AFCI

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



International Association of Fire Marshals Summer, Quarterly Magazine


Quote:
Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter Technology
By
Walter Smittle III
WV State Fire Marshal (Ret)
IFMA Past President
NASFM, Special Representative


Did you know that residential electrical fires reported by the National Fire Protection Association causes on the average nearly 73,000 fires every year. These fires are responsible for 591 deaths, 1,400 injuries and over $ 1 billion in property losses. Eighty-three percent (83%) of these electrical fires are caused by electrical arcing. Can something be done to resolve this electrical residential fire problem? This question is asked by the fire marshals and fire investigators every time when bodies have to be removed or a home is destroyed. The answer to this question is yes. Now, you can assist in reducing these unwanted losses by promoting a promising technology.

Electrical technology continues to improve providing a safer environment for the owners and occupants of dwellings. New materials and wiring methods and the development of the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) to prevent accidental electrical shock is a success story for saving hundreds of lives. The National Electrical Code (NEC) published by the National Fire Protection Association has approved a new technology for dwelling wiring and became effective January 1, 2002. This new technology is truly a remarkable accomplishment by the electrical industry and this technology is called the ?arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI).? This technology as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) will trip an AFCI in order to prevent electrical arcing that may cause a fire. Arc-fault circuit interrupter information can be reviewed on the Internet at the following websites:

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/afci.html;

http://www.ul.com/auth/tca/fall02/afci.html;

http://www.firemarshals.org/issues/home/electrical_fires.html.

The National Association of State Fire Marshals endorsed AFCI technology September 2001 and was reaffirmed July 2003. With all the technology available to prevent the loss of life and property damage from electrical fires; AFCI technology is the most promising. Current AFCIs approved for use by Underwriters Laboratories, meeting the required tests of UL 1699, include the following: Branch/Feeder Type; Combination Type; Outlet Branch Circuit Type; and Outlet Circuit Type. There are also portable devices listed by UL that can be incorporated into appliances or utilization equipment. UL defines the AFCI as ?a device intended to mitigate the effects of arcing faults by functioning to de-energize the circuit when an arc-fault is detected.

ARCING
UL defines ?arcing as a luminous discharge of electricity across an insulating medium. The electrical discharge of an arc can involve temperatures on the order of several thousand degrees Celsius. In general, arcing can be divided into two categories: (1) non-contact arcing and (2) contact arcing.?

?Non-contact arcing is arcing that does not require direct physical contact between the conductors where the arcing is taking place. With arching between conductors separated by insulation, the mechanism of initiating an arc between stationary conductors separated by insulation will depend on the type and geometry of the conductors and insulation between them. ?Contact arcing? is arcing that involves direct or indirect physical contact between the conductors or ?electrodes? where the arcing is taking place, such as arcing between closing or parting conductors making or breaking a circuit.? (A)

TYPES OF ARCING FAULTS
?Arcing faults can occur in one of two ways, series arcing faults or parallel arcing faults. A series arcing fault can occur when one of the current-carrying paths (e.g. a single wire) in series with the load is unintentionally broken. For example, extreme flexing in an appliance power supply cord can cause one of the conductors to open and arc when flexed. Series arcing faults are limited in the circuit. Parallel arcing faults occur when there is an unintentional conducting path between two conductors of opposite polarity, such as between a black and white conductor or between a line conductor and ground. Parallel arcing faults generally involve high currents, as they are limited only by the available fault current of the circuit.? (B)

Series arcing occurs when a light switch is opened or closed or when an appliance cord is pulled from an outlet. These are common occurrences in the electrical circuitry of the home. Parallel arcing is our most dangerous arcing that generates high temperatures that ignites available combustibles. These parallel arcs have been observed in fire scene investigations where positive conductor comes in contact with a neutral or ground conductor. The fire service has for years referred to this as a ?direct electrical short.? An AFCI is designed to detect arcing by continuously monitoring the current flow by discriminating between normal and unwanted arcing conditions. ?Once an unwanted arcing condition is detected, the control circuitry in the AFCI trips the internal contacts, thus de-energizing the circuit and reducing the potential for a fire to occur. An AFCI should not trip during normal arcing conditions, which can occur when a switch is opened or a plug is pulled from a receptacle?. (C)

CAUSES OF ARCING FAULTS
Common causes of arc-faults as reported by the national fire service and insurance organizations include: pinched or pierced insulation on construction wire or cords such as a nipped by a nail or screw or a chair leg setting on an extension cord; cracked insulation on wire or cords from age, heat, chemical erosion or bending stress; overheated wire or cords; loose or improper connections, such as electrical wires to outlets and switches; frayed or ruptured extension or appliance cords; electrical appliances in which support or insulation for energized electrical parts are damaged; moisture or contaminants between conductors of different voltage and electrical wire insulation chewed by rodents. The AFCI can detect these arcs from the normal current flow by the electronic circuitry within the AFCI.

COST
The cost to install AFCIs in a new home is approximately $100. This cost estimate is based on replacing two or three conventional circuit breakers with AFCIs. According to a cost-study analysis by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in March 2003, if an AFCI is installed in homes 10 years old, homeowners could expect a cost-effectiveness benefit of $530 for each $175 spent to retrofit or install the AFCIs. To review this report go to the CPSC website previously mentioned.

AVAILABILITY
AFCIs are available at Lowes, Home Depot and other home improvement centers. There are approximately 6 to 7 million AFCIs installed throughout America.

MISINFORMATION
There is misinformation being circulated by individuals and organizations regarding the effectiveness of AFCIs. NASFM Science Advisory Committee has reviewed and researched each comment and provides the following response.

(1) Claim: AFCIs are not needed based on current fire losses.

Finding: The data in support of AFCIs are compelling. Not withstanding the introduction of this article regarding the information reported by the National Fire Protection Association on electrical fires. NASFM recently conducted study from Ten State Fire Marshal Fire Investigation Divisions where electrical fires caused the loss of life. The results of this study clearly indicated the cause of the fire was electrical arc-faults that resulted in the loss of lives (adults and children) and property is appalling.

(2) Claim: AFCIs cost in excess of $125 per unit.

Finding: NASFM?s survey on June 14, 2002 of two largest retailers in nine US cities revealed the retail price ranged from $34.97 to $39.97 for both 20- and 15-amp units. Today that cost has come down and ranges from $24.95 to $34.95 per unit.

(3) Claim: AFCIs are not reliable or effective.

Finding: A CPSC fact sheet on AFCIs states, ?Several years ago, a CPSC study identified are-fault detection as a promising new technology. Since then, CPSC electrical engineers have tested the AFCIs on the market and found these products to be effective. Also, according to an article by UL Senior Research Engineer David Dini entitled ?Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters,? ?The AFCI functions by recognizing characteristics unique to arcing and de-energizing the circuit when an arc-fault is detected. By doing so, this device will safeguard persons and property by mitigating the unwanted effects of arcing, which can result in a fire.? Effective? NASFM fully supports this technology.

(4) Claim: AFCIs do not protect against ground faults, high-resistance contacts and glowing contacts.

Finding: AFCIs on the market do protect against ground faults. While these AFCIs may not directly detect some electrical arcing and glowing that can occur at high-resistance contacts and other connection points, the devices respond to secondary arcing and leakage currents to the ground that result from degraded insulation between conductors in proximity to the incipient fault condition.

(5) Claim: AFCIs have a history of nuisance tripping.

Finding: UL 1699, Standard for Safety for Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters, addresses nuisance tripping and is far in excess of practical requirements. If the AFCI trips when installed it will indicate if the wiring is not properly installed or an appliance connected to the circuitry is causing severe arcing. One manufacturer reported that an AFCI detected a faulty garage door opener. Upon examination of the unit it was found the garage door motor had severe arcing and when replaced the current flow was normal.

(6) Claim: AFCIs currently on the market fail to protect against all arcing faults.

Finding: The branch/feeder type AFCIs protect against all unwanted arcs to ground at any point in the circuit, and unwanted arcing in parallel with the load throughout the circuit including the branch circuit extension wiring. Branch/feeder AFCIs do not detect series arcs in two-conductor extension wiring. These arcs are less hazardous than parallel arcs since they are typically low current and short duration. These arcs are essentially indistinguishable from switching-arcs.

(7) Claim: AFCIs will not work on a shared neutral.

Finding: The typical branch/feeder AFCIs will not work on a shared neutral. However, some manufacturers have an AFCI that will work on a shared neutral.

(8 ) Claim: AFCIs will not work on a two wire system.

Finding: AFCIs will work on a two wire system for protection from parallel arcing.

(9) Claim: Smoke detectors will cause nuisance tripping.

Finding: Smoke detectors do not cause nuisance tripping. Furthermore, smoke detector wiring should be on the AFCI circuitry. The NEC committee has rejected a proposal to exclude smoke detectors from the AFCI circuitry.

(10) Claim: There is no way to test the AFCI that it is protecting the circuit.

Finding: The AFCI has a test button and should be tested monthly by pushing the button. Furthermore there are testers available to the electrician that will test the AFCI circuit and GFCI and identify if the wiring is installed correctly.

FUTURE
Currently, the NEC Committee is reviewing proposals to expand the use of AFCIs. The necessity of expanding the use of this technology into other types of occupancies and throughout the home wiring systems will reduce the loss of property and life from electrical fires.

NASFM has proposed the expansion of AFCIs for all living areas of the home, lodging and rooming houses, day care centers, educational building (K-12) and residential board and care homes for the elderly, and supports requiring AFCIs for electrical upgrades for existing homes. Is it worth the expense and effort? NASFM is committed to this technology and expansion. You can make a difference now by installing AFCIs!

References:
(A) & (B): Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters, Underwriters Laboratory (UL), 2002
(C): AFCI Fact Sheet, NASFM Science Advisory, AFCI Inquiry and Report, August 1, 2002


http://www.joetedesco.com/afci.mht


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Read my post of Posted: Apr 20, 2004 8:59 AM.


Join the NFPA and you can access these facts.


Now read Joe's above post, 1st paragraph. "Now, you can assist in reducing these unwanted losses by promoting a promising technology"

I am not saying anything to contradict the importance of AFCI's.

Having correctly installed electrical systems will reduce more fires than anything else. AFCI's add protection.

Most of the fires are from the actions of people.

Those of us who practice the trade see unbelievable things on a daily basis and wonder why these have not caused more fire.

To my knowledge, no one practices any preventive maintence on residential (single family) homes.

While it seems that I am bashing HI's, I have seen HI's here that no more than the residential (wire pullers) electricians that I see.

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I agree and disagree. Even if 100% of the fires caused by arcing were from improper installation, alterations or whatever, what difference does that make. I bet that well over half of all homes have wiring problems. The fact remains, it is a nearly impossible situation to fix. Are homeowners supposed to rewire their entire house on the chance someone screwed up somewhere?


Yes, in most of the arcing fires, screwups contributed. So what? If they had AFCI protection, it still might have stopped the fire.

You cannot fix human error, you can alter the outcome. I am a firefighter. As much as we try to prevent fires, they will always occur. I don't get your statement about the fires being the fault of people. Yes they are. But they might not start and cause damage with the AFCI protection. We will never get rid of the human factor.

Look at fire sprinklers. Sure most fires are result of human error. Doesn't change the fact that they kill, and we have ways to stop the fires. Should sprinklers not be installed because the fires start as a result of human error? So let's just stop the human error, right? It will never happen. Advances like fire sprinklers and AFCI's change the outcome of human error, and thus can save many lives.


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



“The fact remains, it is a nearly impossible situation to fix.”


All electrical problems are fixable. Cost is what makes people not fix them!

"Are homeowners supposed to rewire their entire house on the chance someone screwed up somewhere?"

No. They should seek 'competent' licensed or certified professionals to examine the electrical systems. Again, at what cost?

We all know that people would rather put their head in the sand and hope that things would go away.

I'll beat a dead horse. I like AFCI's. Fixing or preventing problems will do more than adding any additional protection.

"Proper electrical installations rarely cause problems." Anonymous---(me)

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike Parks wrote:
I'll beat a dead horse. I like AFCI's. Fixing or preventing problems will do more than adding any additional protection.


I disagree because "fixing" them means finding them, and finding them means a lot of work needs to be done for no gain. The only gain comes when a problem is actually found, only than can it be "fixed".

AFCIs, on the other hand, adds protection to those problems IF THEY EXIST. No guaranty of protection, but a good possibility of altering the outcome of a problem.

Your key phrase is "will do more than adding". Yes, fixing electrical problems will work. but it is impractical to try to locate and fix all electrical problems, thus the AFCIs will do more.

Your argument is like saying GFCIs are not needed. All we need to do is fix electrical problems which cause ground faults, and survival of the fittest will result in the survival of those smart enough not to electrocute themselves. Children included. Kill them while they are young, BEFORE they become stupid adults. I like it.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry


Read the quote of mine you used. It said more than not instead of.

I never have said not to use AFCI's.

Would you feel safer with a seatbelt or with a seatbelt and good brakes?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike Parks wrote:
Jerry

Read the quote of mine you used. It said more than not instead of.

I never have said not to use AFCI's.

Would you feel safer with a seatbelt or with a seatbelt and good brakes?

Mike P.


Mike,

Re-read my post. You missed what and why I was disagreeing with you.

Mike Parks wrote:
Would you feel safer with a seatbelt or with a seatbelt and good brakes?


That's not what you are offering or suggesting, your point of view is more like this: Would you feel safer with good brakes, or with a seatbelt and good brakes?

Being as we are not going to be able to make sure that all vehicles have "good brakes" (fixed wiring), we can provide "seatbelts" (AFCI protection).

Now, "Would you feel safer with good brakes, or with a seatbelt and good brakes?"

Being as you are so adamant about liking AFCIs, why are you supporting their non-use and non-installation, opting only for "good brakes" as being the "better" safety protection?

It's like a gun. The safest way to handle a gun is to "not pull the trigger" (i.e. "fix the wiring"), however, it is safer to do so "with the safety on" (i.e., with AFCIs installed), you know, just in case.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry nailed it. I get that you like AFCI. The point is that fixing the problems in the electrical system is IMPRACTICAL and adding the AFCI is the PRACTICAL solution.


You cannot and will not be able to fix all electrical problems in a house practically. You can provent those problems from causing a disaster. About two years ago I saw 4 kids between 2 and 10 that had most of their skin burned off. One of the neighbors who caught one jumping from a window even had the kids skin peel right off and the kid fell out of his arms. None of them lived. The fire was electrical in nature. I do not know the exact cause. But if it had been an arc fault, and AFCI installed, these kids might still be here.


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Let me try again.


AFCI's should be installed. I NEVER said that they should not be installed. I said that they are not a cure-all.

I can not believe that you (guys) would say it is acceptable to allow defects to exist.

Jerry we must be talking past each other on this one. "Now, "Would you feel safer with good brakes, or with a seatbelt and good brakes?" "

The latter. OR with just good brakes.

"The point is that fixing the problems in the electrical system is IMPRACTICAL "

No it is the moral and legal thing to do.

It surprises' me that if some one had bad plumbing or a bad furnace they would fix it.

If I installed CO detectors in my home does that mean that I should not fix the source of the emissions?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike Parks wrote:
Jerry we must be talking past each other on this one. "Now, "Would you feel safer with good brakes, or with a seatbelt and good brakes?" "

The latter. OR with just good brakes.


Mike,

We are not talking past each other, we are still not in agreement.

There IS NO "or" there.

The former (good brakes) is less safe than the latter (good brakes AND seatbelt). No matter how you look at it, redundancy (which is an incorrect choice of wording, but gets the point across) is a GOOD thing. Double redundancy would be better. In fact, the more redundancy of safety features you have, the safer it becomes.

Would you skydive with a "good chute" and no reserve chute?

Not if you were smart. The seatbelt and the AFCI are the "reserve chute".


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Fixing the problems IS impractical. First of all, without major renovations far exceeding the cost of adding AFCI’s, they probably wouldn’t be able to identify ALL electrical problems. So it is much better for them to be on the safe side. Hopefully, if there is a problem, the AFCI will catch it and they can narrow the source down.


The point is, The Safe House Campaign is designed to save lives. These devices save lives! And that is why the Campaign along with NACHI will endorse them.

I fight fires in some very low income neighborhoods. The houses have hundreds of safety violations and fire hazards. We will NEVER get the people to fix them, either because they don't care or don't have the money. Does that mean they should die in a fire? NO. So we make efforts to go out and GIVE them smoke alarms, because at the very least they can get out. It is a safety step incase hazards are not corrected. ZGetting them to fix the problems is impractical.

You leave out the human factor. Human nature is to ignore problems until they cause disasters. Look at the news every day. Does that mean the people should die? again NO. We can prevent the fires even without them taking the steps to correct the problems. They won't do. Face it. They do not, and we probably can't change that. They don't havethe money in most cases.


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



“The houses have hundreds of safety violations and fire hazards. We will NEVER get the people to fix them, either because they don’t care or don’t have the money.”


So who is going to install the AFCIs?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: dfrend
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Good chance nobody will. But, is a buyer or a seller (if asked as part of sale), or builder more likely to: A. pay to add a few AFCI’s for a few hundred OR B. Rewire house to eliminate any potential wiring problems that are sight unseen for a few thousand?


The point of this whole thread is that it does not hurt, and could possibly save lives, to just RECOMMEND AFCI's where they are absent. If one client out of a thousand listens, you have done good.

We have a serious fire problem in Maryland right now. Deaths are occuring at a record pace. Most of the deaths are in homes with no or non working smoke alarms. Yet every time there is a fire, the departments hit the media encouraging checking or installing alarms. Why bother? are most residents going to listen? NO. The reason is, just one life saved helps. It is not called fire elimination it is fire "prevention"


--
Daniel R Frend
www.nachifoundation.org
The Home Inspector Store
www.homeinspectorstore.com