ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Violation?
by renosteinke - 01/27/23 09:52 PM
Does NEC 551.71 (F) apply to dwellings?
by BigB - 01/20/23 10:46 AM
Power submeter connections
by HotLine1 - 01/19/23 09:09 AM
AFDD's coming to the UK
by Texas_Ranger - 01/17/23 07:22 PM
New in the Gallery:
Burger King crown sillyness
Burger King crown sillyness
by wa2ise, December 11
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 125 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Ryan:

Yes, I believe it is an enforceable violation and I would cite 110.3(B).

Follow the instructions that have been provided. If something happened that caused a fire or accident, the judge and jury would ask "why did you approve that job?"

Do you have some particular situation that you want to discuss?


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with these Exam Prep Combos:
 

>> Master Electrician Exam Prep     >> JourneyMan Electrician Exam Prep
 

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
...

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 10-24-2003).]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
....

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 10-24-2003).]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
Joe, no I don't really have a particular installation in mind, just a theoretical question.

BTW: I have cited this before :-P


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
......

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 10-24-2003).]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 552
T
Member
Quote
If something happened that caused a fire or accident, the judge and jury would ask "why did you approve that job?"

I would tell the judge and jury that the breaker that was used was manufactured for, and UL tested and approved for, use in that particular panel. Such as these manufactured by Cutler Hammer that are made for a SQ.D QO panel. http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/SA459.PDF

Here is a quote from another link..
http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/66C1367.PDF
Quote
 Meets NEC Standards
CHQ Direct Replacement Breakers meet the National
Electrical Code standards. In order to comply with NEC
labeling instructions, Cutler-Hammer supplies a load
center compatibility list with each breaker. The list
should be affixed to the load center. The list amends any
instructions previously listed on the load center, and
thereby complies with NEC standards.

So I guess the issue is that the label needs to changed. Wouldn't the sticker that is affixed to the breaker serve the same purpose?

(Edited to remove a really long hyperlink)


[This message has been edited by txsparky (edited 10-24-2003).]


Donnie
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9
W
Junior Member
I think we need to think about the intent of 110.3(B).
I do not believe the intent of 110.3(B) is to enforce any particular use of brand. However, if a panelboard has earned its listing with a particular brand and type of breaker, then I think that brand and type should be used.

Panelboards are probably tested with brand specific breakers, hence the warranty. To deviate from the tested brand would be wrong, but not a code violation. We have all seen multi-fit breakers and they have also earned a listing. I have to wonder if these multi-fit breakers were actually tested in every brand of panel that they will fit.

I think the intent of 110.3(B) is simple. Use listed equipment in the manner for which it was intended and follow any instructions for installation.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
wireman,
There are breakers that have been tested and "classified" for use in panels made by other manufacturers. These classified breakers have been tested to the same standard as the UL "listed" breakers mase by the manufacturer of the panel. There is no code or safety violation in using classified breakers. These breakers are required to be supplied with a listing of panels that they are permitted to be used in.
Quote from UL Guide DIXF, "Circuit Breakers, Molded-case, Classified for Use in Specified Equipment".
Quote
This category covers Classified molded-case circuit breakers rated 15 to 50 A, 120/240 V maximum that have been investigated and found suitable for use in place of other Listed circuit breakers in specific Listed panelboards. The circuit breakers are Classified for use in specified panelboards in accordance with the details described on the circuit breaker or in the publication provided therewith.

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 10-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 10-25-2003).]


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9
W
Junior Member
Thank you for the response resqcapt.

After re-evaluation I am wondering how we get around the code on this topic. If a listed panelboard requires a certain brand of breaker, then to use another brand might in fact be a violation of 110.3(B)

110.3(B) states that the installation and use of listed or labeled equipment shall be governed by the instructions of the listing or labeling.

So; how do we get around a listing or labeling requirement, by a manufacturer, that their panelboard, requires a particular brand of circuit breakers?

Not having a single or variety of panelboards in front of me to read the listing or labeling is a major disadvantage.

Interesting info in the UL guide.
I must admit I have never seen a copy of the guide you mention. I am thinking the classified term refers to the breakers being classified by amps, volts, size, type, and specified use, as it does in the NEC?

I am sure there are specs and testing criteria that all circuit breaker manufacturers must meet. To say an individual breaker has been designed according to certain specs and tested to meet certain criteria is not my question.

What I question, is whether these "multi-use" breakers are tested, at a testing facility, while they are installed in each of the individual panels that they are designed to fit in? Or are they tested as an idividual unit apart from the panelboard?

Sorry for jumping in the middle of this breaker discussion, but I found it very interesting.
What was the original topic with the picture of the recept. and 110.3(B) refering too? Or was this just a general discussion of 110.3(B)?

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
wireman,
There is no code violation using classified breakers per their classification. 110.3(B) only requires that you follow the instructions that are an actual part of the "listing and labeling". The "brand specific" rule for breakers is a "manufacturer's" instruction and not a "listing and labeling" instruction.
Quote
What I question, is whether these "multi-use" breakers are tested, at a testing facility, while they are installed in each of the individual panels that they are designed to fit in?
Classified breakers are tested in each panel that they are classified for use in.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
cookcc
cookcc
California ,Long Beach
Posts: 28
Joined: May 2007
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 9
triple 3
Popular Topics(Views)
302,517 Are you busy
231,891 Re: Forum
216,528 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5