2 pole breakers for multiwire branch circuits?

[jap]

210.4(B) states that each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors at the point where the branch circuit originates. It is therefore NOT acceptable if a handle tie allows one ungrounded conductor to remain energized once the other one trips. If this happens the handle tie is not doing its job or the wrong kind is used.
Although I am doubting myself now and wondering if this is the case. I do know that they are flimsy and you might be right. I would appreciate some more education on this from others.

Oddly, I'd have to agree with you on this.
If the handle tie doesn't trip both breakers on a short or an overload then it's not practical to expect it to simultaneously disconnect both when manually operating it.
If you see them tied together you yourself shut them off at the same time by the way you do it.

I see a handle tie as more of a visual device to let you know 2 breakers may be sharing a neutral.

Think about it, if one of the breakers tripped, there is nothing that would keep someone from removing the tie, resetting the one breaker, then re-installing the tie, without ever disturbing the other breaker.

You wouldnt be that fortunate trying to do that with a common trip breaker.

Too much worry is put into a simple handle tie anyway as far as I'm concerned.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Jap>

 

[LarryFine]

If the handle tie doesn't trip both breakers on a short or an overload then it's not practical to expect it to simultaneously disconnect both when manually operating it.

I do not agree with this statement.

 

[chorty55]

Yeah, IMO the circuit was at the most 6" in length from the breaker. But there's a reason inspectors make $400,000 a year! Cross them t's and dot them i's!

 

[jap]

I do not agree with this statement.

Why not?
If it doesn't trip both handles with a handle tie, then I bet there's a very good chance I could manually shut one off without shutting off the other.

As a matter of fact, I've done it just to see if I could.

Therefore a handle tie in my mind is not something that can be depended on to simultaneously operate both handles.

Your common sense of hand motion does that, not the handle tie itself.

Jap>

 

[infinity]

Why not?
If it doesn't trip both handles with a handle tie, then I bet there's a very good chance I could manually shut one off without shutting off the other.

The trip position is only about 1/3 of the travel of the handle so the other one might not trip. Turning one side completely off will not allow one breaker to stay energized.

 

[rc/retired]

But there's a reason inspectors make $400,000 a year! Cross them t's and dot them i's!

Where???? I never made even close to that!

Ron

 

[jap]

The trip position is only about 1/3 of the travel of the handle so the other one might not trip. Turning one side completely off will not allow one breaker to stay energized.

Sure it will.

You just hold your thumb on that breaker to keep it on and your index finger activates the one you want to shut off.
The handle tie will flex enough to allow you to do that.

Jap>

 

[roger]

Yeah, IMO the circuit was at the most 6" in length from the breaker. But there's a reason inspectors make $400,000 a year! Cross them t's and dot them i's!

Quick question, do you have a code book?

 

[102 Inspector]

Where does the inspector make $400,000 a year as stated in post #23. I am going to have to talk to my employer.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Why not?
If it doesn't trip both handles with a handle tie, then I bet there's a very good chance I could manually shut one off without shutting off the other.

As a matter of fact, I've done it just to see if I could.

Therefore a handle tie in my mind is not something that can be depended on to simultaneously operate both handles.

Your common sense of hand motion does that, not the handle tie itself.

Jap>

The only one I have ever seen where you could do that if you worked at it, was the two pole QO type.

You cannot manually move one pole of two breakers connected with a handle tie for any other type, unless you remove the handle tie.

I think the very best handle tie is the old QO three pole one where you place a "U" shaped metal handle tie over the three handles and then drop a pin through the holes at the end of the handle tie and the holes in the 3 breaker panels. I think their new ones just push on like the other brands do.

As far as one breaker tripping and the other staying on when they are connected by a handle tie is because breakers are required to be "trip free". That term means that internally the breaker will open even where the external handle is locked in the on position.
The opening of the second breaker with a handle tie when the first breaker trips has nothing to do with the handle tie flexing. It if a function of how hard the tripping breaker moves its handle and how physical force is required to put the second breaker into the off position.

 

[jap]

Oddly, that's the exact one I was thinking of.

You're probably right about the rest of them.

I would stand corrected.

Jap>

 

[jaggedben]

...
If the handle tie doesn't trip both breakers on a short or an overload then it's not practical to expect it to simultaneously disconnect both when manually operating it.
...

See post #16.

 

[jap]

See post #16.

That makes sense.
When you throw them down on the table and actually try different types they actually do work pretty well.

Jap>

 

[LarryFine]

Why not?
If it doesn't trip both handles with a handle tie, then I bet there's a very good chance I could manually shut one off without shutting off the other.

As a matter of fact, I've done it just to see if I could.

Therefore a handle tie in my mind is not something that can be depended on to simultaneously operate both handles.

Granted, I'm sure you can turn off only one pole if you try, but if your intention is to just turn off the breaker, I doubt you could leave one pole on.

 

[LarryFine]

Remember that multi-pole breakers don't depend on the handle-tie for simultaneous automatic operation.

 

[jap]

Agreed.

Jap>