Range Tripping GFCI (210.8, 555.53)

[ramsy]

At the moment of contact with a live part, the person will be hit by a full electric surge and it makes virtually no difference if a residual current device with a sensitivity of 5, 10 , 20 or 30 mA is applied.

WWEST 110v Class II RCD may work better than GFCI & AFCI, but its a din rail companion not adopted by North American OEM's.
www.ecdonline.com.au/content/electrical-distribution/article/rcd-innovation-promises-electrical-safety-improvements-1097502870

30ma GFPE breaker would provide all the protection needed to protect persons from shock, and, based on their papers, I think the MFR's think so too Eaton, Siemens and ABB alredy make RCD's and GFPE breakers.

The same industry that leverage their NFPA code-panel appointments, to adopt 2-Pole GFCI's, AFCI's, and SPD's, will likely block RCD devices, with intellectual property owned by competitors.

 

[kwired]

GFCI technology has been around for almost 50 years, so isn't it the 'new' energy saving devices that need the redesign?

I agree with that. I also disagree that some the areas where GFCI requirements have been expanded to since about 2011 NEC were all that justified though.

Kind of started with water coolers/drinking fountains and dishwashers being some my first items to question. Was there much shock/electrocution incidents with those items to justify GFCI protection? I kind of doubt it. Many the drinking fountains have (had) the receptacle placed so it is hidden when the appliance is in place, not much risk there to have a missing EGC pin on that cord that rarely gets unplugged. Dishwashers was supposed to be because of a defect that possibly starts fires - something that should have been addressed with product recalls and not NEC changes IMO.

Then they went to receptacle items that are supplied by two and three pole breakers - again not much history of losing EGC pins on cord caps on most of those compared to the 5-15 cord caps that some fall off if you just tilt your head while looking at them. About had to be manufacturer representatives that help push those particular changes with no real world reason why it needs to be that way.

 

[kwired]

I agree with that. I also disagree that some the areas where GFCI requirements have been expanded to since about 2011 NEC were all that justified though.

Kind of started with water coolers/drinking fountains and dishwashers being some my first items to question. Was there much shock/electrocution incidents with those items to justify GFCI protection? I kind of doubt it. Many the drinking fountains have (had) the receptacle placed so it is hidden when the appliance is in place, not much risk there to have a missing EGC pin on that cord that rarely gets unplugged. Dishwashers was supposed to be because of a defect that possibly starts fires - something that should have been addressed with product recalls and not NEC changes IMO.

Then they went to receptacle items that are supplied by two and three pole breakers - again not much history of losing EGC pins on cord caps on most of those compared to the 5-15 cord caps that some fall off if you just tilt your head while looking at them. About had to be manufacturer representatives that help push those particular changes with no real world reason why it needs to be that way.

Then along with what I said at the end there comes existing products that never were required to meet low enough leakage requirements to be compatible with GFCI's and all the trouble that creates.

 

[kwired]

One big obstacle to overcome, it's the 5ma that will stop your heart.

Is an obstacle with class A GFCI as well. They are effective simply because they usually trip before anyone actually is shocked. But if you happen to be in the circuit, you are subject to 120 volts passing through whatever resistance your body has at that moment. Well over 5 mA is possible. A GFCI is not current limiting it simply has a trip point that must be reached before trip process begins. Then you still subject to clearing time being a factor to total energy that passes through you before circuit is opened.

 

[macmikeman]

Most electrical inspectors wont be hanging around on jobs after final inspections have passed. Wink wink....................

 

[ramsy]

Then you still subject to clearing time being a factor to total energy that passes through you before circuit is opened.

If your life depends on safety devices, you won't last long, since defibrillators are rarely available.

When body resistance converts short circuit current to heat, GFCI outlets may trip before thermal-magnetic breakers, and RCD devices may trip before both, but Ventricular fibrillation can occur waiting for either device to clear shocks that traverse the heart.

Several cycles of 60Hz short circuit current may be plenty of time, and magnitude, to require a defibrillator to safe your life.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

WWEST 110v Class II RCD may work better than GFCI & AFCI, but its a din rail companion not adopted by North American OEM's.
www.ecdonline.com.au/content/electrical-distribution/article/rcd-innovation-promises-electrical-safety-improvements-1097502870

The same industry that leverage their NFPA code-panel appointments, to adopt 2-Pole GFCI's, AFCI's, and SPD's, will likely block RCD devices, with intellectual property owned by competitors.

Pretty much all of the manufacturers are multinational and they all have RCD products.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If your life depends on safety devices, you won't last long, since defibrillators are rarely available.

When body resistance converts short circuit current to heat, GFCI outlets may trip before thermal-magnetic breakers, and RCD devices may trip before both, but Ventricular fibrillation can occur waiting for either device to clear shocks that traverse the heart.

Several cycles of 60Hz short circuit current may be plenty of time, and magnitude, to require a defibrillator to safe your life.

The difference is the let go current. Between 5 and 30 mA a person may not be able to let go of the energized part and the RCD does not look at ground fault currents below 30 mA. However, the typically trip time of a RCD is 1/4 of a second. The maximum permitted trip time of a GFCI is the quantity (20/fault current in milliamps) raised to the 1.43 power. No GFCI has a trip time anywhere near the maximum permitted. If it did, the you would have to hold the test button for about 4 seconds.

It is just our standards are based on a let go current and the European standards are based on ventricular fibrillation.

 

[kwired]

Pretty much all of the manufacturers are multinational and they all have RCD products.

Breaker/panels are mostly down to 4 manufacturers for North American market products, with the product Leviton has more recently came out with being a fifth. Those big four are global companies with many other products out there

 

[ramsy]

Pretty much all of the manufacturers are multinational and they all have RCD products.

Business decisions may double down on GFCI, rather than pay licensing to WWEST 110v RCD, or develop their own 110v version of RCD that complies with UL 943.

 

[ramsy]

It is just our standards are based on a let go current and the European standards are based on ventricular fibrillation.

Thank you for clarifying that difference.

So, having a 110v RCD won't pass UL 943, until it gets re-designed for the 6mA limit?

 

[kwired]

Thank you for clarifying that difference.

So, having a 110v RCD won't pass UL 943, until it gets re-designed for the 6mA limit?

Is there a UL standard for RCD's?

It is not the same thing as a class A GFCI and is not really anything recognized by North American wiring codes either. If the manufacturers wanted to push this item to be used in North America, we would already be required to be using them. They chose AFCI and GFCI to be the standard to use in North America and you can bet there is likely a financial reason for it.

 

[ramsy]

Is there a UL standard for RCD

UL 1053 is one 30mA GFPE standard for RCD, different from UL 943 for 6mA GFCI.

 

[kwired]

UL 1053 is one 30mA GFPE standard for RCD, different from UL 943 for 6mA GFCI.

And NEC has few places that require GFPE protection yet many places that require GFCI protection.

 

[ramsy]

They chose AFCI and GFCI to be the standard to use in North America and you can bet there is likely a financial reason for it.

Roger that, substantiating UL 1053 adoption as a suitable substitute for UL 943, must be approved by xFCI industry appointed panel members.

It is just our standards are based on a let go current and the European standards are based on ventricular fibrillation.

European standards for 30mA RCD based on ventricular fibrillation, may include UL 1053 and IEC/EN 61008, among other standards developed for Type F RCD for inverters, or Type B RCD for direct current, not possible with 6mA GFCI based on let go current, and UL 943.

 

[tortuga]

The difference is the let go current. Between 5 and 30 mA a person may not be able to let go of the energized part and the RCD does not look at ground fault currents below 30 mA. However, the typically trip time of a RCD is 1/4 of a second. The maximum permitted trip time of a GFCI is the quantity (20/fault current in milliamps) raised to the 1.43 power. No GFCI has a trip time anywhere near the maximum permitted. If it did, the you would have to hold the test button for about 4 seconds.

It is just our standards are based on a let go current and the European standards are based on ventricular fibrillation.

Thats what we've been taught, and yeah thats what UL says, but thats not what the rest of the world concluded.
If you look at the Eaton PDF I posted that explains RCD's as UL, I think you'll find they disagree, and thats myth.
The IEC 60479 - 1 used the same Dazel study in the development of RCD's the thing is the IEC has been doing ongoing published research up as recently as 2016, and the UL basis for 5ma is based on one study from the 1950's the Dalziel study.
A 30ma RCD provides the same protection as a GFCI in their view.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

UL 1053 is one 30mA GFPE standard for RCD, different from UL 943 for 6mA GFCI.

UL 1053 is not a stand alone GFPE device. It is a sensor and relay system designed to be used with shunt trip breakers and other electrically tripped disconnecting devices. Nothing in UL 1053 sets any ground fault current trip levels. That standard covers a wide range of equipment including the type of equipment required by 230.95.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thats what we've been taught, and yeah thats what UL says, but thats not what the rest of the world concluded.
If you look at the Eaton PDF I posted that explains RCD's as UL, I think you'll find they disagree, and thats myth.
The IEC 60479 - 1 used the same Dazel study in the development of RCD's the thing is the IEC has been doing ongoing published research up as recently as 2016, and the UL basis for 5ma is based on one study from the 1950's the Dalziel study.
A 30ma RCD provides the same protection as a GFCI in their view.

So get our standards changed because their view has no validity in the NEC world at this time.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thank you for clarifying that difference.

So, having a 110v RCD won't pass UL 943, until it gets re-designed for the 6mA limit?

UL 943 sets a must not trip level of 4 mA and below and must trip level of 6mA and above, and a permitted trip between 4 and 6 mA for Class A GFCIs. If the trips are outside that range it can not be a Class A GFCI.

 

[tortuga]

So get our standards changed because their view has no validity in the NEC world at this time.

The funny thing is the definition of a GFCI just says Class A device, Not UL 943.
Class A is undefined in the NEC.
Very few parts of the code say you have to use a UL listing, they say a listing, but not UL.
Because if the NEC references UL 943 then UL 943 would become public, as its then a law adopted by reference.
Eaton, Siemens the rest of the world consider RCD Class A protection from shock, not just equipment, so the NEC is not married to UL 943, all it would take is one large state AHJ like California to do a study to verify IEC/EN 61008 RCD also provides Class A protection.
The manufacturers could simply re-calibrate existing 30ma breakers to meet IEC/EN 61008.