# AFCI Receptacle as Good as an AFCI Breaker



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Little-Lectric said:


> This guy doesn't think so. I wonder why? Maybe because Eaton doesn't make the receptacles!:whistling2:



They should start...:laughing:


----------



## Shock-Therapy (Oct 4, 2013)

Yeah, thats apparent.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Yet another manufacturing mouthpiece yammering on about the protective qualities of an afci, while failing to inform us of *how* they specifically work to do so..... this really is getting to be our trades global warming issue .


~CS~


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Little-Lectric said:


> This guy doesn't think so. I wonder why? Maybe because Eaton doesn't make the receptacles!:whistling2:


Cooper Wiring Devices does but I don't think they market it yet because of the lack of protection upstream of the device. Or maybe they're fighting it because they don't want Leviton taking away their breaker business.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

If the AFCI really works and if ~40% of the faults that they are expected to catch are in the fixed building wiring (from the original proposals to require AFCIs), then the receptacle AFCI removes protection from a section of the fixed building wiring, so he would be correct.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I think my brand of snake-oil is better than their brand-of snake oil.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

If my life depended on it I would take a breaker over a cheap assed receptacle anyday.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

I would feel perfectly safe with a 1972 Slater receptacle feeding a space heater on old #14 TW wire circuit protected by a FPE breaker. As long as the side screw terminals are used.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

On a serious note, I roughed in a small sunroom addition from a local circuit. Now I'm having a hardtime finding this infertile device in any local supplyhouse. No one stocks them yet around here.


----------



## bighills (Dec 17, 2007)

Shockdoc said:


> On a serious note, I roughed in a small sunroom addition from a local circuit. Now I'm having a hardtime finding this infertile device in any local supplyhouse. No one stocks them yet around here.


My supply house stocks Leviton AFCI receptacles here near Charlotte....


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> If the AFCI really works and if ~40% of the faults that they are expected to catch are in the fixed building wiring (from the original proposals to require AFCIs), then the receptacle AFCI removes protection from a section of the fixed building wiring, so he would be correct.


So is the receptacle arc fault method miss out in protecting the home run and maybe breaker panel?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Lep said:


> So is the receptacle arc fault method miss out in protecting the home run and maybe breaker panel?


In theory the receptacle AFCI can provide series arc fault protection between the source and the device. It cannot provide parallel arc fault protection between the source and the device.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

and that _'theory' _is a billion $$$ industry Don

~CS~


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> In theory the receptacle AFCI can provide series arc fault protection between the source and the device. It cannot provide parallel arc fault protection between the source and the device.


so where do you locate the device in relationship to the daisy chain? ( first receptacle in line, last one in line, anywhere in the circuit?)


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Lep said:


> so where do you locate the device in relationship to the daisy chain? ( first receptacle in line, last one in line, anywhere in the circuit?)


Actually, the code says the first outlet on the circuit.
Which could be a lighting outlet.


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> and that _'theory' _is a billion $$$ industry Don
> 
> ~CS~





get in on the action ,Jackson


:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

Little-Lectric said:


> Actually, the code says the first outlet on the circuit.
> Which could be a lighting outlet.


plus all the fun locating the first outlet/ switch on an upgrade.


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

Little-Lectric said:


> Actually, the code says the first outlet on the circuit.
> Which could be a lighting outlet.


downstream devices need labeling on covers also?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Lep said:


> get in on the action ,Jackson
> 
> 
> :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:


I don't like profiting on false security Lep

And i don't appreciate collaborators who insist i do so

~CS~


----------



## eetwo (Nov 13, 2011)

Isn't there a requirement that the homerun also be in a metallic conduit?


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I don't like profiting on false security Lep
> 
> And i don't appreciate collaborators who insist i do so
> 
> ~CS~


I'm just clowning around Steve O, not insisting anybody do anything.
:thumbup:


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

eetwo said:


> Isn't there a requirement that the homerun also be in a metallic conduit?


would that be for residential and commercial new construction?


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

i believe it is only res.


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

papaotis said:


> i believe it is only res.


what a headache


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

eetwo said:


> Isn't there a requirement that the homerun also be in a metallic conduit?


Not in the 2014 code. 50' of NM is permitted to the AFCI outlet device.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Lep said:


> would that be for residential and commercial new construction?


AFCIs are only required in dwelling units..................so far


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Not in the 2014 code. 50' of NM is permitted to the AFCI outlet device.


I think it is 50' for 14 awg and 70' for 12 awg however there are other stipulations that the breaker must be listed to work with an afci as a system. not sure what that means and I have not heard if those breakers are available


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I think it is 50' for 14 awg and 70' for 12 awg however there are other stipulations that the breaker must be listed to work with an afci as a system. not sure what that means and I have not heard if those breakers are available



why would you want a homerun in pipe ,
in relation to an arc fault device?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Lep said:


> why would you want a homerun in pipe ,
> in relation to an arc fault device?


The idea is that a conductor failure in the conduit is unlikely to create a fire so that portion of the circuit does not require AFCI protection. That also applied to metal clad cable in the 2011 code.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I think it is 50' for 14 awg and 70' for 12 awg however there are other stipulations that the breaker must be listed to work with an afci as a system. not sure what that means and I have not heard if those breakers are available


The requirement of a listed combination of a breaker and outlet type AFCI is a good point, and I have not seen anything listed as such.

It is also interesting that the outlet type AFCI is of the "branch circuit" type. Does that mean it does not have the functions of a "combination" type AFCI breaker?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Lep said:


> why would you want a homerun in pipe ,
> in relation to an arc fault device?


I am talking of 14/2 nm or 12/2 nm


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The requirement of a listed combination of a breaker and outlet type AFCI is a good point, and I have not seen anything listed as such.
> 
> It is also interesting that the outlet type AFCI is of the "branch circuit" type. Does that mean it does not have the functions of a "combination" type AFCI breaker?


I have read that section a few times but have not had a chance to thoroughly look at it. Each time I give it a quick read I am more confused. It says a standard type breaker than it says it must be listed in combination with afci rec. 

I cannot imagine that a listed afci recep is not of the combo type.


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The idea is that a conductor failure in the conduit is unlikely to create a fire so that portion of the circuit does not require AFCI protection. That also applied to metal clad cable in the 2011 code.


I wonder how often a regular nm cable fails inside the wall?


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Lep said:


> I wonder how often a regular nm cable fails inside the wall?


Mostly only when over stapled, crushed or penetrated with a screw. 
Extra fun when it's 6/3 for a range and the drywallers on the other side run out of screws and start using three inch-ers. 

Turns out those rockers can run pretty fast on stilts.

... just not quite fast enough ...


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

markore said:


> Mostly only when over stapled, crushed or penetrated with a screw.
> ...


But when you read *this* UL report, it makes it seem almost impossible that the first two of those things can create an arc that can start a fire.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

*OBS AFCI receptacle compatible standard overcurrent devices*

does anyone have a list of compatible standard overcurrent devices for use with the OBS AFCI (Leviton receptacles)?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

The NFPA just paints itself further and further into the corner each version because of bad decisions it made and too proud to admit it. Can't loose that puffed up credibility factor.....


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

I spoke with NFPA today and they are unaware of Any AFCI 'system compatible' Standard overcurrent devices available.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

The best part:

However, the test results also indicate that the breakdown event is unlikely to initiate arcing that is 
sustained long enough to ignite the cable insulation or surrounding materials. In this study, arcing for 
hammer-damaged cable exhibited arcing during less than 10% of the surge events, and exhibited arcing 
that lasted over a single half-cycle. The arcing observed in this study is much shorter than what is 
required for an AFCI to react to the event (eight arcing half-cycles within 0.5 seconds, per UL1699); 
however, the energy released in that short event is not expected to ignite the cable insulation.


so why the extensive arc fault requirements ?$$$?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

An AFCI, whether it's in breaker or receptacle form, is a completely useless device.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

mgawat said:


> ...
> so why the extensive arc fault requirements ?$$$?


Exactly my point in posting the link.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm going to read the other reports mentioned to see what results they came up with


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

*Leviton cooresponcdence*

Hello Paul,

No it does not.


Emanuel Ramondino
Applications Engineer

T: 631-812-6705
F: 800-832-9538
[email protected]

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.
201 North Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
www.leviton.com









From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:56 PM
To: Info, Leviton
Subject: Email Technical Support




Comments: does your AFTR1 arc fault outlet meet the new 2014 requirements of being listed as a 'system combination-type AFCI"


Tremendously forthcoming aren't they?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Tremendously forthcoming aren't they?



About as specific as Dave Dini & Ray Marchand's responses in the late 90's




~CS~


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> AFCIs are only required in dwelling units..................so far


They have been required in non-dwelling areas such as guest rooms & suites since 2005 and now in dormitory units starting under the 2014

In the 2005 NEC 210.18 was added - 
210.18 Guest Rooms and Suites
Guest rooms and guest suites that provide permanent provisions for cooking shall have branch circuits installed to meet the rules for dwellings units.

In the 2014 NEC 210.12 (C) was added -
210.12(C) Dormitory Units
All 120 volt, single phase, 15 and 20 ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dormitory unit bedrooms,living rooms, hallways, closets, ans similar rooms shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter meeting the requirements of 210.12(A)(1) through (6) as appropriate


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

Dry words. Wishful thinking. 

I laugh so hard when I see new houses with only 3 circuits because its saves on breakers that used to be pennies. Greed does not drive human progress. 



Im willing to be the guy has 200 circuits in that house and no AFCIs.


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

If you are on the 2011, as we are for another year, anytime you change a receptacle in dwelling that would require AFCI protection, you need to provide either an AFCI breaker, receptacle, or be downstream from an AFCI receptacle, as of Jan 1st. I ordered six Leviton units from the supply house. Home Depot has them on the shelves. I bought them for the housing units that I work on that have FPE and Zinsco panels. In the units that have brands that have AFCI breakers available, thats what they'll be getting. I have swapped panels in a few cases and installed AFCI in them and have had good luck so far. QO in all cases. I'm sure other brands would have faired just as well.

See how the receptacle thing goes and let you know.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

*other UL report*

http://www.ul.com/global/documents/library/white_papers/BreakerMitigationofArcFaults.pdf

In summary:
Conclusions
The following conclusions are now made concerning an ability of a circuit breaker to mitigate a parallel
arcing fault in lieu of a panel-mounted AFCI:
· New circuit breakers show an average magnetic trip level of 213A, with a standard deviation of
33.2A. This suggests that 99% of all circuit breakers will possess a magnetic trip level at or below
300A. This is true for all brands of circuit breakers investigated in this work.
· Arcing behavior (with respect to strike angle, peak current, etc.) is not influenced by the circuit
breaker itself. Therefore, the results in this work apply to all types of arcing, including carbonized
path and point contact arcing.
· A circuit breaker will give adequate protection from parallel arcing (as defined by UL 1699)
provided that the short-circuit current exceeds the magnetic trip level of the circuit breaker by a
factor of 1.25.
· A circuit breaker is expected to provide protection from a parallel arcing fault when the following
inequality is satisfied:
2R^
a
where L is the NM cable run length in feet, L is resistance of the conductor in ohms per foot, Vrms
is the circuit voltage, and Imag is the magnetic trip level of the circuit breaker. This inequality
assumes that the available current at the panel is much greater than Imag.
· Assuming a 15A, 120 Vrms circuit using 14AWG NM cable for the home run, a new circuit breaker
will provide protection from a parallel arcing fault if the run length does not exceed 50 feet. This
assumes a maximum allowable operating temperature of 90°C.
· Assuming a 300A fault current and satisfying the inequality above, the probability of ignition of the
cable during an arcing event is 2% if a circuit breaker trips in one half-cycle, this probability of
ignition increasing by 1% for each additional half-cycle of arcing.


In English, Standard breakers will work just fine for AFCI protection for at least 50 feet. So, why aren't any listed for the purpose?$$$?


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> But when you read *this* UL report, it makes it seem almost impossible that the first two of those things can create an arc that can start a fire.


After reading that report I agree, crushing to the point of starting a fire would take more force or shearing action than provided by perfunctory hammer blows or staples that do not pierce the conductor.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

A listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit in combination with a listed branch circuit overcurrent protective device where all of the following conditions are met: The branch circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
•	The maximum length of the branch circuit wiring from the branch circuit overcurrent device to the first outlet shall not exceed 15.2 m (50 ft.) for a 14 AWG or 21.3 m (70 ft.) for a 12 AWG conductor.
•	The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate it is the first outlet of the circuit.
•	The combination of the branch circuit overcurrent device and outlet branch circuit AFCI is identified as meeting the requirements for a "System Combination" type AFCI and is listed as such.


In a nutshell this means that we list the OBC AFCI Receptacle/standard breaker combination with UL. A listing will then be available that says you use Leviton’s OBC AFC receptacle to meet code requirements when using the following breakers: xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxxx

Trick is…right now UL has yet to issue a standard that contains testing requirements to meet this code so therefore we cannot submit for a listing. As soon as the new standard is developed we’ll proceed with the listing.



Emanuel Ramondino
Applications Engineer

T: 631-812-6705
F: 800-832-9538
[email protected]

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.
201 North Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
www.leviton.com


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MTW said:


> An AFCI, whether it's in breaker or receptacle form, is a completely useless device.


What a really, really ignorant comment. You should be banned for spouting such ignorance.
Would you say that about GFCI's?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

manchestersparky said:


> They have been required in non-dwelling areas such as guest rooms & suites since 2005 and now in dormitory units starting under the 2014
> 
> In the 2005 NEC 210.18 was added -
> 210.18 Guest Rooms and Suites
> ...


It is my opinion that a guest room or suite that has permanent provisions for cooking is a dwelling unit per the NEC definition of dwelling unit.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

mgawat said:


> http://www.ul.com/global/documents/library/white_papers/BreakerMitigationofArcFaults.pdf
> 
> In summary:
> Conclusions
> ...


That all assumes that the circuit can supply enough fault current to make that happen. The branch circuit/feeder type AFCI must have at least 75 amps of current before it even looks at the arc signature for a parallel fault. One of the first AFCI testers, often could not make the AFCI breaker trip if plugged into the last receptacle on a long circuit....the circuit simply could not source 75 amps at that point on the circuit.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

sbrn33 said:


> What a really, really ignorant comment. You should be banned for spouting such ignorance.


You should be banned for trolling. How is what I said ignorant? Can you provide any evidence in favor of AFCI's, or are you just spouting ignorance yourself? 



> Would you say that about GFCI's?


No, because the two devices are not even remotely similar in what they actually do and what is claimed that they can do.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

In a nutshell this means that we list the OBC AFCI Receptacle/standard breaker combination with UL. A listing will then be available that says you use Leviton’s OBC AFC receptacle to meet code requirements when using the following breakers: xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxxx

Trick is…right now UL has yet to issue a standard that contains testing requirements to meet this code so therefore we cannot submit for a listing. As soon as the new standard is developed we’ll proceed with the listing.



Emanuel Ramondino
Applications Engineer

T: 631-812-6705
F: 800-832-9538
[email protected]

Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.
201 North Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
www.leviton.com



So, I guess the good news is that we don't have to wait for the overcurrent device manufacturers to decide to play ball and let in some competition...now, IF UL would just decide to get on the bandwagon........


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That all assumes that the circuit can supply enough fault current to make that happen. The branch circuit/feeder type AFCI must have at least 75 amps of current before it even looks at the arc signature for a parallel fault. One of the first AFCI testers, often could not make the AFCI breaker trip if plugged into the last receptacle on a long circuit....the circuit simply could not source 75 amps at that point on the circuit.



Don, your concern, although not nearly as detailed, is noted in the report>
http://www.ul.com/global/documents/library/white_papers/BreakerMitigationofArcFaults.pdf

Also, _parallel _arcs seem to be addressed here

I find nothing about _series _arcs, save for this elusive 'carbonized' term

~CS~


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

http://www.joetedesco.org/JoeTedesco/Presentation1.pdf


Square D seems to have other ideas

after alot of extensive reading, it seems the whole contraversy comes down to available fault current(300a vs 500a)..The accepted fault current available for single family dwellings has widely and historically been accepted at 300A.
Now we have another study, sponsered by overdurrent device manufacturers, that claim the actual fault current available is 500A. This is the number the overcurrent manufactuers are using to sway Code making panel into demanding a listed system combination AFCI.

It seems that The UL rep did not buy that argument in the code making panel stating that once the 300a fault current is reproven for single family dwellings (worse case scenario), the rest of the data in the manufactuer's report would be faulty and the established magnetic trip ability of standard overcurrent devices with an additional ABS AFCI would be more than adequate to mitigate any arc fault problems likely to be encountered.

UL’s representative on the Code Panel voted affirmation on this action with the following comment:
“While we support the panel action, continued support is dependent upon review of additional
data that would confirm the availability of sufficient short circuit current capability at the panel of a
typical installation.
“The arc fault protection of the branch circuit will be provided by a system that includes an outlet
branch circuit AFCI, a circuit breaker having a known instantaneous trip current and a branch
circuit of a limited length and resistance to ensure that the fault current is sufficient to trip the
breaker during a parallel arcing fault at the installation point of the outlet branch circuit AFCI. The
latest UL Research Report4 takes into consideration the impact of the available current at the
panel on the acceptable length of the branch circuit home run to the first outlet. Calculation shows
that as the available current at the origin of the branch circuit varies, so does the allowable length
of the home run.
“Additional study is needed to provide data regarding the current available at the origin of the
branch circuit in a typical installation. From this data, the panel will be able to determine if
modification of the panel action should be considered at the ROC.”


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Don, your concern, although not nearly as detailed, is noted in the report>
> http://www.ul.com/global/documents/library/white_papers/BreakerMitigationofArcFaults.pdf
> 
> Also, _parallel _arcs seem to be addressed here
> ...


Yes, the study was for the parallel arcs between the OCPD and the receptacle arc fault device. It is assumed that the receptacle AFCI can clear a series arc, assuming such things even exist, between the OCPD and the receptacle AFCI.

The other issue I have with the UL testing is the method of creating the parallel arc.... they first fried the NM with high voltage to create a "carbonized" path...how often does that happen with NM that is installed in a dwelling unit.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

MTW said:


> You should be banned for trolling. How is what I said ignorant? Can you provide any evidence in favor of AFCI's, or are you just spouting ignorance yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the two devices are not even remotely similar in what they actually do and what is claimed that they can do.


Did UL not test these devices? AFCI's apparently save lives and property. Do you not want to save lives and property?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

sbrn33 said:


> Did UL not test these devices? AFCI's apparently save lives and property. Do you not want to save lives and property?


I'm troll proof. Go away.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> Did UL not test these devices? AFCI's apparently save lives and property. Do you not want to save lives and property?


Change "apparently" to "have been been clearly demonstrated to" and you'll find more support.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

sbrn33 said:


> Did UL not test these devices? AFCI's apparently save lives and property. Do you not want to save lives and property?


I have not seen any evidence that a parallel arcing fault can even exist at dwelling unit voltages and series arcs are very rare. Most of what have been called series arcs are really glowing connections and that fire causing fault is not detected by an AFCI.


----------

