Sauna GFCI?

[kwired]

It looks like they plan on incorporating sp gfci protection for listed hvac equipment once the tia expires and seeing either class A or SP GFCI protection as acceptable . I wonder if there are conditions as to which one will be acceptable based on the load pf the equipment may Don can provide clarity

Seems there will still be trouble with existing older HVAC equipment that won't be compatible with GFCI technology should you need to relocate or run new branch circuit to it for whatever reason. I think the biggest issue is with units with VFD driven compressors and/or blowers. I don't see them making a GFCI that will discriminate against the high frequency leakage as much as I can see the HVAC manufacturers designing their equipment to have less leakage when it comes to making these units and GFCI's compatible if they want such protection on them.

 

[Jaybone812]

Seems there will still be trouble with existing older HVAC equipment that won't be compatible with GFCI technology should you need to relocate or run new branch circuit to it for whatever reason. I think the biggest issue is with units with VFD driven compressors and/or blowers. I don't see them making a GFCI that will discriminate against the high frequency leakage as much as I can see the HVAC manufacturers designing their equipment to have less leakage when it comes to making these units and GFCI's compatible if they want such protection on them.

I agree which is why I feel they may have inserted “.gfci or spgfci protection “ , I’m not familiar enough with spgfci devices to accurately speak about therm but I believe their leakage threshold is upwards of 15 ma as apposed to the 4-6 ma threshold of class a devices. But I was under the assumption they were restricted to be used to protect circuits with voltages exceeding 150 volts to ground

 

[kwired]

I agree which is why I feel they may have inserted “.gfci or spgfci protection “ , I’m not familiar enough with spgfci devices to accurately speak about therm but I believe their leakage threshold is upwards of 15 ma as apposed to the 4-6 ma threshold of class a devices. But I was under the assumption they were restricted to be used to protect circuits with voltages exceeding 150 volts to ground

I don't know enough about them either, but if they get away from the 4-6 mA threshold of class A protection - which they are rather reluctant to do, they could eliminate a lot of GFCI incompatibility issues. I'm still in favor of class A protection on receptacles, particularly 5-15 and 5-20 receptacles where equipment grounding is easily compromised by bad/missing pins on cord plugs. Most everything else missing EGC is usually not so much user accidental in nature and is more ignorance or even deliberate actions by an installer.

 

[Jaybone812]

I don't know enough about them either, but if they get away from the 4-6 mA threshold of class A protection - which they are rather reluctant to do, they could eliminate a lot of GFCI incompatibility issues. I'm still in favor of class A protection on receptacles, particularly 5-15 and 5-20 receptacles where equipment grounding is easily compromised by bad/missing pins on cord plugs. Most everything else missing EGC is usually not so much user accidental in nature and is more ignorance or even deliberate actions by an installer.

that’s how I feel as well , I’m in favor of almost all of the increased requirements for class a protection , but i don’t see all outdoor hvac equipment being class A compatible by 2026 as realistic . I understand why they are making that move and no matter how strict UL makes any product testing guidelines, there’s no way to account for all Human error whether deliberate or accidental , and maybe the death of the young boy all those years ago when coming in contact with that equipment that was missing a egc, would not have happened if the unit had class A protection and the device interrupted the circuit before let go current became a factor but I think comparability will remain a issue regardless of any positive effect it could hsve on safety

 

[don_resqcapt19]

that’s how I feel as well , I’m in favor of almost all of the increased requirements for class a protection , but i don’t see all outdoor hvac equipment being class A compatible by 2026 as realistic . I understand why they are making that move and no matter how strict UL makes any product testing guidelines, there’s no way to account for all Human error whether deliberate or accidental , and maybe the death of the young boy all those years ago when coming in contact with that equipment that was missing a egc, would not have happened if the unit had class A protection and the device interrupted the circuit before let go current became a factor but I think comparability will remain a issue regardless of any positive effect it could hsve on safety

A single case of a death as a result of an installation that was not in compliance with the NEC is not a reason to put GFCIs on hard wired equipment.
Yes it is tragic and yes a GFCI probably would have prevented that death, but not enough to require it for all equipment of that type. Where do you draw the line for providing additional protection for installations that are not code compliant. Maybe everything needs to be 12 volt DC to eliminate the shock hazard.

The product standards, until very recently, did not even have leakage current requirements because the code required EGC will take care of that issue. Even some of the modified ones for hard wired equipment still have permitted leakage currents that exceed the ~5mA trip point of a GFCI.

 

[Jaybone812]

A single case of a death as a result of an installation that was not in compliance with the NEC is not a reason to put GFCIs on hard wired equipment.
Yes it is tragic and yes a GFCI probably would have prevented that death, but not enough to require it for all equipment of that type. Where do you draw the line for providing additional protection for installations that are not code compliant. Maybe everything needs to be 12 volt DC to eliminate the shock hazard.

The product standards, until very recently, did not even have leakage current requirements because the code required EGC will take care of that issue. Even some of the modified ones for hard wired equipment still have permitted leakage currents that exceed the ~5mA trip point of a GFCI.

I maybe misspoke in my comment , but I wasn’t suggesting his death was the only reason or even factored into the equation for requiring gfci protection for hardwired utilization equipment , I haven’t researched it nearly enough to say exactly what led to this requirement was just making a point that no matter how strict it the process becomes for equipment meet the standard to aquire product listing , there’s no way to account for all forms of human error because you can’t fix stupid and you can’t prevent people from being careless or doing stupid shit , so even though provide a condenser with class A protection may reduce the risk of hazard , come 2026 when the exception expires I think there still will be comparability issues, and instead allow GFPE with a higher leakage threshold to be accepted as the required protection resulting in less compatibility issues

 

[gene6]

There was a backyard Sauna like that caught fire north of me a week or so ago, from what I herd the breaker was still energized when the FD got there;

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Seems there will still be trouble with existing older HVAC equipment that won't be compatible with GFCI technology should you need to relocate or run new branch circuit to it for whatever reason. I think the biggest issue is with units with VFD driven compressors and/or blowers. I don't see them making a GFCI that will discriminate against the high frequency leakage as much as I can see the HVAC manufacturers designing their equipment to have less leakage when it comes to making these units and GFCI's compatible if they want such protection on them.

UL 943 voted a few weeks ago to approve a change in the standard to include GFCI-HF. Not sure how long it will take to reach the market.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There was a backyard Sauna like that caught fire north of me a week or so ago, from what I herd the breaker was still energized when the FD got there;
View attachment 2575557

If that was a standard thermal magnetic breaker having it not trip in a fire is not uncommon. Often the charred insulation is not conductive enough to trip a thermal magnetic breaker, but would expect a GFCI to trip if any of the wiring was involved in the fire.

 

[tortuga]

If that was a standard thermal magnetic breaker having it not trip in a fire is not uncommon. Often the charred insulation is not conductive enough to trip a thermal magnetic breaker, but would expect a GFCI to trip if any of the wiring was involved in the fire.

Thats why I like the GFPE breaker for a Suana.

 

[kwired]

UL 943 voted a few weeks ago to approve a change in the standard to include GFCI-HF. Not sure how long it will take to reach the market.

Isn't the high frequency what is driving the leakage beyond the 4-6 mA of leakage in the first place? If so what are they going to do besides raise the trip threshold, introduce some high tech like they did with AFCI's that nobody can understand and they still won't work on certain items as the signature they produce isn't recognized by the protection device? Seems if they want lower level fault protection it would be best to just go to what already works - 30 mA GFPE protection.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I maybe misspoke in my comment , but I wasn’t suggesting his death was the only reason or even factored into the equation for requiring gfci protection for hardwired utilization equipment , I haven’t researched it nearly enough to say exactly what led to this requirement was just making a point that no matter how strict it the process becomes for equipment meet the standard to aquire product listing , there’s no way to account for all forms of human error because you can’t fix stupid and you can’t prevent people from being careless or doing stupid shit , so even though provide a condenser with class A protection may reduce the risk of hazard , come 2026 when the exception expires I think there still will be comparability issues, and instead allow GFPE with a higher leakage threshold to be accepted as the required protection resulting in less compatibility issues

Everything I have read about the adoption of 210.8(F) showed that single event was the only real substantiation.

I have seen nothing to convince me that any type of ground fault protection is needed for hard wired equipment. No need for a ground fault device with a higher trip current. Just let the EGC do its job. If the fault current is high enough to cause a voltage drop on the EGC that would be hazardous, the current seen by the OCPD should be high enough to put the device in the instantaneous trip part of the time trip curve.
If the current on the EGC is leakage current of some sort and not fault current, the only voltage to drive a shock at the equipment would be the voltage drop on the EGC caused by the flowing leakage current. Even if the leakage current is a few amps, there will be no shock hazard.

 

[kwired]

I have seen nothing to convince me that any type of ground fault protection is needed for hard wired equipment. No need for a ground fault device with a higher trip current. Just let the EGC do its job.

That has been my opinion when they first added dishwashers to the list of items requiring GFCI protection as well as most 240 volt receptacle applications. I can't think of any time I have seen failed EGC pin on a 30-50 amp plug and really not so much if ever seen failure on 6-15 or 6-20 EGC pins either even though they are similar in design as 5-15 and 5-20 that do turn up missing often.

The dishwasher from what I have read initially was triggered by product defect that had nothing to do with protecting users from shock potential and should have been addressed by recalls from appliance manufacturers instead of making code changes.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Isn't the high frequency what is driving the leakage beyond the 4-6 mA of leakage in the first place? If so what are they going to do besides raise the trip threshold, introduce some high tech like they did with AFCI's that nobody can understand and they still won't work on certain items as the signature they produce isn't recognized by the protection device? Seems if they want lower level fault protection it would be best to just go to what already works - 30 mA GFPE protection.

Yes, it is the higher frequencies that are the issue. The optional HF rating uses the fact that high frequency currents are less dangerous to humans and will permit a higher trip current for the high frequency current. In terms of the effect on a human, 38.5 mA at 10kHZ is equivalent to 6 mA at 60 HZ and 53mA is the 6mA equivalent at 15k HZ. The standard will not tell the manufacturers how to design the new HF rated GFCI, but just specify the maximum permitted trip currents at the high frequencies. There is a curve in the revised standard for the manufacturers to work with.
One think I don't like is that the HF is an optional rating, so we will have standard GFCIs and HF GFCIs on the market...with the cost of the HF ones likely to be higher than the standard ones, we wil continue to have these issues because everyone wants cheaper.

I sit on UL 943 and wanted to vote no on the new requirements because they will be optional, however, the panel has been working on this for over 6 years now so I voted yes just to get the manufacturers started on the new design for HF

 

[Jaybone812]

Everything I have read about the adoption of 210.8(F) showed that single event was the only real substantiation.

I have seen nothing to convince me that any type of ground fault protection is needed for hard wired equipment. No need for a ground fault device with a higher trip current. Just let the EGC do its job. If the fault current is high enough to cause a voltage drop on the EGC that would be hazardous, the current seen by the OCPD should be high enough to put the device in the instantaneous trip part of the time trip curve.
If the current on the EGC is leakage current of some sort and not fault current, the only voltage to drive a shock at the equipment would be the voltage drop on the EGC caused by the flowing leakage current. Even if the leakage current is a few amps, there will be no shock hazard.

You’re absolutely right . That’s why i said I have no problem with most increased requirements for class a protection , and wirh most I mean I’m in favor of anything cord and plug regardless of voltage . And wasn’t aware the one death was the only thing for to substantiate the change , but that was just deliberate human error there’s no way you acccidentally miss a egc if it’s initially accidentally you see it eventually, but I’m in total agreement with juts letting the egc do its job

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That has been my opinion when they first added dishwashers to the list of items requiring GFCI protection as well as most 240 volt receptacle applications. I can't think of any time I have seen failed EGC pin on a 30-50 amp plug and really not so much if ever seen failure on 6-15 or 6-20 EGC pins either even though they are similar in design as 5-15 and 5-20 that do turn up missing often.

The dishwasher from what I have read initially was triggered by product defect that had nothing to do with protecting users from shock potential and should have been addressed by recalls from appliance manufacturers instead of making code changes.

Yes the dishwasher GFCI was related to end of life fires in one brand of dishwasher. As I recall the proposal did not cite a shock hazard, only a fire hazard.

All of the original GFCI requirements were only based on the fact that the ground pin on 15 and 20 amp cords is often missing. I agree that is not near as big of problem with high ampacity plugs.

 

[kwired]

Yes, it is the higher frequencies that are the issue. The optional HF rating uses the fact that high frequency currents are less dangerous to humans and will permit a higher trip current for the high frequency current. In terms of the effect on a human, 38.5 mA at 10kHZ is equivalent to 6 mA at 60 HZ and 53mA is the 6mA equivalent at 15k HZ. The standard will not tell the manufacturers how to design the new HF rated GFCI, but just specify the maximum permitted trip currents at the high frequencies. There is a curve in the revised standard for the manufacturers to work with.
One think I don't like is that the HF is an optional rating, so we will have standard GFCIs and HF GFCIs on the market...with the cost of the HF ones likely to be higher than the standard ones, we wil continue to have these issues because everyone wants cheaper.

I sit on UL 943 and wanted to vote no on the new requirements because they will be optional, however, the panel has been working on this for over 6 years now so I voted yes just to get the manufacturers started on the new design for HF

So this could be possible if the device senses not only current but also frequency of what is leakage. Still sounds like AFCI all over again to some extent though the methods of doing this may be more clear than the methods behind AFCI which still seem to be higher classified information than anything the military, CIA , etc. may have secrets about.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So this could be possible if the device senses not only current but also frequency of what is leakage. Still sounds like AFCI all over again to some extent though the methods of doing this may be more clear than the methods behind AFCI which still seem to be higher classified information than anything the military, CIA , etc. may have secrets about.

This will be like the AFCI in terms of how the device operates...that is the method used to comply with the HF requirements will be determined by the manufacturers and will likely be propitiatory. The product standard only specifies what the device must do in terms of the trip parameters, but will not tell the manufacturers how to design the device to meet those parameters.

Yes, it will evaluate the leakage current based on frequency, and the higher the frequency the more current will be needed to make it trip.