ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
FPE in Germany
by andey - 12/09/19 01:49 PM
Do you count seconds?
by gfretwell - 12/05/19 07:36 PM
"Esoteric" countries and their wiring practices?
by Texas_Ranger - 12/02/19 10:52 AM
Look at this mess...
by NORCAL - 11/15/19 10:21 PM
New in the Gallery:
FPE in Germany pt.2
FPE Breaker panel in germany
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (NORCAL), 6 guests, and 9 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
277 on a 480 breaker #179648 07/25/08 04:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 32
W
wiking Offline OP
Junior Member
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.

Last edited by wiking; 07/25/08 04:09 PM.
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: wiking] #179659 07/25/08 07:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
No problem other than the wasted space in the panel..that is assuming that this is 277/480Y system.


Don(resqcapt19)
Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: wiking] #179701 07/27/08 08:39 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
J
JBD Offline
Member
All UL489 circuit breakers are tested/rated for single pole operation.

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: JBD] #179705 07/28/08 10:45 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 46
Samurai Offline
Member
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.

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Samurai] #179709 07/28/08 11:45 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 46
Samurai Offline
Member
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.

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Samurai] #179721 07/29/08 08:28 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
J
JBD Offline
Member
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.

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: JBD] #179723 07/29/08 09:25 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
JBD, can you cite a source to support that statement?

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: renosteinke] #179737 07/29/08 03:50 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 33
E
Elec N Spec Offline
Member
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

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: Elec N Spec] #179747 07/29/08 08:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
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.

Re: 277 on a 480 breaker [Re: renosteinke] #179774 07/30/08 08:57 PM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 599
J
JBD Offline
Member
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...".

Last edited by JBD; 07/30/08 08:58 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
The_Lightman
The_Lightman
Orlando, Fl, USA
Posts: 49
Joined: August 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
andey 2
Popular Topics(Views)
261,266 Are you busy
196,432 Re: Forum
185,701 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3