GFCI's do not need an EGC (moved from another thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
mivey said:
You are correct. You can't "inject" current into the circuit because you would violate Kirchoff's Current Law. The conductor is not a hose, even though some water analogies work fine for some limited cases.
I believe you could inject a signal, but my point is that the GFCI would not see an imbalance, because this modulating frequency's current would pass through both conductors in the GFCI.
 

mivey

Senior Member
crossman said:
So that newest diagram is relying on capacitance???
I did not really give it much thought, just trying to find a source for the 30 amps that was "injected".

I guess I could have replaced the "AC" with a helicopter, but I really should have had lines from the hot & neutral on the other side of the GFCI . I just threw in a line to offset the current imbalance in the system.

[edit: How about letting the line I added represent the imbalance in the "AC" source? This will give me sufficient wiggle room]
 
Last edited:

ELA

Senior Member
Occupation
Electrical Test Engineer
76nemo said:
I would say yes. You are injecting 30ma of current load side through a resistor/load after the current sensing coil, so there would an imbalance going back through on the ungrounded leg.

I would also say yes it is probable at some particular frequencies.

Mivey,
It is totally possible to "inject" current into a cable.
It is referred to as "RF current injection". It is most commonly used over all conductors and referred to as "RF common mode injection". It is a standard type of ElectroMagnetic Compliance testing.

I used to perform this type of EMC testing in a previous job. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the equipment or I would run the experiment.
It would be interesting to try both differential and common mode injections.

In this testing you sweep the RF frequency and find impedance nodes where the injected current gets high enough to cause the electronics to get upset. It does not necessarily have to be a true differential current imbalance. It could simply be that the RF is too much for the electronics to filter out and you get a "nuisance trip".

Without performing the test I would not say yes for sure, but it is probable.

The point being that anything that includes an electronic circuit can be upset by RF whether injected or induced. When I first joined this forum there were many who believed that there was no such thing as a "nuisance trip" of a GFCI. If you look at the manufacturers specifications and literature you will now see more and more talking about "noise immunity".
Very few actually state the standard and levels that they will withstand however.
 

gar

Senior Member
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Occupation
EE
080722-1435 EST

Sorry I even mentioned the battery in my post #79 because it caused a major diversion.

I have just run two experiments with a Leviton 7899-1 GFCI. The test is injecting an unbalanced current thru the hot in to hot out. In the circuit diagrams above replace the battery with a 6.3 V secondary and a series 560 ohm resistor for the AC test.

With 12 V DC and 2.7 ohms or 4.4 A the current spike is not sufficient to trip the GFCI.
With 6.3 V AC nominal from an isolation filament transformer and 560 ohms or 11 MA the GFCI was tripped.

.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
charlie b said:
Let me offer the possibility that a person might come into contact with an energized portion of a piece of equipment, without there being any contact between that same energized portion and the external metal parts to which the EGC is connected. I know, the case is supposed to be on the outside, and you are not supposed to open the case to reach inside. But it can happen; it has happened.

I changed my views of the nature of fault current and the hazards of commonplace electrical stuff about five or six years ago, when I read a short article from a Chicago area newspaper. I have added this story to the training class that I had developed on the topic of electrical theory. I have also gone on a minor campaign to teach people the importance of installing GFCI protections for all receptacle outlets outdoors (even if the grandfather rule would not require them in your house).

A woman was electrocuted while operating a weed cutting tool in her yard. The grass was wet, and the extension cord had been damaged. The fatal current path was from the breaker panel to the hot pin of the receptacle, through the ungrounded conductor of the extension cord, to the water that had entered through the break in the cord’s insulation, through water or dirt that had accumulated along the outside of the cord, into her hands, through her body, into the dirt beneath her feet, through planet Earth to the ground rod, up the GEC to the service panel, via the N-G bond point back to the service’s grounded conductor. The external case of the tool may or may not have been metal, and the cord may or may not have included a EGC. It would not have mattered. A GFCI would have saved her life, but an EGC would not have.

And accidents resulting in severe injury or death, be they considered "freak accidents" or "plain jane accidents" are tragic events and even with our best efforts, they will continue to happen.

I think most would agree that all available safety means should be in place but, back to the title of the thread, an EGC is not necessary for a GFCI to operate and even with an EGC, electrocution can happen on a GFCI protected circuit.

Roger
 
gar said:
080722-1435 EST

Sorry I even mentioned the battery in my post #79 because it caused a major diversion.

I have just run two experiments with a Leviton 7899-1 GFCI. The test is injecting an unbalanced current thru the hot in to hot out. In the circuit diagrams above replace the battery with a 6.3 V secondary and a series 560 ohm resistor for the AC test.

With 12 V DC and 2.7 ohms or 4.4 A the current spike is not sufficient to trip the GFCI.
With 6.3 V AC nominal from an isolation filament transformer and 560 ohms or 11 MA the GFCI was tripped.

.

Sounds good to me.
 
roger said:
I think most would agree that all available safety means should be in place but, back to the title of the thread, an EGC is not necessary for a GFCI to operate

Agreed.

roger said:
and even with an EGC, electrocution can happen on a GFCI protected circuit.

Roger

I don't think anyone has drawn that conclusion and I respectfully disagree.

A properly functioning GFI/GFCI will always protect against electrocution. That is what is design objective is and it preforms it pretty well as numerous incidents attest to it. I am not aware of any incidents where a properly functioning GFCI had failed to prevent electrocution. Certainly interested any bona-fide, documented event of such if it exist.

For the sake of clarity, lets define electrocution as an electrical shock that may cause temporary or permanent damage, including death, to a human being. (I do not consider being 'stung, or tingling sensation as electrocution.)
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
weressl said:
I don't think anyone has drawn that conclusion and I respectfully disagree.

A properly functioning GFI/GFCI will always protect against electrocution. That is what is design objective is and it preforms it pretty well as numerous incidents attest to it. I am not aware of any incidents where a properly functioning GFCI had failed to prevent electrocution. Certainly interested any bona-fide, documented event of such if it exist.

For the sake of clarity, lets define electrocution as an electrical shock that may cause temporary or permanent damage, including death, to a human being. (I do not consider being 'stung, or tingling sensation as electrocution.)

Laszlo, see post #57 on page 6, think "freak accident" if it helps to visualize it happening in some way, and I am talking about electrocution as in death.

Roger
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
gar said:
With 12 V DC and 2.7 ohms or 4.4 A the current spike is not sufficient to trip the GFCI.
With 6.3 V AC nominal from an isolation filament transformer and 560 ohms or 11 MA the GFCI was tripped.
No suprise there, since transformers don't pass DC (square waves and pulses aside).
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
roger said:
. . . but, back to the title of the thread, an EGC is not necessary for a GFCI to operate . . . .
I agree. And I do not quite understand how that has been called into question.
roger said:
. . . .and even with an EGC, electrocution can happen on a GFCI protected circuit.
weressl said:
I don't think anyone has drawn that conclusion and I respectfully disagree. A properly functioning GFI/GFCI will always protect against electrocution.
I will agree with Roger, only because I can come up with an unlikely circumstance in which it can happen. But I agree with you, in that that is the function of a GFCI, and a properly functioning GFCI will (nearly) always protect against electrocution.

The unlikely circumstance would require that the person be in series with the load, and insulated from planet Earth. This would mean that all current flowing through the person’s body had come from the GFCI device, and all of it was returning to the GFCI device. This also would mean that the circuit had become disconnected in some way, and that the person’s body had somehow made the circuit complete again. One way to get there is to work on a MWBC, to turn off the breaker that serves the load you are working on but not turn off the other breakers that share the same neutral wire (not allowed in 2008 NEC, but it will still be possible for a long time to come), remove the wire cap that serves as the common neutral connection point, and then touch a couple of the wires that had been connected under that cap.

weressl said:
For the sake of clarity, lets define electrocution as an electrical shock that may cause temporary or permanent damage, including death, to a human being.
My dictionary says that electrocution means someone is dead.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
crossman said:
Not if "inject" is taken in the context of "a hypodermic syringe injects a drug into the body".
No, but more like induced, like with the infamous 'phantom voltage' that high-impedance meters read.

One frequency can easily be superimposed on another, which results in a modulated signal. That's what cross-talk is.
 
roger said:
Laszlo, see post #57 on page 6, think "freak accident" if it helps to visualize it happening in some way, and I am talking about electrocution as in death.

Roger

Roger, you are right.

Of course the described incident is outside of the scope of the GFI intended function. It's called the 90% design. That is why I stipulated 'properly functioning'.
 

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
LarryFine said:
No suprise there, since transformers don't pass DC (square waves and pulses aside).

But in this scenario:

ogfci.jpg


With a certain resistance as the load, the graph of the "hot" current" and the "neutral" current would be somewhat as below, and that certainly looks like it would trip a GFCI to me. Yes, the neutral current would have some of the DC current in it also, but not as much as in the hot. We could manipulate that however we wished by the battery and the load.

waves.jpg
 

mivey

Senior Member
ELA said:
I would also say yes it is probable at some particular frequencies.

Mivey,
It is totally possible to "inject" current into a cable.
It is referred to as "RF current injection". It is most commonly used over all conductors and referred to as "RF common mode injection". It is a standard type of ElectroMagnetic Compliance testing.
Injection sounded like crossman's phrase "a hypodermic syringe injects a drug into the body", not adding to the circuit. Is this what you are saying you do?:

Currentinjecthuh.jpg
 

gar

Senior Member
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Occupation
EE
080722-2008 EST

crossman:

Steady state the DC component will be removed by the current transformer. Since we do transfer energy from the battery to the transformer secondary as a transient at the time of turn-on of the battery (connecting) I was expecting with a large enough current pulse that the filtered value might exceed the trigger threshold. But it did not up to the current I used in the test.

.
 

gar

Senior Member
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Occupation
EE
080722-2015 EST

mivey:

With a single closed loop the current in every part has to be the same. Thus, there is no imbalance from your injected current.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top