I have been installing AFCI’s for bedroom recpticles since they were introduced in the 2002 NEC code, but recently our inspector insisted they are required for all bedroom fixtures, recpticles and smoke detectors. Since their introdution I have had nothing but trouble, they “pop” when connected to various things – ceiling fans, vacuum cleaners, clock radios, and sometimes when they just feel like it in the middle of the night which causes the smoke detectors to beep. The problems are not isolated, they have occured on every job I have done involving AFCI’s.
Customers want me to change them out after final inspection but I cannot due to the potential liability.
Is anybody else having this problem? Does anybody have any suggestions?
Replies
Havent had too many problems, but we dont hook the smoke dectectors to them. The electrical inspector brought it up and we both agreed that regardless of what the code says its better to not AFCI protect the SD's.
I believe the main reason for these things are meant to protect at recepticles and requiring them on SD mounted on a ceiling that is rarely touched is something introduced under the new "lobotomy protection act". I'm sure you've heard of it, it protects us all from ourselves (thank God for government).
they "pop" when connected to various things - ceiling fans, vacuum cleaners, clock radios, and sometimes when they just feel like it in the middle of the night which causes the smoke detectors to beep
Hmm. What brand are you using? I haven't had problems with the Eaton units.
Keep in mind, though, that they are ARC fault detectors. They do tend to trip on motors - because the commutators on motors, particularly low end motors such as those in vacuum cleaners, do arc a lot. Shouldn't trip on a clock radio though.
Are you certain you don't have some marginal or lose connections in the wiring? You aren't using the quick connects on the receptacles, are you? Those often will arc enough to trip the AFCI. Tightening your wire nuts with pliers? Not pretwisting? Tightening all the screws tight enough?
I installed Cutler-Hammer AFI's on numerous light/recep circuits in our house and haven't had a single nuisance trip. OTOH, I didn't use them for the smoke alarm circuits.
Bill Hartman wrote a good testimonial on AFI issues about a year ago. A search should find it.
Scott.
Always remember those first immortal words that Adam said to Eve, “You’d better stand back, I don’t know how big this thing’s going to get.”
TESTIMONIAL????Who me?I am not sure that anything that I wrote on AFCI's would be a "testimonial".Anyway here are a couple of recent threads about AFCI's.http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=81702.1http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=84971.1http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=82043.1.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Hahaha.From webster.com:Testimonial
1 a (1): the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law (2): the ark containing the tablets b: a divine decree attested in the Scriptures
2 a: firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b: an outward sign c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public officialOk, how about treatise, thesis, or explication? Take yer pick. Either way it was a good accounting of facts.Thanks,Scott.Always remember those first immortal words that Adam said to Eve, “You’d better stand back, I don’t know how big this thing’s going to get.”
No disrespect intended, but are you installing them right?
I watch this stuff, and both in this "national" forum and others devoted to this sort of issue, and aside from the couple of recalled units, have not read, heard of opr seen any such problems.
With my mouth I will give great thanks to the Lord; I will praise Him in the midst of the throng. For He stands at the right hand of the needy, to save them from those who would condemn them to death.
- Psalms 109:30-31
I am installing them correctly, I just find they are very sensitive. I understand that sparks from a motor could trip it, but why would smoke detectors? Are there any AFCI recepticles available that could reset inside, instead of having to go outside every time one trips?
Did you check the code to see if he has grounds to insist on installing this for alarm circuits? He might be out of line. They aren't required here for that purpose.Scott.Always remember those first immortal words that Adam said to Eve, “You’d better stand back, I don’t know how big this thing’s going to get.”
The current NEC requires them on all Outlets in a bedroom.Out Outlet is codeze for any place that electrical power is used. That include receptacles, lights, and smoke detectors.But it all depends on which issue of the NEC that your local has adopted and what amendments that adopted..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
About 95% of the effectiveness of AFCIs is due to their ground fault protection mechanism. Furthermore, arc faults are relatively rare.
Most likely, any problems the Original Poster is having would be due to shared neutrals or perhaps some contact between the neutral and ground. In the panel, make sure the neutral for the circuit goes to the breaker and not the neutral bus bar. The curly white wire goes from the breaker to the neutral bar.
In other words, the OP could replace the AFCI with a GFCI and have at least 95% of the same protection without nuisance trips from vacuum cleaners, etc.
Peter, California Licensed Journeyman
Furthermore, arc faults are relatively rare.
To the contrary, arc faults are VERY common - and likely the most common cause of electrical house fires (because conventional breakers often don't trip, where an AFCI would).
Check out the Eaton site for some white papers and research results.
In other words, the OP could replace the AFCI with a GFCI and have at least 95% of the same protection without nuisance trips from vacuum cleaners, etc.
Unfortunately, GFCIs will also nuisance trip on motors - AFCIs are usually better in that regard
"Did you check the code to see if he has grounds to insist on installing this for alarm circuits? He might be out of line. They aren't required here for that purpose."They ARE required (SD on AFCI) in all the counties I work in MD and VA.Frank DuVal You can never make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Unfortunatly the code ultimatly defers all decisions to the local jurisdiction. This means you can have an inspector that can't count his fingers but will tell you what you must do. The guy who makes up for lack of knowlege with strength of opinion.
I try to put lighting circuit on a separate circuit from the outlets citing safety as the reason. When someone trips a breaker they can safely see their way out of the room. Ditto for smoke detectors. I always use a dedicated circuit for them & paint the breaker handle red. I also hit the smoke detector boxes with red spray paint.
I also leave a knocout open or something like that as close as possible to his entry point. I'll have the goof plug or nailplate, or whatever will fix the problem, in my pocket so I can do a quick fix before he leaves & get it signed off. They never seem satisfied until they find something.
This type of proactive approach seems to placate the most insistant cretin wearing the inspector's hat.
Another line of thinking is that putting the smoke detectors on their own circuit makes it too easy for the homeowner to turn them off. You might do something like wire an outlet in a hallway in with the smokes - that way if they get tempted to shut them off, at least they would get annoyed when they vacuum !
"Another line of thinking is that putting the smoke detectors on their own circuit makes it too easy for the homeowner to turn them off."
My inspector said you MUST install them on a circuit serving some other use -- they CANNOT be on a seperate circuit, for the reason you gave. Don't know if that's local code or NEC, but if he says it, I gotta do it, no matter if it's code or not.
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
>>>My inspector said you MUST install them on a circuit serving some other use -- they CANNOT be on a seperate circuit, for the reason you gave.Yeah, I put mine on the same circuit as the lighting for the room that the panel is in. That way you're forced to energize the lights and SDs in order to see the panel!!Scott.Always remember those first immortal words that Adam said to Eve, “You’d better stand back, I don’t know how big this thing’s going to get.”
I think it's too late for suggestions !
I believe the decision to require them EVERYWHERE is a reality
but you could have submitted your opinion to the NEC CMP-2
not that they would have been swayed by mere "anecdotal" information from anyone..
..here is an example from Mike Holts forum by one fellow who used common sense along with data from FEMA and some very big numbers to argue against their being required at all
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-122 Log #1878 NEC-P02
(210-12)
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere Ottawa, IL
Recommendation:
Delete this section.
Substantiation:
I still find it very strange that the AFCI requirement was put into code
without any statements saying how many fires these devices would be expected to prevent. Where is the cost benefit study? We will never have the technology to make our electrical systems safe and even if it was physically possible to make them 100% safe, it would not be economically possible.
I have worked up some fire data numbers using information from "Fire in the United States, 12th Edition".
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...s/fius12th.pdf
This is 1998 data. The numbers in this report are based on NFIRS (national fire incident reporting system) data. The NFIRS data accounts for 39% of all fires that occur in the US. I have adjusted the numbers by this factor to account for all fires. This data shows that there were 401,695 residential unit fires in the US in 1998. The point of origin for 12.9% of these fires was the sleeping room. Of the fires that originated in the sleeping room, 19.9% were reported to have been caused by the electrical distribution system and 11.6% by appliances.
Applying these percentages to the total number of residential unit fires shows that 51,819 fires originated in the sleeping room. Of these 51,819 fires, 31.5% were caused by the electrical distribution system or appliances. This would mean that 16,323 dwelling unit fires may have been electrical in origin.
Mr. Robert Clarey of Cutler-Hammer made the statement that AFCIs could be expected to prevent 40% of these fires. This statement was made in comment 2-68 in the '98 ROC. This means that if every dwelling unit bedroom branch circuit in both new and existing dwelling units had AFCI protection, we would prevent 6529 fires per year. We now have to look at the total number of dwelling units existing in the US and the number that are added each year. US Census data shows that there were 115,253,000 housing units in 1999. 1,640,900 new housing units were built in 2000. If you divide the 6529 dwelling unit fires that would be prevented if all dwelling units had AFCIs by the total number of existing housing units and then multiply that result by the number of new housing units being built, we can expect that 93 dwelling unit fires would be prevented the first year of full compliance with the AFCI rule. This number is high as fires do not occur nearly as often in new buildings. The fire data used to get the AFCIs into the code showed that 85% of the electrical fires originated in dwelling units over 21 years old. This 85% electrical fires occurring in dwelling units over 21 years old data is from the 1987 Consumer Products Safety Commission report titled, "Residential Electrical Distribution Systems Fires". This data was cited in comment 2-63 in the 1998 ROC. (This brings up the additional question of whether the AFCI breaker will still be functional, when it its needed, over 10 years after its installation. The GFCI data and new GFCI standard seems to indicate that they won't be function at that time)
If we assume an installed cost of only $75 per new dwelling unit, that means that we would be spending $123,067,500.00 per year to install AFCIs in each of the 1.6 million new dwellings. The $75 assumes an average cost of $40 per AFCI, an average of 1.5 AFCIs required per dwelling unit, and $15 for additional labor and material that may be required such as two runs of 12-2 in place of a single run of 12-3. If we adjust the number of fires that will be prevented by the use of AFCIs for the 15% of electrical fires that occur in dwelling units 10 years or less in age, we find that in the first year of compliance we would expect to prevent 14 fires. The cost of preventing these fires this first year would be over 8.7 million dollars per fire!
Each successive year of full compliance will result in additional fires prevented in the dwelling units that are constructed each year as well as those prevented by the previous year(s) AFCI installations. Even we these additional prevented fires are factored in we still don’t have a reasonable cost benefit. At the end of 10 years, the cumulative AFCI installation cost will be over 1.2 billion dollars and the total number of fires prevented will be less than 750. The cost per fire prevented over the 10 years is still over 1.66 million dollars! Is this a reasonable cost/benefit??
The above figures are based on AFCIs preventing 40% of the bedroom electrical fires, but even if we assume that the AFCIs would be 100% effective, the ten year cost would still be more than $667,000.00 per fire prevented. Again I ask, is this a reasonable cost/benefit?
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
See the panel action and statement on Proposal 2-116 (Log #452). The economic information provided in the substantiation is of a general nature and the data cited has not been substantiated. The panel has reviewed the analysis and finds that there is no data provided on loss of life or personal injury and the panel has not attempted to place a monetary value on the loss of life or personal injury.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
BECKER: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 2-116.
DOBSON: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 2-116.
_________________________________________________
............and the Code Making Panel rejected it :
.
.
.
, wer ist jetzt der Idiot ?