Why GFCIs were mandated- a personal perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
Does anyone know when the NEC started allowing GFCIs to be used when no grounding means exists?
Click to expand...
The allowance first appeared in the 1984 NEC 210-7 Receptacles and Cord Connectors, (d) exception. As first introduced, the GFCI receptacle was allowed only on a one-for-one basis, meaning, the GFCI could not protect downstream receptacle outlets. An ungrounded wiring method receptacle replacement could be done with a GFCI
 
kwired said:
Have no idea of their history as it involves electricification, so I have no answer. But I can see European countries that got nearly destroyed rebuilding with newer standards.

Japan - IIRC has both 50 and 60 Hz systems - depends on who helped rebuild what after the war.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this influenced the choice of RCDs.
 
mbrooke said:
I agree that GFCIs were being mandated on EGC circuits and I am not disputing that; however that does not mean every appliance automatically became 3 wire.
Click to expand...


:huh:

It also does not mean every appliance is forest green either.


I have no idea the point you are going for here, how does the construction of appliances have anything at all to do with when GFCIs came to be required?
 
iwire said:
:huh:

It also does not mean every appliance is forest green either.


I have no idea the point you are going for here, how does the construction of appliances have anything at all to do with when GFCIs came to be required?
Click to expand...



For decades most appliances had no EGC. I am not talking about refrigerators and dishwashers; rather power tools, toaster ovens, ect. In the 60s when EGCs became mandatory in wet locations it made little difference to user safety because of existing appliances lacking an EGC. On the other hand new homes in the 70s/80s had GFCIs provid personal protection regardless of appliance age.
 
Last edited:
mbrooke said:
For decades most appliances had no EGC. I am not talking about refrigerators and dishwashers; rather power tools, toaster ovens, ect. In the 60s when EGCs became mandatory in wet locations it made little difference to user safety because of existing appliances lacking an EGC. On the other hand new homes in the 70s/80s had GFCIs provid personal protection regardless of appliance age.
Click to expand...

I just do not see the connection.

The connection you are inferring assumes the NEC was not the least bit concerned with compromised EGCs which in my opinion was the driving force for GFCI requirements and that the concern was appliances that were designed without an EGC.

It would be interesting to see the ROP for the 1971 code but I don't know how to get it.
 
iwire said:
I just do not see the connection.

The connection you are inferring assumes the NEC was not the least bit concerned with compromised EGCs which in my opinion was the driving force for GFCI requirements and that the concern was appliances that were designed without an EGC.

It would be interesting to see the ROP for the 1971 code but I don't know how to get it.
Click to expand...

I think they were concerned with the lack of them in tools/appliances before the shift to open or missing EGCs. The fact so many metal cased tools/appliances existed in the 50/60s and 70s makes for a very compelling argument that electrocutions were predominantly driven by standing ground faults.
 
I sometimes work near the NFPA headquarters, I wonder if I stop there if they have ROPs to look at?

The ROP for the 1971 should have the substantiation in it.
 
iwire said:
I sometimes work near the NFPA headquarters, I wonder if I stop there if they have ROPs to look at?

The ROP for the 1971 should have the substantiation in it.
Click to expand...

In all honesty Id ask for as many records as possible, scan and upload them for the history of the web since these questions come up often.
 
mbrooke said:
In all honesty Id ask for as many records as possible, scan and upload them for the history of the web since these questions come up often.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Yeah, ah no.

I just looked at their web site, they give directions and speak of visitors so who knows.

Kind of funny, the NFPA is only 2 miles from the pot farm we work at. Could explain some of the AFCI rules.
 
iwire said:
:lol:

Yeah, ah no.

I just looked at their web site, they give directions and speak of visitors so who knows.

Kind of funny, the NFPA is only 2 miles from the pot farm we work at. Could explain some of the AFCI rules.
Click to expand...

Worth the visit. The internet will be here for generations, might as well have history archived before it becomes long forgotten on old data storage or yellowing papers.

iwire said:
You will have to explain, I don't have a '71 NEC, I was seven.
Click to expand...



I do not have the 62 NEC on hand, but from this link (which sadly has been hacked to advertise_ahemm_certain personal assistance- :rant::rant::rant::rant:, but added to show proof of where I quoted from)

http://www.necconnect.org/resources/gfcis/


The first mention of ground-fault protection occurred in the 1962 NEC with the introduction of Article 680 for swimming pools. It is generally accepted that electricity and water are not a good combination, and there was a concern for the shock hazard associated with underwater lighting. An approved fail-safe ground detector device could automatically de-energize the circuit for underwater lighting operating at greater than 30 volts. This fail-safe ground (not yet called GFCI) detector was not the only allowable method; an approved grid structure or similar safeguard was an alternative.
Click to expand...

In this case bonding was an equal option to a GFCI.
 
mbrooke said:
I don't believe this influenced the choice of RCDs.
Click to expand...
No probably not. Discussion also involved grounding conductor requirements. It is easier to make a wholesale change in requirements when starting over then when adapting to what is existing.
 
kwired said:
No probably not. Discussion also involved grounding conductor requirements. It is easier to make a wholesale change in requirements when starting over then when adapting to what is existing.
Click to expand...

I can agree here- and I think it proves my point none the less. Countries which for what ever reason received a head start on EGCs mandated RCDs latter on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top