2 pole breaker ties

Status
Not open for further replies.
mightymov said:
Does the code speak to using a # 10 copper wire or 6-32 screw and nut to tie two single pole breaker together?
Click to expand...

Everywhere that handle ties are mentioned in the code, the phrase "identified handle ties" is used. In the Definitions section we see the following language (2011):
Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, and so forth, where described in a particular Code requirement.
Informational Note: Some examples of ways to determine suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or application include investigations by a qualified testing laboratory (listing and labeling), an inspection agency, or other organizations concerned with product evaluation.​
Click to expand...

So, based on that, #10 wire or a machine screw and nuts (I cannot see a dependable way to do it with just one nut) would not be acceptable unless somebody as authoritative as an NRTL, or at least the manufacturer of the breakers, described those as approved methods for tying handles of individual CBs together.

"Identified" is not as strong as "listed", but is stronger than "everybody does it."
 
GoldDigger said:
Everywhere that handle ties are mentioned in the code, the phrase "identified handle ties" is used. In the Definitions section we see the following language (2011):


So, based on that, #10 wire or a machine screw and nuts (I cannot see a dependable way to do it with just one nut) would not be acceptable unless somebody as authoritative as an NRTL, or at least the manufacturer of the breakers, described those as approved methods for tying handles of individual CBs together.

"Identified" is not as strong as "listed", but is stronger than "everybody does it."
Click to expand...

While that is correct as far as the code goes, I would take a nail or a screw over the two pole handle tie for QO breakers. A nail or screw works better and is much easier to install than is the code required "identified" handle tie for that breaker.

Their 3 pole tie is great and I don't know why they don't use the same design for the two pole breakers.
 
mightymov said:
Does the code speak to using a # 10 copper wire or 6-32 screw and nut to tie two single pole breaker together?
Click to expand...

Is each pole supplying power to two separate circuits? Then yes you could use a handle tie.
If you are supplying power to a single load such a one would for 240v then no. You would require an actual 2 pole breaker the has a common trip that will open both poles should one of the poles call for trip.
It is to be noted that by simply adding a handle tie doesn't make 2 poles set side by side and adding av handle tie common trip. Should one breaker trip it most likely will not pull the other breaker to the off position. The intent of the handle tie is give you no choice but to manually operate the breakers together.
A common trip 2 or 3 pole breaker may appear to 2 or 3 single pole breakers simply fastened together but what you don't see is that they share an internal common trip bar. If one pole trips it will trip the other poles.
 
templdl said:
Is each pole supplying power to two separate circuits? Then yes you could use a handle tie.
If you are supplying power to a single load such a one would for 240v then no. You would require an actual 2 pole breaker the has a common trip that will open both poles should one of the poles call for trip.
...
Click to expand...
The code does not require the use of multipole breakers for single or 3 phase line to line loads on system where the voltage does not exceed 120 volts to ground. 240.15(B)(1)&(2)
If there are both line to line and line to neutral loads, then a multipole breaker is required.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The code does not require the use of multipole breakers for single or 3 phase line to line loads on system where the voltage does not exceed 120 volts to ground. 240.15(B)(1)&(2)
If there are both line to line and line to neutral loads, then a multipole breaker is required.
Click to expand...

I apologize if my post was misinterpreted. My intent was not to imply that it was a code requirement. My only intent was what a handle tie does when they are used to tie single pole breakers together no that the code requires them.
 
templdl said:
I apologize if my post was misinterpreted. My intent was not to imply that it was a code requirement. My only intent was what a handle tie does when they are used to tie single pole breakers together no that the code requires them.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misread your post.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While that is correct as far as the code goes, I would take a nail or a screw over the two pole handle tie for QO breakers. A nail or screw works better and is much easier to install than is the code required "identified" handle tie for that breaker.

Their 3 pole tie is great and I don't know why they don't use the same design for the two pole breakers.
Click to expand...

Just what do you have a problem with on the two pole ties other than you have to remove the breaker from the panel to install or remove them? If they are too easy to "bypass" what is the point of requiring them in the first place?
 
kwired said:
Just what do you have a problem with on the two pole ties other than you have to remove the breaker from the panel to install or remove them? ...
Click to expand...
In my opinion the fact that you have to remove a breaker to install the tie, is just stupid. There is no reason for that design. Those breakers have holes all the way through each hand so why did they design the two pole one that way? Just a simple pin would work great, you don't even need the handle cap that they use on the 3 pole design.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In my opinion the fact that you have to remove a breaker to install the tie, is just stupid. There is no reason for that design. Those breakers have holes all the way through each hand so why did they design the two pole one that way? Just a simple pin would work great, you don't even need the handle cap that they use on the 3 pole design.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with the simplicity part, I do think it may be a little necessary to make them a little more difficult than just pulling a pin to defeat the idea of having to turn off both handles when shutting off a MWBC. Now go back to when there was limited need for handle ties and it makes more sense, yet nobody was using handle ties either because they were not necessary very often.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In my opinion the fact that you have to remove a breaker to install the tie, is just stupid. There is no reason for that design. Those breakers have holes all the way through each hand so why did they design the two pole one that way? Just a simple pin would work great, you don't even need the handle cap that they use on the 3 pole design.
Click to expand...

I agree in a the practical sense rather than going through all the monkey motions. But is there anything regarding the UL listing? Will an AHJ call you cards?
 
kwired said:
Though I agree with the simplicity part, I do think it may be a little necessary to make them a little more difficult than just pulling a pin to defeat the idea of having to turn off both handles when shutting off a MWBC. ...
Click to expand...
Then why does their 3 pole design use a pin and cap? A pin that can be pulled out if the two breakers above the ones with the handle tie are in the opposite position as the ones with the handle tie.
Many of the other brands are just a cap that goes over the breakers and can be removed just as easy as pulling a pin.
 
templdl said:
I agree in a the practical sense rather than going through all the monkey motions. But is there anything regarding the UL listing? Will an AHJ call you cards?
Click to expand...
I am not sure that these devices are listed. The rule requires an "identified" product and that stops short of requiring a listed product.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Then why does their 3 pole design use a pin and cap? A pin that can be pulled out if the two breakers above the ones with the handle tie are in the opposite position as the ones with the handle tie.
Many of the other brands are just a cap that goes over the breakers and can be removed just as easy as pulling a pin.
Click to expand...

IDK. They developed the two pole tie first then found out it didn't work to use on three poles?

Back to asking why a nail, screw, or a piece of 10AWG solid isn't identified for the purpose? Probably because Square D doesn't make any extra $$ on those methods even though they may pass the same testing if they were to test them.
 
kwired said:
IDK. They developed the two pole tie first then found out it didn't work to use on three poles?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would not expect that two of the two breaker ties would work well for 3 breakers. It seemed that one of your points was that a pin type of handle lock could be easily removed as compared to the the QO two pole tie design, but most of the other brands of ties are easily removed.

Back to asking why a nail, screw, or a piece of 10AWG solid isn't identified for the purpose? Probably because Square D doesn't make any extra $$ on those methods even though they may pass the same testing if they were to test them.
Click to expand...
Is any testing required for a product to be "identified"? Does the "identified" product have to be from the same manufacturer as the breaker?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
don_resqcapt19 said:
kwired said:
IDK. They developed the two pole tie first then found out it didn't work to use on three poles?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would not expect that two of the two breaker ties would work well for 3 breakers. It seemed that one of your points was that a pin type of handle lock could be easily removed as compared to the the QO two pole tie design, but most of the other brands of ties are easily removed.


Is any testing required for a product to be "identified"? Does the "identified" product have to be from the same manufacturer as the breaker?
Click to expand...
Good point. Why can't I "identify" what ever I used for the purpose? I don't know about the three pole QO handle ties as all I have seen is pictures but never used them. I can say that the QO two pole handle ties have no "identification" whatsoever once removed from packaging.:happyyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kwired said:
Good point. Why can't I "identify" what ever I used for the purpose? I don't know about the three pole QO handle ties as all I have seen is pictures but never used them. I can say that the QO two pole handle ties have no "identification" whatsoever once removed from packaging.:happyyes:
Click to expand...
The QO 3 pole have a "cap" and a pin. You push the cap on and drop the pin through the hole in the end of the cap and in the breaker handles.
The definition of "identified" gives a lot of room, but the Informational Note, even though not a code rule, leads many to put a restriction of the meaning of identified.
As long as you get the AHJ to recognize your "identification" you are good to go.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The QO 3 pole have a "cap" and a pin. You push the cap on and drop the pin through the hole in the end of the cap and in the breaker handles.
The definition of "identified" gives a lot of room, but the Informational Note, even though not a code rule, leads many to put a restriction of the meaning of identified.
As long as you get the AHJ to recognize your "identification" you are good to go.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you on the definition of "identified". Just may have to play with an inspector on this one someday if I feel up to it.

I looked online at the instruction bulletin for the QO 3 pole device and understand what it looks like and how it works, just never actually used one. I have a job coming up where I may consider them though, I estimated job with separate neutrals for each 120 volt circuit but may consider going with 4 wire MWBC's. Will be hooking up a bunch of fan coil units for a HVAC system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top