house. Having seen some things that have survived purchases, and exist in some rentals, AFCI protection inspection would not be on the top of my list for upgrades at purchase.
--
Stephen B.
To reply remove the first spam only
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| "Tom Horne, Electrician"wrote
|> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician
|> > |> > | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on |> > | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it | cannot |> > | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs |> > | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI |> > | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I | would |> > | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of |> > | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will |> > | acquire AFCI protection. |> > |> > Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean | the |> > seller has to install, or the buyer has to install? |> > |> |> Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance. | | I have never heard of getting a new use and occupancy permit when you buy a | house. Having seen some things that have survived purchases, and exist in | some rentals, AFCI protection inspection would not be on the top of my list | for upgrades at purchase.
Lots of people regularly buy homes that are just marginally occupiable, and then proceed to move in and begin to fix them up. This was in fact my previous plan. It is still a fallback plan for me. I think it would be a stupid waste for force a seller to install something that I'm going to tear out and replace, anyway. More than likely, many older homes would need a full panel replacement, which would then have to be torn out and replaced all over in a great many (near half of) cases.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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
wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician
|> |> | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on |> | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it cannot |> | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs |> | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI |> | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I would |> | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of |> | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will |> | acquire AFCI protection. |> |> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the |> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install? |> | | Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.
So basically you plan to completely destroy all ability for people to buy fixer-uppers and fix them up by requiring the houses to be fixed up before someone can move in to work on them?
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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 Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"

I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:03:42 -0400 snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: | On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
| |>> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the |>> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install? |>> |> |>Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance. | | I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a | case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking".
However, I would guess there are more people that would like to have such laws or rules.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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:

So far the courts have not been willing to treat property regulation such as zoning and code enforcement as taking. Requiring code compliance prior to a change in ownership has also not been treated as an ex post facto enactment by the various courts of appeal.
I am aware of the ballot propositions that are proposed in the west that will treat all property regulation as taking. If they pass be prepared to have a rendering plant next door to you with your only recourse being to sue the plants owners and operators for loss of "quiet enjoyment."
--
Tom Horne

Well we aren't no thin blue heroes and yet we aren't no blackguards to.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:21:47 GMT Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT
| snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:
|> | On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
|> | |> |>> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the |> |>> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install? |> |>> |> |> |> |>Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance. |> | |> | I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a |> | case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking". |> |> However, I would guess there are more people that would like to have such |> laws or rules. |> | | So far the courts have not been willing to treat property regulation | such as zoning and code enforcement as taking. Requiring code | compliance prior to a change in ownership has also not been treated as | an ex post facto enactment by the various courts of appeal.
Not true in some cases I've read about, including in Texas.
| I am aware of the ballot propositions that are proposed in the west that | will treat all property regulation as taking. If they pass be prepared | to have a rendering plant next door to you with your only recourse being | to sue the plants owners and operators for loss of "quiet enjoyment."
I think it is quite different than requiring homes to be rewired when there is a change of ownership.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| 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 Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:21:47 GMT, "Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT"

I suggest you look at Reahard v Lee County Florida. The SCOTUS let the lower court ruling stand and affirmed changing the zoning in a way that removes the ability to develop property is a taking.
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.