1 members (Scott35),
400
guests, and
13
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
JBD, I'd really like more detail on that quotation. That's why I asked. My copy of the "White Book" seems to say just the opposite.
Form the 2006 edition, page 45, under 'circuit breakers (DIVQ):'
"Single pole or multi-pole independent trip circuit breakers, with or without handle ties, 120/240V ac, are suitable for use in a single phase, multi-wire circuit on line-to-neutral connected loads."
There then follows many similar statements applying to a variety of different circumstances. To be fair, though, I must admit that none of the circumstances specifically address 480/277 systems. The section does, however, go on to say that the category includes all breakers for less than 600 volts.
I did find a quote like yours ... but that was in a specific discussion of a multi-pole breaker that was marked "no common trip" or "independent trip.: (Marking guide, "Molded Case Circuit Breakers," paragraph 39.) That this is contradicted by the general provisions of the breaker category, and is in a discussion of a specific circumstance .... leads me to conclude that the restriction applies only to that specific circumstance.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
Member
|
Line to neutral loads do not require a common trip. Common switching is all that is required for multi-wire branch circuits that serve only L-N loads.
Line-Line loads do require common tripping, which means that an external handle tie only is not sufficient.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
Again ... the section I cited also refers to line to line loads, and the handle tie being adequate.
I believe that the multiplicity of circuit types is detailed for the 'lower voltage' arrangements simply because of one that is NOT listed: the 240 Delta. Such panels ought not have any single pole circuits in them.
Here's the paragraph right after the one I quoted: "Single pole or multi-pole independent trip circuit breakers, with handle ties, rated 120/240 v ac, are suitable for use on multi-wire circuits with line-to-line or line-to-ground connected loads."
As mentioned, that's the text of the White book itself; I'm still confused as to what the "Marking guide" is discussing.
No matter how you slice it, the White book is pretty specific in stating that handle ties DO qualify as a disconnecting means.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
Member
|
Looks like my terminology is backwards.
From NEMA AB-3 2001 (para 3.1.5) a multi-pole breaker normally has an internal common trip and a two-pole breaker may have an independent trip.
The UL White book DIVQ says that independent trip units may be used on MWBC that include a grounded neutral even if there are L-L loads. But it goes on to say that multi-pole common trip devices may be used with L-L circuits that do not have a neutral.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
What do you expect when engineers try to write? Neither UL nor NEMA publications are either very readable or arranged to let you find stuff
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
For reference, US Navy uses mil-spec breakers exclusively. Really nice strong ones, the kind that won't trip just because the case is hit with a sledgehammer (or the ship by a torpedo, which has much the same effect). They still won't work underwater, but that's OK because the panels are watertight.
Anyhow, small sizes are typically acquisitioned in single-phase units, which are all retrofitted using field-installed 2 or 3-handle yokes. Not saying this is necessarily allowed by UL, but DoD is a widely recongized listing agent, too, and it clearly works just fine for the DoD.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
OP
Junior Member
|
To throw something else into the mix, don't forget that there are two pole breakers that have a common trip handle, which is what I have in this situation. If it's ok to use only one leg of the breaker, is it not then ok to use the other leg for another circuit, especially since I have a common trip handle?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
I don't see why that would be a problem. It's not different than any other multiwire shared-neutral circuit, aside from a very short length of shared neutral.
Rather inconvenient from an end-user perspective, though.
|
|
|
Posts: 46
Joined: May 2007
|
|
|
|