Currently reading:
Amendment 2 and AFDD's

Discuss Amendment 2 and AFDD's in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Dave Appleby

-
Arms
Reaction score
191
Hi.

Been reading the but around 427.1.7.

Does anyone have any idea on retrospective application?

Is this going to apply to every board change or just adapted to new builds and then as a C3 recommendation for everything else?

Given prices it's going to be a massive cost change on a board swop. Plus, I know for certain I'm going to have space issues with anything over 30 years old here in Fife.

Thoughts?
 
From above curve, worst-case it is 0.03s at 200A PFC.

I guess the real question is what sort of fault will start a fire but only an AFDD will trip, and how common/likely are they?

In my limited experience of sorting out fixed wiring, the only two cases of a long-term serial arc were light bulb holders in the days of 60W/100W lights and you could sometimes here the buzzing and see the light dim slightly. Yes, those are circuits for which AFDD are not recommended...


Right, which at worse case would translate to 1 1/2 cycles on a 50Hz supply and about 2 cycles on a 60Hz supply if I have my math right. The maximum time which an arc fault can persist is 8 half cycles or 4 cycles on a 60Hz supply according to standard UL1699.


Testing done by UL in the United States has shown that the parallel resistance is only 0.03 ohms; page 337.


https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/70_A2022_NEC_P02_FD_PIReport_1of2_rev.pdf


When maximum Zs, 0.03 ohms arc impedance and the typical length of flex resistance are summed together the resulting current flow universally clears the fuse fast enough that the time (incident energy) does exceed those set by UL1699 and IEC-62606.


What folks in the UK have to realize is that before AFCIs were created in the US, the EU and British systems were extensively studied and determined to significantly limit short circuit energy (sputtering) which was theorized (key word) to be behind a sizable percentage of US residential electrical fires.

Where it all went horribly wrong was instead of mandating set earth fault loop impedance requirements in NFPA-70, research went out to determine the lowest reasonable short circuit current that may be found in a dwelling as is- which was discovered to be around 75 amps. And so the original concept was to lower the magnetic pickup on 15 and 20 amp breakers to 75 amps. When it was realized this would result in nuisance tripping on high inrush items like motors, tools and ballasts the electronic AFCI was created so tripping would be accomplished via AND logic looking for both ripple & magnitude instead of magnitude alone to achieve security. Although we know said security was not so- every time someone switched on a vaccuum cleaner with a brushed motor it was (and still is) another callback for the electrician.

Considering that Zs values almost always permit current flow over 125% of an MCB magnetic pickup there is absolutely no parallel event in the UK that will trip an AFDD but won't also trip an MCB.

Which leaves us with serial events. Serial events are the end stage of joule heating and rarely if ever occure on their own. The only way to stop a fire occurring from joule heating is by catching the event in its infancy- detecting local temperature rise before it reaches 1000*C. With AFDDs by then its to late, the only hope being the glowing connection will not have ignited any material long enough to produce a current signature.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting point this.Considering an RFC is 2 conductors in parallel, an arc in one leg is strictly speaking bridged out by the other leg. So theoretically there should be no arc on the damaged leg? Am I missing something here?
It wont work on a RFC if there is just a loose connection on the RFC. But will/should work on a series arc from socket to appliance. Providing the load after the arc is 2.5amps (1.5amps For Electrium devices).
The trouble is most internal appliance wiring is parallel so it depends where the loose connection is, if its loose connection to just one low power internal component within the appliance it wont detect anything.
 
Last edited:
As above, a real high-current arc is still detected, but a poor connection on the RFC will not show up as practically no arcing takes place. Typically you will only see ~10V drop at the break and that is not enough to sustain an arc of any note.
 
Hager has a document claiming that they work on RFC's but acknowledge that only if the fault is on a spur or appliance connection (Arc Fault Detection - Hager UK - https://hager.com/uk/support/regulations-18th-edition/arc-fault-detection-devices). The AFDD's for use in Europe are substantially different to the ones used in the US, ours will be microcontroller based and will be tested against criteria to check that they play nice with other equipment. IEC62606 can be found online if you are interested in how they perform.
 
Last edited:
There is a few vids on affdddds on the tube from eefix in conjunction with wylex


but apart from that I have seen little out in the real world about how much and when affdddds will come out and when we are expected to fit them as standard
 
Yeah.

But with BG at under 100 for a populated board there's still a massive gap.

I'd also expect to see some form of public engagement otherwise all hell is going to break loose come Feb.

Are wholesalers going to stop selling 17th Amd3 boards?

I think not.

Or it gets worse and we start ending up sorting DIY s*it!

Be afraid, be very afraid....
 
I have done just 1 estimate for a afdd rcbo based upon my wholesalers prices (no mark up on my end) 13 circuits , spd , tail pack , gland pack etc etc it came to £2679 inc vat that is parts only not my labour added
 
Ive never seen them put into practice so wasn't sure how sensitive they are. I was just thinking it would make things a lot cheaper until the prices came down. Much like when dual split boards were much cheaper than full RCBO boards but now the prices have dropped.
 
I did read over the proposed amendment and AFDD are not being pushed for lights or high current loads like showers. Odd really, as most seriously burned out examples I have seen have been shower circuits, but maybe good old fashioned resistance and so no arcing to make one trip?

So it might be a case that really they only get used for sockets, in which case I foresee the return of a single/dual RFC per property!
 
So it might be a case that really they only get used for sockets, in which case I foresee the return of a single/dual RFC per property!
You may well be right. But it could just as easily happen that the introduction of the AFDD ends up heaping more negative press on the RFC due to its inherant unsuitability for an AFDD protected circuit compared to the radial, which does not share these limitations
 
You may well be right. But it could just as easily happen that the introduction of the AFDD ends up heaping more negative press on the RFC due to its inherant unsuitability for an AFDD protected circuit compared to the radial, which does not share these limitations
No, you are not understanding the RFC limitation on AFDD.

They do detect arcs, it is just the "open ring" fault does not generate an arc (of any note) so it will not trip the AFDD. If you do get enough current flow and sufficient voltage to sustain an arc on some place in the RFC (so connection to socket or appliance) it will still detect it. So you might see that as a limitation on detecting faults, but then I really doubt that an open ring fault has ever caused a fire on its own as even the full 32A breaker limit on 2.5mm of one leg on a broken ring is overload, but more cable-life-killing and not fire starting temperatures.
 
No, you are not understanding the RFC limitation on AFDD.
I don't think I, m misunderstanding it. The "open ring" won't detect an arc. The "open radial" will detect an arc.
So you might see that as a limitation on detecting faults,
It depends on how the "powers that be" promote the AFDD. Over here the the protection afforded to the fixed wiring is emphasised as heavily as the protection afforded to the appliances connected to the fixed wiring. Like you I don't have any major concerns about arcing in a ring circuit as I have not experrienced(nor yet been presented with) credible evidence for series arcs in fixed wiring causing fires. But I, m simply making the point that the introduction Aof the AFDD is unlikely to enhance the ring circuits appeal (with exception of UK)
 
I don't think I, m misunderstanding it. The "open ring" won't detect an arc. The "open radial" will detect an arc.
Yes...but due to the open ring having practically no arcing.

It sounds very much like the arcing is a good thing here!!!
It depends on how the "powers that be" promote the AFDD. Over here the the protection afforded to the fixed wiring is emphasised as heavily as the protection afforded to the appliances connected to the fixed wiring.
Agreed, if it is for appliances then RFC or radial makes no difference.
Like you I don't have any major concerns about arcing in a ring circuit as I have not experienced (nor yet been presented with) credible evidence for series arcs in fixed wiring causing fires. But I, m simply making the point that the introduction of the AFDD is unlikely to enhance the ring circuits appeal (with exception of UK)
The RFC (in this context) only makes sense with fused plugs, and really only the UK and countries with a shared electrical history use the BS1363 plugs so the discussion is limited to them anyway.

The appeal of the RFC is around half the number of AFDD needed as half the number of circuits, and with a premium above RCBOs of £100+ per circuit that starts to make it attractive!
 
I did read over the proposed amendment and AFDD are not being pushed for lights or high current loads like showers. Odd really, as most seriously burned out examples I have seen have been shower circuits, but maybe good old fashioned resistance and so no arcing to make one trip?

So it might be a case that really they only get used for sockets, in which case I foresee the return of a single/dual RFC per property!
Where is it stated they should not be used on shower cats?
 
I did read over the proposed amendment and AFDD are not being pushed for lights or high current loads like showers. Odd really, as most seriously burned out examples I have seen have been shower circuits, but maybe good old fashioned resistance and so no arcing to make one trip?

So it might be a case that really they only get used for sockets, in which case I foresee the return of a single/dual RFC per property!


Burned up connections are typically not the result of arcing, but rather series resistive heating which happen to be behind 95% of all electrical fires.
 

Reply to Amendment 2 and AFDD's in the UK Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by untold.media Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock