The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
230 or 345 kV transmission lines?
by Vlado
Yesterday at 09:33 AM
breaker meltdown
by crselectric
Yesterday at 12:42 AM
Electrical mast flashing product
by ThomasWinfrey
09/22/16 12:14 AM
What estimating software do you recommend?
by sparky
09/21/16 07:20 PM
"Dry Run" Inspection goes awry
by HotLine1
09/20/16 07:39 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 15
sparky 9
gfretwell 8
sparky66wv 8
Vlado 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 258 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#179648 - 07/25/08 02:08 PM 277 on a 480 breaker
wiking Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 12/13/02
Posts: 32
Loc: Florida, USA
An insta-hot I've run across is run off of one leg of a two pole 480volt breaker. It's correct for ampacity and voltage, but is this an ok condition? code violation?
ETA: The other pole is empty.


Edited by wiking (07/25/08 02:09 PM)

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#179659 - 07/25/08 05:35 PM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: wiking]
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
No problem other than the wasted space in the panel..that is assuming that this is 277/480Y system.
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top
#179701 - 07/27/08 06:39 PM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: wiking]
JBD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 599
Loc: WI, USA
All UL489 circuit breakers are tested/rated for single pole operation.

Top
#179705 - 07/28/08 08:45 AM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: JBD]
Samurai Offline
Member

Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 45
Loc: Fl.
As a precaution, I would say take off the handle tie if possible, so that the breaker acts as 2 single poles
optimally, maybe it should be changed to prevent confusion about the circuit properties. It's "wrong" but is isn't.

Top
#179709 - 07/28/08 09:45 AM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Samurai]
Samurai Offline
Member

Registered: 05/04/07
Posts: 45
Loc: Fl.
 Originally Posted By: Samurai
It's "wrong" but is isn't.

"It" isn't: this was a reverse extrapolation of the code requiring adding a handle tie if 2 singles poles are used as a double pole.

Top
#179721 - 07/29/08 06:28 AM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Samurai]
JBD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 599
Loc: WI, USA
 Originally Posted By: Samurai
As a precaution, I would say take off the handle tie if possible, so that the breaker acts as 2 single poles
optimally, maybe it should be changed to prevent confusion about the circuit properties. It's "wrong" but is isn't.


Never modify a factory assembled breaker.

And, all factory assembled multi-pole breakers are required to have internal "tie" mechanisms so if one pole trips they all trip.

Top
#179723 - 07/29/08 07:25 AM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: JBD]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
JBD, can you cite a source to support that statement?

Top
#179737 - 07/29/08 01:50 PM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: renosteinke]
Elec N Spec Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/06
Posts: 33
Loc: Rochester Hills, MI USA
NEC 110.3(B) Installation and Use Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

To modify something that has been listed causes that item to lose its listing.

Regards,

Tony

Top
#179747 - 07/29/08 06:43 PM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Elec N Spec]
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member

Registered: 01/22/05
Posts: 5299
Loc: Blue Collar Country
I have to disagree with statements as broad as some recently made.

I've seen far too many multi-pole breakers that were nothing but a grouping of ordinary single-pole breakers, with a rivet below and a handle tie above, keeping them together. GE is one brand that comes to mind.

There is no code, or UL, requirement for an internal trip mechanism. All that is required is that all legs open when a fault is induced on one leg; this might simply be a matter of the spring on one being strong enough to work three handles.
That. perhaps, is why not every multi-pole breaker boasts of having an internal common trip.

That said, at least once I've encountered a multi-pole breaker that did not have all poles open. Even with that same breaker, I was not able to duplicate this mis-action.
As for breakers where not all poles close .... well, nothing is perfect, and then it's time for a new one.

Handle ties are listed, so using them to 'make' a common disconnect is clearly allowed.
When such a tie is removed, leaving three independent single pole breakers - I'd be hard pressed to be able to prove that was ever done. I don't see a problem.

Top
#179774 - 07/30/08 06:57 PM Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: renosteinke]
JBD Offline
Member

Registered: 07/12/01
Posts: 599
Loc: WI, USA
UL says an external handle tie is not sufficient to create a common trip breaker. The NEC requires all circuit breaker poles to be opened during a fault condition, which implies a common trip. Multiple pole "switches" created by using handle ties are not the same as multi-pole breakers.

According to the UL White book:
"An external handle tie alone does not qualify as a common trip mechanism...".


Edited by JBD (07/30/08 06:58 PM)

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals