NEC on 'life' of electrical equipments

Status
Not open for further replies.

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
I'm not clear on what 'new views against established convictions' are being referred to.

That there's plenty of electrical stuff that wears out -apart from breakers- is clear. That the NEC does not directly address the issue of 'age' is clear.

Regarding the 'testing' of circuit breakers, we have had several discussions on the topic. That we are completely lacking in any means to test the trip level of a breaker is a fact. That there are plenty of breakers out there that do not have 'test' buttons or maintenance procedures is also clear.

Are we talking about electrical equipmment and age in general .... or a specific piece of industrial equipment?
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
I am distressed by the discussion of circuit breakers in this thread.

First of all, because the links posted clearly -once you plow through them- do NOT apply to the sundry breakers we have in our household panels. For example, the 'trip test' method of applying 3x rated current is completely at odds with inverste time breaker operation and UL tests. NEMA, UL, and the breaker manufacturers themselved are united on this point: there's no way to 'test' a breaker's ability to trip at the desired level. '

Fo residential breakers yes, but for commercial and industrial applications ANSI/NEMA AB 4 deals with ?Guidelines for Inspection and Preventive Maintenance of Molded Case Circuit Breakers used in Commercial and Industrial Applications.? It includes both overcurrent, hold in, and INSt trip testing procedures.

The introduction of this standard has some good info regarding the original post.

Good practice includes periodic circuit breaker maintenance during plant shutdown or during a regular maintenance period as specified, for example, in NFPA 70B. When a circuit breaker operates automatically, good practice dictates that the source of the overcurrent should be located, and if it is suspected that the operation was at or near the
interrupting rating, the circuit breaker?s condition should be checked prior to circuit re-energization. When appropriately maintained, molded case circuit breakers provide reliable protection for many years. The exact lifetime of the breaker, however, is determined by the circuit breaker?s operational duty and by its environment.

With respect to operational duty, for some circuits there will be occasional overload conditions or lowcurrent fault conditions. Here, the operating life will be tens of years. In other circuits, there may be high short-circuit-current faults but it should be noted that bolted faults at the breaker interrupting rating are rarely encountered. These will reduce the circuit breaker?s operating life and may necessitate circuit breaker replacement. Molded case circuit breakers are evaluated to the UL 489 (NEMA AB 1) standard Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures. They are subjected to thousands of endurance test operations (UL 489 Table 7.1.5.1); 50 overload test operations for circuit breakers rated up to 1600A and 25 operations for circuit breakers rated 2000A and higher (UL 489 Table 7.1.3.1); 3 to 7 interrupting tests, depending on breaker type, at limited fault current (UL 489 Table 7.1.7.1, 7.1.7.2, and 7.1.7.3); and two interrupting tests at maximum short-circuit-current rating.Thus circuit breakers have an extensive but finite interrupting capability, and breakers that experience multiple high short-circuit-current faults should receive a thorough inspection with replacement if necessary.

With respect to environmental effects, circuit breakers are sometimes exposed to high ambient temperatures, to high humidity, and to other ambient conditions that are hostile to long term performance. For example, industries may have corrosive environments or could be associated with dusty environments that could affect operating parts. It is not intended that molded case circuit breakers be disassembled for inspection. Rather, NEMA AB 4 should be referenced during periodic maintenance or during specific inspection following a high shortcircuit current fault. This document is intended to ensure that molded case circuit breakers are well maintained, and provides guidelines for circuit breaker replacement.
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
My point is that regular tripping exercise of molded case circuit breaker should be a part of its preventive maintenance program and I was thinking that I would be supported on this point.

Suppose you press the trip button of an installed molded case circuit breaker and it does not trip.Don't you think that the breaker has malfunctioned and it should be replaced ?

Strawmen argument, I said nothing about replacement.
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
The statement need not be stated by a manufacturer to be followed.I think the statement 'If the molded case is not tripping on test trip,it has malfunctioned and should be replaced' might have been stated in some standard.

If the regular tripping exercise is part of the manufacturers maintenance instructions, you certainly should follow those.
 

Finite10

Senior Member
Location
Great NW
To actually test a MCCB's functionality you need to overload it or short it, don't you? The 'test/reset' buttons on a GFI make more sense to me. The 'trip test' button on a MCCB is a mystery.
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
I am sure I did not make any self-contradictory statements.
First you said it's in a Standard, now you say it is written somewhere in a book that you don't name just it's publisher. Your statements shift more than the sand in the Sahara.:happysad:
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
Only two points in this thread.
1)The 'life' of an electrical equipment is enhanced by provision of a stand-by equipment to it.The Government organizations should take into account this while assigning 'rated life' to an equipment under their control.
2)If a molded case circuit breaker does not trip on pressing the test trip button,it should be replaced.This point should be part of the preventive/predictive maintenance program of the MCCB.

Now,what does not make sense in these?

perhaps it is a bit of a language barrier but what you have said in this thread really does not make a whole lot of sense to me.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Only two points in this thread.
1)The 'life' of an electrical equipment is enhanced by provision of a stand-by equipment to it.The Government organizations should take into account this while assigning 'rated life' to an equipment under their control.
2)If a molded case circuit breaker does not trip on pressing the test trip button,it should be replaced.This point should be part of the preventive/predictive maintenance program of the MCCB.

Now,what does not make sense in these?

1) Adds cost. is there any evidence that suggests having equipment just sitting there in standby increases the useful life of the stuff that is actually being used? it does improve availability. But even if you rotate things so they are only run half the time I am unaware of any actual studies that show that leads to an increase in longevity of the equipment.

2) I don't think anyone here would argue that point, and no one did. I am not sure how that is part of predictive maintenance though. It is basic testing like pushing the test button on an GFCI. It does nothing to predict the future life of the equipment at all, or when it might fail. It is strictly a go/no-go type of test. Unfortunately, for many MCCBs, doing the test is a very pricey thing, given that equipment has to be shutdown. It is not something one is going to want to do real often in a lot of cases.
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
1) Adds cost. is there any evidence that suggests having equipment just sitting there in standby increases the useful life of the stuff that is actually being used? it does improve availability. But even if you rotate things so they are only run half the time I am unaware of any actual studies that show that leads to an increase in longevity of the equipment.

2) I don't think anyone here would argue that point, and no one did. I am not sure how that is part of predictive maintenance though. It is basic testing like pushing the test button on an GFCI. It does nothing to predict the future life of the equipment at all, or when it might fail. It is strictly a go/no-go type of test. Unfortunately, for many MCCBs, doing the test is a very pricey thing, given that equipment has to be shutdown. It is not something one is going to want to do real often in a lot of cases.

My point wise reply as below.
1)That a stand-by equipment can increase the life of the main equipment is well-known to the industry.Just Google.
2)Using test trip button to assess the health of the MCCB if it is provided with one should be part of the any maintenance program of the MCCB.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
My point wise reply as below.
1)That a stand-by equipment can increase the life of the main equipment is well-known to the industry.Just Google.
2)Using test trip button to assess the health of the MCCB if it is provided with one should be part of the any maintenance program of the MCCB.

1. Perhaps you could do the googling for us and point out any credible study that suggests standby equipment has any effect at all on the life of the equipment that it is a stanby to.

2. I doubt you will get any argument on this point, but you called it predictive maint in a previous posts. I don't think it predicts anything at all, other than that the CB might not work if called upon.
 

renosteinke

Senior Member
Location
NE Arkansas
Well, let's keep things simple.

You have a light switch. How can you predict whether it will fail?

So what if you have a spare light switch in the toolbox. I cannot understand how the simple presence of a spare will make the existing switch last longer. I'd like to see the 'google study' that says so. Or, perhaps, TM, are you trying to say that if I have a spare handy, that the room will not be left in the dark nearly as long as it would be if there was no spare handy?

Does the switch operate? Again, so what? Sure, if it fails to operate then we need to fix it- but the failure happened. We didn't 'predict' anything. Will it continue to operate? Our simple operational test will not tell us that.

Can the regular operation of things like switches and breakers improve their life expectancy? Perhaps. I am reminded of the automotive parking brake; don't use it, the grease dries out, the cable rusts to the sheath, and you no longer have a functioning parking break. Maybe there's a protective jelly inside the breakers that needs to be smeared around. I don't know.

TM, I do take issue with your "government organizations should take into account when assigning ...." statement. I know not your background, but HERE that is not considered a proper role of government. Period. Government doesn't 'assign' anything. Nor are the ASTM, ANSI, NECA, NFPA, UL, or any of the other organizations that influence our work any part of the government at all. (For your general information, we have this thing we call "The Constitution" that pretty clearly outlines exactly what we consider to be the duties of government. If the duty isn't assigned, the government has no business doing it. That's what made the American Revolution so revolutionary).
 
T

T.M.Haja Sahib

Guest
It is impossible for me to convince the two senior members (Petersonra and Renosteinke) of the forum of the validity of my points.
:slaphead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top