Range Tripping GFCI (210.8, 555.53)

[ramsy]

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.

Found Dalziel in the Bibliography at # [11], but can't find the discussion, or # 11 citation. Getting lost in all these documents.

A 30ma RCD provides the same protection as a GFCI in their view.

Can you quote the argument from the authority you describe, to substantiate this equivalence.

 

[tortuga]

Found Dalziel in the Bibliography at # [11], but can't find the discussion, or # 11 citation. Getting lost in all these documents.

Can you quote the argument from the authority you describe, to substantiate this equivalence.

I quoted Eaton in Post 73

Note:
It might appear that the higher the sensitivity the better.
Highly sensitive RCD are very likely to frequent tripping due to
leaking currents and their contribution to safety is not high. In
case of a human being’s contact with a live part, current will pass
through the body, being only limited by the body’s impedance, and
the residual current device will only react after certain time (10 -
- 30 milliseconds). 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 10 or
30 mA is applied.

The intent of a RCD is clearly the same as our 'Class A' protection, not GFPE, they are very concerned with that other pleases as well.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

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.

Nothing in the code ever specifies who does the actual product listing. That would be an antitrust issue for any unit of government that adopted the code.

Who does the actual evaluation and listing of the product is totally different from who writes the product standard. UL 943 is the product standard that ALL GFCIs are listed too, no mater what testing agency does the listing. The vast majority of the products used in NEC applications are listed to product standards written by UL. There is no other GFCI listing standard that can be used.
UL is one of the few agencies that both write product standards and evaluate equipment to standards. CSA and FM are also both ANSI standard writing organizations and product listing agecies.

Article 100
Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI).
A device intended for the protection of personnel that functions to de-energize a circuit or portion thereof within an established period of time when a ground-fault current exceeds the values established for a Class A device. (CMP-2)
Informational Note:
See UL 943, Standard for Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters, for further information. Class A ground-fault circuit interrupters trip when the ground-fault current is 6 mA or higher and do not trip when the ground-fault current is less than 4 mA.

What makes you suggest the some companies consider a 30mA trip to be Class A protection.??? Yes it is personnel protection per the standard that applies in other countries, but they do not use the term Class A.

As far as referenced product standards becoming public domain, I think that would happen only of the standard was referenced in an actual code rule. A of the references to product standards are in Informational Notes, and there is even Informational Annex A which lists pretty much every product standard that applies to NEC installations. They are almost all UL product standards, but there are a few IEEE, CSA and NEMA standards in the list.

 

[tortuga]

There is no other GFCI listing standard that can be used.

Says who?

 

[ramsy]

Because if the NEC references UL 943 then UL 943 would become public, as its then a law adopted by reference.

UL 943 appears in NEC Informational Notes

NEC 517.21 Informational Note:
For information on the supply connection of life-support equipment to circuits providing ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) protection of personnel at outlets, see ANSI/UL 943-2018, Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters, Annex E, and, in accordance with 110.3(B), the manufacturers' installation instructions of listed ground-fault circuit interrupters.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Says who?

Show me a listing standard for GFCIs that is not UL 943

 

[tortuga]

Show me a listing standard for GFCIs that is not UL 943

Don you said there is nothing in the NEC definition that say 5ma, UL 943 or anything like that.
There is nothing saying that there can't be two or more standards that meet NEC GFCI Class A, you would need to point to somewhere in the code where it says there can only be one listing standard.
All it says in the NEC definition is 'Class A protection', which is a undefined term, a AHJ such as the State of California is free to decide for themselves that IEC/EN 61008 RCD also provides 'Class A protection', because they can define the term.
It is factually incorrect to say a RCD does not provide shock protection for personnel and say they are the same as our GFPE breakers (because they have the same trip level or whatever).

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don you said your self there is nothing in the NEC definition that say 5ma, UL 943 or anything like that.
There is nothing saying that there can't be two or more standards that meet NEC GFCI Class A, you would need to point to some where in the code where it say there can only be one listing standard.
All it says in the NEC definition is 'Class A protection', which is a undefined term, a AHJ such as the State of California is free to decide for themselves that IEC/EN 61008 RCD also provides 'Class A protection', becasue they can define the term.
It is factually incorrect to say a RCD does not provide shock protection for personnel and say they are the same as our GFPE breakers.

I only asked for you to show me another GFCI product listing standard. There is not one. The various world standards organizations work together to not have duplicate product standards.

As far as the definition of a Class A device, the parent text of Article 100 says:

Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards.

I see that as saying you look to UL 943 for the definition of a Class A GFCI and it does not need to be repeated in the NEC.

I don't think I have ever said the an RCD does not provide shock protection, but I have said they do not provide shock protection as required by the NEC.

I have also not said they are the same as GFPE as the product standard for RCDs has a maximum time to trip and the product standard for GFPE does not. The GFPE standard doesn't even specify a maximum trip current. A ground fault trip device without specifed maximum time to trip cannot provide personnel protection, and the harm to a human is based both on the current flow and how long that current is permitted to flow.

Given how they do things in California, I think it would be far more likely for them to set a maximum trip current of some impossible number such as 1mA that to raise it above 6 mA

 

[ramsy]

I quoted Eaton in Post 73

The intent of a RCD is clearly the same as our 'Class A' protection, not GFPE, they are very concerned with..

This is a start, but other sources of authority will improve substantiation.

The Eaton chart quoted in post 73 may summarize the studies, but authority is recognized by citations.

Citation [13] for this chart is one example of authority, and an argument that uses the chart would cite the authority.
[13] IEC 60364-4-41 (2005), Low-voltage electrical installations - Part 4-41: Protection for safety - Protection against electric shock..

Another example of authority is Gotfried Biegelmeier's work, pg. # 3 & 4 of your RCD Application Guide
[1] Biegelmeier G.: Liber amicorum – liber inimicis, Wien, ESF, 2000

This foreign language citation would need some translation for a Standards proposal, and NFPA code panel members.

The Bibliography authority referenced in [9],[10] are in English, but those citations don't exist in the document.

[9] IEC/TS 60479-1: (2013) Effect of current on human beings and livestock – Part1: General aspects
[10] IEC/TS 60479-2: (2014) Effect of current on human beings and livestock – Part 2: Special aspects

 

[tortuga]

I only asked for you to show me another GFCI product listing standard.

Weather there is or is not is irrelevant, there could be, the fact is UL does not have a monopoly over the NEC like most think.
And I think we agree on that?

Given how they do things in California, I think it would be far more likely for them to set a maximum trip current of some impossible number such as 1mA that to raise it above 6 mA

Yeah LOL don't know why I picked them, make that Nevada or Colorado or any other state.

 

[tortuga]

This is a start

Thank you @ramsy for actually reading it

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Weather there is or is not is irrelevant, there could be, the fact is UL does not have a monopoly over the NEC like most think.
And I think we agree on that?


Yeah LOL don't know why I picked them, make that Nevada or Colorado or any other state.

As far as listing products, I agree, but as far as being a Standards Developement Organization that writes and publishes standards that products are listed to, I do not agree. Well over 90% of the product standards that are used to list products used for NEC applications are written by UL.

In looking at the list of acredited Standards Writing Organizations at ANSI, there are a very few that could possibly write a competitive standard to UL 943, and I am not sure that ANSI would even permit that. American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the organization that writes the rules for the development of standards and acredits the organizations that can write such standards.

 

[ramsy]

Thank you @ramsy for actually reading it

Removing xFCI devices with incompatible-inverter appliances is one cause for increased hazards, simple enough for fire marshals, or insurance investigators to prove.

State insurance codes are written to Non-Renew & Cancel home owners who create "increased hazards," not insured against.

With NFPA & Standards bodies heavily stacked with insurance-industry representatives, fixing incompatible appliances would take away that home owner liability, which ensures profit from premiums, without paying claims, in perpetuity.

Eventually home owners will need a class action to finance the drawn out court battle against the Bad Faith insurance practice.

Courts would require recognized authority during arguments, and proof of corrupt code-making panels rejecting that authority.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Removing xFCI devices with incompatible-inverter appliances is one cause for increased hazards, simple enough for fire marshals, or insurance investigators to prove.

State insurance codes are written to Non-Renew & Cancel home owners who create "increased hazards," not insured against.

With NFPA & Standards bodies heavily stacked with insurance-industry representatives, fixing incompatible appliances would take away that home owner liability, which ensures profit from premiums, without paying claims, in perpetuity.

Eventually home owners will need a class action to finance the drawn out court battle against the Bad Faith insurance practice.

Courts would require recognized authority during arguments, and proof of corrupt code-making panels rejecting that authority.

Where do you find that? Of the 18 code making panels, Panel 14 is the only one who has a principal member that represents the "I" category.

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. A number of

1. Manufacturer (M): A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof, that is affected by the standard.
2. User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard.
3. Installer/Maintainer (I/M): A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product, assembly, or system affected by the standard.
4. Labor (L): A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace.
5. Applied Research/Testing Laboratory (R/T): A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
6. Enforcing Authority (E): A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards.
   
   Note: The Enforcer Funding Program provides funding for NFPA Technical Committee participation for certain public sector Committee members who have been designated by the NFPA Standards Council, for purposes of committee balance, in the category of “Enforcing Authority (E)” (“Enforcers”).
7. Insurance (I): A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency.
8. Consumer (C): A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the standard, but who is not included in (2).
9. Special Expert (SE): A person not representing (1) through (8), and who has special expertise in the scope of the standard or portion thereof.
10. Utility (UT): This classification is used specifically for the National Electrical Code project.

 

[ramsy]

Where do you find that? Of the 18 code making panels, Panel 14 is the only one who has a principal member that represents the "I" category.

Surprised to see category "I" slacking in their representation this cycle.

In 2017 panel 19 was chaired by NC State Dpt. of Insurance, and NECA / IBEW, IAEI appeared more frequent than other groups.

 

[ramsy]

Courts would require recognized authority during arguments, and proof of corrupt code-making panels rejecting that authority.

It took about 2 weeks after that 8/24/24 comment in post #113 for NFPA damage control to demand class action indemnity on 9/5/24.

NFPA Link - blocks subscriptions to demand indemnity

If you haven't signed into NFPA link lately, take a look: link.nfpa.org/publications/ Wonder what prompted blocking subscriptions, to force signing a new EULA that includes a class action waiver? "NFPA LiNK® End User License Agreement In order to use this subscription service.. YOU ..WAIVE ANY...

forums.mikeholt.com

 

[NEC Inspector]

Local inspector for a municipality in a home-rule state.

Contractor has a range installed that is tripping the GFCI breaker. The range is on a wood floor over wood floor joists, and insulated from all grounding paths - not near any grounded appliances, water pipes, etc. We removed and capped the equipment grounding conductor from the receptacle, and bonded the ground screw on the receptacle to the neutral screw on the receptacle (just for testing purposes).

It still trips the GFCI breaker. In this set-up, there is nowhere for leakage current to go except back on the neutral. By this test, I conclude that leakage currents or ground-faults are not what is causing the GFCI breaker to trip. Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion?

I only have two theories proposed by different electricians that could explain the tripping if it's not leakage current.

One electrician has proposed that the GFCI breakers might trip sooner than regular breakers because of overcurrent conditions, and that the range pulls just enough amps to trip the GFCI breaker when the oven is starting up, but not enough to trip a regular breaker in the amount of time it takes the load to stabilize down to a lower draw. The trip curves (attached in the pdfs) do seem to indicate that GFCI breakers trip a little faster than regular breakers do under overcurrent conditions, but is it enough to matter?

Theory number two is that the unbalanced load from the timer assembly is causing the GFCI to trip. In that case, you would not be able to use a double-pole GFCI breaker for multiwire branch circuits, because there would always be unbalanced loads going on. I have heard that this might be the case, but I have no experience with double-pole GFCI breakers on multiwire circuits. Nobody uses multiwire circuits here, and if they did they would be unlikely to install GFCI at the breaker rather than the receptacle. Is this a reasonable theory?

Seems like everyone on the internet has a theory, but I can't prove any of them. The moisture in the coils is a good theory, but bonding the grounds/neutrals like we did should have eliminated that problem from tripping the breaker.

Any help you could give would be appreciated. As a home-rule municipality, we have the ability to influence adopted codes, so if I can figure out what is going on, it would be much easier to make accommodations.

 

[d0nut]

One electrician has proposed that the GFCI breakers might trip sooner than regular breakers because of overcurrent conditions, and that the range pulls just enough amps to trip the GFCI breaker when the oven is starting up, but not enough to trip a regular breaker in the amount of time it takes the load to stabilize down to a lower draw. The trip curves (attached in the pdfs) do seem to indicate that GFCI breakers trip a little faster than regular breakers do under overcurrent conditions, but is it enough to matter?

This seems very unlikely. The breaker curves you have shown won't trip in the instantaneous region for 5 to 8 times the rating of the breaker. I don't believe that a range will draw several hundred amps when starting, but a recording meter would give you a definitive answer.

Theory number two is that the unbalanced load from the timer assembly is causing the GFCI to trip. In that case, you would not be able to use a double-pole GFCI breaker for multiwire branch circuits, because there would always be unbalanced loads going on. I have heard that this might be the case, but I have no experience with double-pole GFCI breakers on multiwire circuits. Nobody uses multiwire circuits here, and if they did they would be unlikely to install GFCI at the breaker rather than the receptacle. Is this a reasonable theory?

This theory is wrong. The GFCI will have a CT or multiple CTs to measure the phase and neutral conductor currents and sum them together. In a normally operation system, the sum of those currents is zero. Unbalanced load doesn't matter, the two phase conductors and the neutral will still sum to zero. This is why you must use a 2-pole GFCI breaker for a multiwire branch circuit. If you tried to use two single pole GFCI breakers, you could not get them to properly sum all of the conductors in the multiwire branch circuit and the imbalance in loading would be seen as a ground fault and the breakers would trip.

Does the breaker trip as soon as it is turned on? Does it only trip when the range is turned on? How long does it take to trip? Does the breaker have a trip indication to tell you if it is tripping on ground fault or on something else? The problem doesn't necessarily have to be at the range. A ground fault or inadvertent neutral/ground bond anywhere in that circuit would cause the GFCI breaker to trip.

 

[winnie]

1) Double pole GFCIs sense current on both the hots and the neutral, and work correctly with unbalanced L-N loads and MWBCs. However this is only the case if the circuit neutral is connected to the GFCI neutral terminal on the breaker, not to the neutral bar.

If the circuit neutral is run to the neutral bar, then the GFCI won't properly sense the neutral and will trip.

2) Even with the range on a wood floor with the EGC disconnected, there is still a leakage path, but only through the high resistance of the wood.

Jonathan

 

[NEC Inspector]

Does it only trip when the range is turned on? How long does it take to trip?

No, usually takes 3-5 minutes or more. The electrician who proposed this theory had not looked at the trip curves, he just noticed that the stove was supposed to be on a 50 amp breaker per manufacturer, but was pulling 54-55 amps as it was coming up to cooking temperature.

Does the breaker have a trip indication to tell you if it is tripping on ground fault or on something else?

I don't think so, it's a Square D Homeline 2-pole 50 amp GFCI breaker. If it does indicate, I don't know how to read it.

The problem doesn't necessarily have to be at the range. A ground fault or inadvertent neutral/ground bond anywhere in that circuit would cause the GFCI breaker to trip.

Wouldn't anything happening between the range and the breaker would trip immediately when power is turned on? We have found no evidence of this, and the wire is run through the floor joists of an unfinished basement, so we can see it pretty much everywhere.

Makes sense that 2-pole GFCI's can handle unbalanced load, seems to be an obvious thing to consider when designing such a breaker. The only places I found where people thought otherwise were DIY forums, but I did not have the experience to know if that was correct.

2) Even with the range on a wood floor with the EGC disconnected, there is still a leakage path, but only through the high resistance of the wood.

5 milliamps to trip a GFCI at 120v comes out to 24,000 ohms of resistance, with field conditions to take into account. Is there a way I could try to measure the resistance to see if that is feasible in this case? Maybe from the case of the stove to a nearby grounded outlet?