GFCI/AFCI vs EGC

Status
Not open for further replies.
First keep in mind that the EGC preceded the GFCI by decades.

The purpose of the EGC is so accidental contact between a hot wire and the case of an appliance will mimic a hot-to-neutral fault and trip the breaker before a person receives a shock.

A GFCI functions by detecting a difference in the currents in the wires of a circuit, presuming that the difference is current passing through a person to earth outside of the circuit.
 
The point is that although the gfci may keep you from getting killed you will still receive a nasty shock. Hopefully the equipment grounding conductor will trip the breaker long before you come in contact with some energized parts
 
Given residual current detection, IMHO there should be some reduction in EGC requirements. But without significant data on things like GFCI reliability and longevity, I wouldn't know how to even start a proposal.

For example if all circuit breakers included _mechanical_ residual current detection (not class A life safety GFCI, but rather long term reliable but less sensitive detection) then I'd be entirely comfortable with reducing the size of EGCs.

-Jon
 
I'd be entirely comfortable with reducing the size of EGCs.
The size of EGCs required by the code is based on making sure the OCPD ahead of a ground fault trips quickly. It is pretty conservative so people don't have to get a calculator out to figure what size it needs to be. I don't see that there is much to be gained economically by reducing the required size of the EGC anyway.
 
The egc is still a 24/7 path that a leak could take and trip the gfci. That better than having to wait for someone to touch it to allow leakage current to flow nd trip the gfci.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top