Equipment Ground on a GFCI

[LarryFine]

Great. The only proper way to test a device that is supposed to be tested without using plug-in testers is with plug-in testers.

 

[LarryFine]

If Receptacle is marked as required in 406.3(E)(2)(b)(c) "GFCI protected No Equipment Ground" the inspector should recognize plug in tester limitations.

That would require an understanding of how things work that even some electricians lack.

If that happened on one of my jobs, I'd hand the inspector my solenoid tester and an extension cord.

 

[kwired]

My opinion on this has always been the test button is the only test method mentioned in the instructions.

That don't mean when you intentionally introduce a condition that should make it trip that it doesn't have to trip.

Plugging in typical plug in type tester into a receptacle with no EGC however does not introduce a trip condition, it takes current to make the GFCI trip, which other than the mentioned newer Levition design, I believe all others still do somehow introduce some current somehow to make it trip, most just put it from line of one pole to load of (an)other pole.

 

[synchro]

Athough the Leviton approach leaves some portion of the electromechnical trip mechanism untested, I think there's a valid argument that it provides some extra margin of safety. With a traditional GFCI if the test button fails to trip it then this could be ignored because the receptacle would still be useable even though the ground fault protection is defective. In the Leviton design, after the test button mechanically trips open the contacts it will not reset and close these contacts if it detects that the GFCI protection circuitry is not functional. In this case there will be no power available from the receptacle and therefore some extra motivation to replace the defective GFCI.

 

[kwired]

Athough the Leviton approach leaves some portion of the electromechnical trip mechanism untested, I think there's a valid argument that it provides some extra margin of safety. With a traditional GFCI if the test button fails to trip it then this could be ignored because the receptacle would still be useable even though the ground fault protection is defective. In the Leviton design, after the test button mechanically trips open the contacts it will not reset and close these contacts if it detects that the GFCI protection circuitry is not functional. In this case there will be no power available from the receptacle and therefore some extra motivation to replace the defective GFCI.

IDK, I generally use Legrand GFCI's. They are shipped in tripped position, you must have power to actually reset it. No power the button will stay in but does pop back out when power is applied, you must be pressing it while power is on to reset it. If it is reset and you then reverse line and load leads, it will stay set. It only fails to reset because of line load reversal after it has tripped. I don't see this as too big of a problem as that isn't too likely to happen in general use though. I don't know what it will do if the "self test" feature fails. I can see total failure of the logic components can possibly leave it still "set" but with no protection, though the features descriptions sort of say it shouldn't. Really don't know how this self test works though or if it can catch all failures or just catches some of the most common failures.

 

[synchro]

Just to be clear I'm not recommending one brand or type of GFCI over the other. You should use whatever works best in your experience. My comment about the Leviton approach is that it has some advantages and not just disadvantages as Hubbell had implied in their whitepaper. Obviously Hubbell is trying to sell their devices and so they focus on any negatives that their competitors might have.

 

[Jraef]

Then you have an opportunity to educate the inspector. There is no basis in this situation for the inspector to reject it.

There is no code section requiring the use of a SEPARATE tester unit for a GFCI, only that a GFCI must be tested. If you test it with its own Test button, code is met.

 

[tom baker]

This graphic shows the GFCI does not need an equipment ground. When you use a plug in tester, it connects to the hot and ground to create the imbalance, so no EGC and it will not trip. There is a similar graphic that shows the test resistor.

 

[tom baker]

this graphic from NEMA shows the test resistor.

 

[RRJ]

I have a building I take care of that has no egc going to the to the gfci’s. I like using the levinton that blinks an intermittent red light when the gfci needs to be replace. Leviton SmartlockPro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[480sparky]

UL White Book:

OUTLET CIRCUIT TESTERS (QCYU)
GENERAL
This category covers portable devices with fixed attachment-plug blades, or probes attached to flexible leads, used to indicate various wiring conditions in 15 or 20 A branch circuits by a pattern of lights or other similar
means along with markings or instructions to identify the probable wiring
conditions which cannot be determined by the tester.
The devices may include provisions for checking the functions of a
ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) connected to the branch circuit, or
for indicating that a branch circuit is connected to an arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI).
AFCI indicators operate by producing a waveform similar to an arc fault.
Since these devices cannot produce an actual arc fault, an AFCI indicator
may not trip every AFCI. AFCI indicators are provided with markings or
instructions that state the following or equivalent: ‘‘CAUTION: AFCIs recognize characteristics unique to arcing, and AFCI indicators produce characteristics that mimic some forms of arcing. Therefore the indicator may provide a false indication that the AFCI is not functioning properly. If this
occurs, recheck the operation of the AFCI using the test and reset buttons.
The AFCI button test function will demonstrate proper operation.’’
These devices are not intended for use as comprehensive diagnostic
instruments.