Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 43
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    86
    We had one tripping when a lamp was plugged in. It ended up being a loose wire on one of the plugs! Crazy stuff drove me crazy but it was under warranty... I thought it was the wiring but it works fine and plugging in a lamp does not trip the AFCI breaker.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeastern Pa
    Posts
    18,593
    Quote Originally Posted by second opinion View Post
    While your statement in itself is correct, its application to the OP's situation is not applicable.

    (c) A non-grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Grounding-type receptacles supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles.

    (1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 406.4(C) or 250.130(C).

    The bedroom is required to be AFCI. The only solution would be to correct the wiring to be safe and legal.
    Actually, I am correct.

    Since there is no longer a viable grounding conductor installed in either box under the paragraph cited, it is perfectly legal to do what has been done.
    [Avatar photo from a Florida training accident. Everyone walked away.]
    2 Tim 3:16-17

    RSES CMS, HVAC Electrical Specialist

    AOP Forum Rules:







  3. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern VA 38 degrees N by 76 degrees W
    Posts
    5,060
    Quote Originally Posted by timebuilder View Post
    Actually, I am correct.

    Since there is no longer a viable grounding conductor installed in either box under the paragraph cited, it is perfectly legal to do what has been done.
    No you are not correct. You cant just arbitrarily change something to make it convenient. 406.3 (D) (3)(c) "NON GROUNDING TYPE RECEPTACLES" was added to allow an option for homes that where wired without an equipment grounding conductor. This home as stated was wired with AFCI so I am positive it was wired with an EGC.

    You really should not post information about electrical that can cause damage to someones home or life.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    3,342
    While I agree with you the gfci recept is protected by the arc fault breaker. I wonder if a piece of wiremold and a new wire would fix the whole situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by second opinion View Post
    While your statement in itself is correct, its application to the OP's situation is not applicable.

    (c) A non-grounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Grounding-type receptacles supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles.

    (1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 406.4(C) or 250.130(C).

    The bedroom is required to be AFCI. The only solution would be to correct the wiring to be safe and legal.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern VA 38 degrees N by 76 degrees W
    Posts
    5,060
    Quote Originally Posted by lytning View Post
    While I agree with you the gfci recept is protected by the arc fault breaker. I wonder if a piece of wiremold and a new wire would fix the whole situation?
    Both outlets on the same wall and the end of the circuit, would be an easy fix.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeastern Pa
    Posts
    18,593
    Quote Originally Posted by second opinion View Post
    No you are not correct. You cant just arbitrarily change something to make it convenient. 406.3 (D) (3)(c) "NON GROUNDING TYPE RECEPTACLES" was added to allow an option for homes that where wired without an equipment grounding conductor. This home as stated was wired with AFCI so I am positive it was wired with an EGC.

    You really should not post information about electrical that can cause damage to someones home or life.
    Let's see if you are right, shall we?

    (Okay, I already know the answer )

    There is nothing in the code that says that a grounding conductor must exist between those two outlets. Not in ANY article OR paragraph. If it did, the Code would require the immediate rewiring (repair) of millions of homes and other covered structures.

    The Code does not intend, nor has it ever anticipated, suggesting that this should happen, even though its self-mandate is "... the practical safeguarding of persons or property arising from the use of electricity."

    The fact that a grounding conductor exists in the AFCI circuit is fine. No code violation, and by extension, no requirement regarding how far the EGC must extend. Nope.

    People like to read into the code, and suppose a meaning. That is what is happening in your case.

    As soon as the defective EGC was disconnected, it is no longer in play. There is no suitable EGC installed in those boxes, because it now is exposed to objectionable current from the neutral.

    The code does not require that the wall be opened, or that the defective cable be repaired. It is a standard of installation requirements, and it is not intended as a standard for repair. In fact, the intent of the Code is limited to 90.1.

    Let's sum it up.

    In the 2011 Code, Article 406.4 (D) (1) states: "...where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure..."

    I am pointing out that since the defective EGC was disconnected and capped off due to its unintended neutral potential, a grounding means no longer exists in the enclosure of the second receptacle, and the conductor in the FIRST outlet box has only ONE grounding means, and that is the existing GOOD EGC coming from the upstream portion of the circuit, and it is the ONLY good EGC. So, now we have settled the question of whether such a repair is covered under the code. The answer is "YES." That is the question for which I provided an answer.

    Now, there is a new question: is this an ideal, or "best that can be had" installation? The answer to that is "NO."

    In fact, I am one of those curious cats who would have said to the HO that "I have to cut into that section of drywall to make sure there is no damage to the conductors that could case a hazard." That statement is NOT Code, it's just a workmanlike approach to safety.

    While I had the wall open, I'd run a new length of cable, clean it up as best I can, and suggest that they let a local handyman replace the drywall I had removed.

    The bottom line is this: the Code is not the be-all or end-all of electrical installations. That is the primary reason that 90.2 (B) exists.

    So:

    Code violation? No.

    Best practice? No.

    Better to convince the HO to open the wall and replace the cable? YES.
    [Avatar photo from a Florida training accident. Everyone walked away.]
    2 Tim 3:16-17

    RSES CMS, HVAC Electrical Specialist

    AOP Forum Rules:







  7. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeastern Pa
    Posts
    18,593
    Quote Originally Posted by lytning View Post
    While I agree with you the gfci recept is protected by the arc fault breaker. I wonder if a piece of wiremold and a new wire would fix the whole situation?
    It could.

    I'd feel better opening up the wall for a non-code look-see, and fix it the way it should be fixed, and in that way, discover the basis for the fault, which could be animal-related, leading to a visit from the pest professional.
    [Avatar photo from a Florida training accident. Everyone walked away.]
    2 Tim 3:16-17

    RSES CMS, HVAC Electrical Specialist

    AOP Forum Rules:







  8. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Katy, TX
    Posts
    50
    Thanks for the additional reply and relevant references...

    Actually the bedroom *is* AFCI. The line fault was temporarily worked-around with a downstream GFCI that does not appear to adversely affect the circuit protection afforded by the AFCI in the panel (or the added GFCI in the bedroom). I think everyone is in agreement that it is not "code" but for the time being no one has been able to state definitively that the circuit is any less safe than it was previous to the fault appearing and the addition of the GFCI as a temporary getaround. Unarguably a proper repair (rewiring) needs to be done, but until it gets done no one has (so far) been able to prove that the occupant is at any risk of fire or shock. We can all sit around the campfire over friendly beers while quoting NEC scripture, but until the AHJ rules, it is what it is.

    I've a hunch the electrician who put in the GFCI purposely omitted listing his addt'l time & materials, only charging for the svc call on purpose because he likely knew it wouldn't survive an electrical inspection. The yellow copy of the ticket I saw only said " svc call minimum chg, reset tripped breaker" - which he in fact did. (among other non-itemized work). The amt. charged was $69. Ergo no documented proof of what work was actually done.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Katy, TX
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by timebuilder View Post
    It could.

    I'd feel better opening up the wall for a non-code look-see, and fix it the way it should be fixed, and in that way, discover the basis for the fault, which could be animal-related, leading to a visit from the pest professional.
    These homes are in the county (Fort Bend), outside city jurisdiction, and no county inspector. As such a group of Hispanic workers w/minimal English skills do the rough-ins then a day or two after the drywall crew leaves the same gang shows up to install the receptacles & covers. Later that same day a guy in a truck with a TECL lic # posted on the side shows up to make the tie-in from the meter base to the panel then calls for the meter to be set. Usually by the following noon a a Centerpoint truck shows up with the meter and a megger. As long as it's clear at the meter base & properly grounded, he sets the meter and moves on. It's not like working in town at all. Out in the county it's the wild West.

    In non-jurisdictional construction you're apt to see all sorts of horror stories unfold with some wiring faults created by pulling through the stud at an angle thereby severely abrading the jacket or crushing the insulation under wire staples. It is plausible this is what you'd likely find inside that wall. I doubt it's a nail as the wall studs are required to have steel anti-nail barriers on the interior-facing side of the stud, preventing the drywall crew from putting a nail into the wire. The exterior wall (Hardi-Plank or brick) is already attached when the rough-in crew comes through. Lovely homes, but if you could see one going up you'd make the sign of the cross with your foot.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Northern VA 38 degrees N by 76 degrees W
    Posts
    5,060
    Quote Originally Posted by timebuilder View Post
    Let's see if you are right, shall we?

    (Okay, I already know the answer )

    There is nothing in the code that says that a grounding conductor must exist between those two outlets. Not in ANY article OR paragraph. If it did, the Code would require the immediate rewiring (repair) of millions of homes and other covered structures.

    The Code does not intend, nor has it ever anticipated, suggesting that this should happen, even though its self-mandate is "... the practical safeguarding of persons or property arising from the use of electricity."

    The fact that a grounding conductor exists in the AFCI circuit is fine. No code violation, and by extension, no requirement regarding how far the EGC must extend. Nope.

    People like to read into the code, and suppose a meaning. That is what is happening in your case.

    As soon as the defective EGC was disconnected, it is no longer in play. There is no suitable EGC installed in those boxes, because it now is exposed to objectionable current from the neutral.

    The code does not require that the wall be opened, or that the defective cable be repaired. It is a standard of installation requirements, and it is not intended as a standard for repair. In fact, the intent of the Code is limited to 90.1.

    Let's sum it up.

    In the 2011 Code, Article 406.4 (D) (1) states: "...where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure..."

    I am pointing out that since the defective EGC was disconnected and capped off due to its unintended neutral potential, a grounding means no longer exists in the enclosure of the second receptacle, and the conductor in the FIRST outlet box has only ONE grounding means, and that is the existing GOOD EGC coming from the upstream portion of the circuit, and it is the ONLY good EGC. So, now we have settled the question of whether such a repair is covered under the code. The answer is "YES." That is the question for which I provided an answer.

    Now, there is a new question: is this an ideal, or "best that can be had" installation? The answer to that is "NO."

    In fact, I am one of those curious cats who would have said to the HO that "I have to cut into that section of drywall to make sure there is no damage to the conductors that could case a hazard." That statement is NOT Code, it's just a workmanlike approach to safety.

    While I had the wall open, I'd run a new length of cable, clean it up as best I can, and suggest that they let a local handyman replace the drywall I had removed.

    The bottom line is this: the Code is not the be-all or end-all of electrical installations. That is the primary reason that 90.2 (B) exists.

    So:

    Code violation? No.

    Best practice? No.

    Better to convince the HO to open the wall and replace the cable? YES.
    406.4 General Installation Requirements. Receptacle outlets shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part III of Article 210. General installation requirements shall be in accordance with 406.4(A) through (F).

    (A) Grounding Type. Receptacles installed on 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits shall be of the grounding type. Grounding-type receptacles shall be installed only on circuits of the voltage class and current for which they are rated, except as provided in Table 210.21(B)(2) and Table 210.21(B)(3).

    Exception: Nongrounding-type receptacles installed in accordance with 406.4(D).

    (B) To Be Grounded. Receptacles and cord connectors that have equipment grounding conductor contacts shall have those contacts connected to an equipment grounding conductor.

    Exception No. 1: Receptacles mounted on portable and vehicle-mounted generators in accordance with 250.34.

    Exception No. 2: Replacement receptacles as permitted by 406.4(D).

    (C) Methods of Grounding. The equipment grounding conductor contacts of receptacles and cord connectors shall be grounded by connection to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit supplying the receptacle or cord connector.

    Perhaps you can elaborate on the highlighted items.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeastern Pa
    Posts
    18,593
    Quote Originally Posted by second opinion View Post
    406.4 General Installation Requirements. Receptacle outlets shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part III of Article 210. General installation requirements shall be in accordance with 406.4(A) through (F).

    (A) Grounding Type. Receptacles installed on 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits shall be of the grounding type. Grounding-type receptacles shall be installed only on circuits of the voltage class and current for which they are rated, except as provided in Table 210.21(B)(2) and Table 210.21(B)(3).

    Exception: Nongrounding-type receptacles installed in accordance with 406.4(D).

    (B) To Be Grounded. Receptacles and cord connectors that have equipment grounding conductor contacts shall have those contacts connected to an equipment grounding conductor.

    Exception No. 1: Receptacles mounted on portable and vehicle-mounted generators in accordance with 250.34.

    Exception No. 2: Replacement receptacles as permitted by 406.4(D).

    (C) Methods of Grounding. The equipment grounding conductor contacts of receptacles and cord connectors shall be grounded by connection to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit supplying the receptacle or cord connector.

    Perhaps you can elaborate on the highlighted items.
    There is only one Code pertinent item that needs to be noticed.

    "General INSTALLATION requirements."

    This is not an installation.

    Installations require a plan and a complete set of materials in order to provide electric services to a given structure or area of a structure.

    In order for this to be an installation, the service to the area in question must be removed or abandoned in place as would be appropriate. Then, a new set of materials, using a Chapter 3 wiring method would be employed. AT THAT POINT, all of the citations you listed would come into play. The suggestion of wiremold as a response to this situation is appropriate under the Code, and it would indeed be the least invasive choice of a Chapter 3 wiring method, and it WOULD be an installation.

    406.4 (D) (2) (b) and (c) cover the use of the GFCI in this case.
    [Avatar photo from a Florida training accident. Everyone walked away.]
    2 Tim 3:16-17

    RSES CMS, HVAC Electrical Specialist

    AOP Forum Rules:







  12. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Katy, TX
    Posts
    50
    This I believe is one of, if not the operative statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by timebuilder View Post

    People like to read into the code, and suppose a meaning.
    What the code specified during the construction phase was met. Beyond the point of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, everything else is vague and ambiguous (at least IMO.)

    We can agree that repairs are "needed" but to say that they are "required" is a whole other matter. No one (to me at least) has made a satisfactory argument.

    AFCI in itself is something of a black art. You can ask 100 licensed electricians to explain how it works and expect 100 different answers. Even one EE I discussed AFCI with said the technology is "FM" (....... magic). Most here likely have a complete understanding of GFCI. By contrast AFCI functions on the basis of a specific waveform - and that's about all anyone can say.

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southeastern Pa
    Posts
    18,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Cap'n Preshoot View Post
    This I believe is one of, if not the operative statement:



    What the code specified during the construction phase was met. Beyond the point of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, everything else is vague and ambiguous (at least IMO.)

    We can agree that repairs are "needed" but to say that they are "required" is a whole other matter. No one (to me at least) has made a satisfactory argument.

    AFCI in itself is something of a black art. You can ask 100 licensed electricians to explain how it works and expect 100 different answers. Even one EE I discussed AFCI with said the technology is "FM" (....... magic). Most here likely have a complete understanding of GFCI. By contrast AFCI functions on the basis of a specific waveform - and that's about all anyone can say.
    The AFCI uses an algorithm that looks at the waveform's rise time, harmonic structure, and short duration transients that were identified in lab tests to correspond to arc faults.
    [Avatar photo from a Florida training accident. Everyone walked away.]
    2 Tim 3:16-17

    RSES CMS, HVAC Electrical Specialist

    AOP Forum Rules:







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event