ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 258 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#110343 04/02/06 04:21 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
I came across this the other day:

A Challenger Loadcenter enclosure and cover.

It's been refitted with a Siemens Interior, which fits well, and has several different manufacturers' breakers in it.

It's quite the violation, but do you feel it's unsafe?


[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]


(the original Challenger neutral bar, on the far right, is still in use)

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 04-02-2006).]

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#110344 04/02/06 06:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 155
D
Member
If it isn't listed by the panel mfg. then it isn't going to fly, as it doesn't comply with the NEC.
Safe? Maybe but is it to us to determine that. The are is testing requirements by UL to assure that the panel cover prevents access through cracks an spaces to live parts inside the enclosure and that the cover prevents parts and arcing from exiting the enclosure should their be a fault or failure inside the enclosure. Even when we are confident that the replacement cover would perform as and OEM cover would we are not qualified to make that determination.
As you have noted the panel nameplate is misleading also.

#110345 04/02/06 07:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Cutler-Hammer is one company that specifically makes replacement "guts" for other manufacturers' panels. They have them listed accordingly.
Likewise, there are numerous breakers that are interchangable between different makers' panels; and by this I mean "with the approval of UL."
So, the issue is not so nearly as simple as it would appear. One can't simply say "no way!" without looking into the issue a lot deeper!


Now, as luck would have it, I have a customer whose "Big Name" panel has damaged bussbars. I have been unable to get any guidance from either the distributor, or the manufacturer, as to obtaining replacement guts. Since the old panel is set in brick, is piped in, and the nature of the customers' operation will not tolerate any but the briefest of interruptions- where does that leave me?

I'll tell you where it leaves me: with a poor attitude toward that line of panels! When the crunch comes, I can almost guarantee that I will replace the innards with someone else's (listed) retrofit kit!

Some "field engineering" causes me to lose sleep. This specific example is not one of those.

#110346 04/02/06 09:14 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
S
Member
As long as there is a decent fit at the breaker KOs, and grounding is done in an adequate manner, I can't see that there's any particular risk to replacing one set of guts with another manufacturer's guts.

The fit at the breaker KOs can quite possibly be dealt with by using a cover from the same manufacturer as the guts, and just having a mismatched can.

I'd be a lot more concerned about mix-and-match breakers and guts. Just because a breaker physically plugs onto a bus doesn't mean that it's safe. I understand that the panel manufacturers do a considerable amount of engineering and testing to assure compatibility. This extends to things like the alloys used, grip pressure, wiping action when plugging on the breaker, and lubricants/antioxidents supplied on the mating surfaces.

That said, there are breakers that are listed for use in other manufacturers' panels. Usually, the manufacturerer of the panel prohibits foreign breakers, so there's an obvious conflict here. (Cutler Hammer is one such maker of breakers listed for use in other panels.)

#110347 04/03/06 01:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 806
Member
I take greater issue with the fact that the three wires spliced at the bottom would reach the breaker without the splices.

Quote
The are is testing requirements by UL to assure that the panel cover prevents access through cracks an spaces to live parts inside the enclosure and that the cover prevents parts and arcing from exiting the enclosure should their be a fault or failure inside the enclosure.

The cover as installed here fits better than most OEM applications I've run into. If I were the AHJ I would have no problem on this particular requirement.

The containment of arcing would be a function of fit and thickness of the steel, so I again fail to see an issue here. At least it isn't a DIY cover of light-guage steel or aluminum.

Quote
Even when we are confident that the replacement cover would perform as and OEM cover would we are not qualified to make that determination.

Does this mean we have to rip out this panel and submit it to an NTL to determine suitability? I also disagree with the statement that an experienced, licensed, EC is not "qualified" to make that determination, regardless of who did the installation. Can anyone cite any other violations here?

Quote
As you have noted the panel nameplate is misleading also.

Now this is the only real safety/Code violation that I would cite in this case. Unless we had the specs for the replacement interior, which would prove the AIC and allowable types of breakers permitted to be installed, then the information on the label could now be incorrect. Although, from what I've seen, small loadcenters from different makes all seem to have the same AIC ratings. (10k amps.)

Quote
Now, as luck would have it, I have a customer whose "Big Name" panel has damaged bussbars. I have been unable to get any guidance from either the distributor, or the manufacturer, as to obtaining replacement guts. Since the old panel is set in brick, is piped in, and the nature of the customers' operation will not tolerate any but the briefest of interruptions- where does that leave me?

I'll tell you where it leaves me: with a poor attitude toward that line of panels! When the crunch comes, I can almost guarantee that I will replace the innards with someone else's (listed) retrofit kit!

I agree 100% with this. I would do exactly the same.

We have all seen that the Code falls quite short of reality in many situations.

As a final parting comment, didn't Siemans buy out Challenger? (Or is it the other way around?)

I love the discussions of things like this. [Linked Image]

edited to add: I may be using incorrect terminology here, but by AIC I'm referring to the short-circuit withstand capability of the panel and breakers.

[This message has been edited by mxslick (edited 04-03-2006).]


Stupid should be painful.
#110348 04/03/06 01:56 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 247
T
Member
Quote
I take greater issue with the fact that the three wires spliced at the bottom would reach the breaker without the splices.

note how many wires are in each wirenut...

#110349 04/03/06 02:25 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,443
Likes: 3
Member
John,
I printed these pics off and showed them to one of the Inspectors at work this morning.
This Inspectors view is the concensus here as far as any Electrical worker would judge under our current Regulations:

  • Can a person be injured/killed by what is installed?
  • Is this panel over-loaded, to the detriment of the Service.
  • Is this panel a Fire Hazard?.


Failing that test here, under Regulation 69 of the Electricity Act, this complies.
However, the labelling is pretty wack and in our newest release of the Standards here, you are not allowed to leave unterminated wires, anywhere!. [Linked Image]

{Edit: Sorry zooming in, them wires are terminated} [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by Trumpy (edited 04-03-2006).]

#110350 04/03/06 06:15 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
I have no real issue with this either.

Quote
I take greater issue with the fact that the three wires spliced at the bottom would reach the breaker without the splices.

You do not mean you would fail it do you?

Splices are allowed.


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#110351 04/03/06 08:34 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,443
Likes: 3
Member
Bob,
Quote
Splices are allowed.
I agree,
I'm reminded of a clause in our Regulations here that states, you are only allowed to join conductors within an enclosure or panel, within an installation.
These wires could be anything, but they are being joined in the right place.
Saves finding dodgy joins in a roof void.

#110352 04/03/06 02:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 806
Member
iwire:

Would I fail it on the presence of those splices? No, but when the wire is long enough to reach the breaker without splicing I do question what's going on.

And as techie pointed out, after taking a closer look and blowing up that part of the picture, there are more than two wires in each nut. So it appears that two circuits are connected to one breaker. Red tag?

I'm just not a fan of splices inside breaker panels. [Linked Image]


Stupid should be painful.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5