breaker tie handles

Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion is that it depends on the Code wording. In some cases, such as 450.5, the Code calls for common-trip which would require internal mechanics. In other cases, such as 210.4, the Code calls for simultaneous disconnect and a handle tie can be used.
Most inspectors that I know will not accept "home-made" means such as screws or wires to establish simultaneous disconnect.
 
I agree with Gus. MWBC can be sp breakers with listed ties not nails etc. Common trip breakers must be a factory DP not handle ties. You certainly wouldn't want a 3 phases circuit to a motor to lose just one phase which can happen with handle ties.
 
I agree with Gus and Dennis.

I would also like to point out that in the 2011 NEC 240.15(B)(2) and (3) have been change to indicate that single pole breakers utilizing handle ties for overcurrent protection of line to line loads are limited to 120/240 volt circuits.

The UL standards for circuit breakers show that single pole breakers rated at 277 volts are not rated to protect line to line 480 volt circuits.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
I would also like to point out that in the 2011 NEC 240.15(B)(2) and (3) have been change to indicate that single pole breakers utilizing handle ties for overcurrent protection of line to line loads are limited to 120/240 volt circuits.
Click to expand...

Wait a sec ... I didn't think that you could do this in the first place!
 
As long as the loads are line to neutral, 240.15(B)(1) allows handle ties.
 
Yup.... missed that...:grin:
we will both await Chris' input.,.,..
 
augie47 said:
My opinion is that it depends on the Code wording. In some cases, such as 450.5, the Code calls for common-trip which would require internal mechanics. In other cases, such as 210.4, the Code calls for simultaneous disconnect and a handle tie can be used.
Most inspectors that I know will not accept "home-made" means such as screws or wires to establish simultaneous disconnect.
Click to expand...
internal vs external trip devices? Do you have code referance(s) for this
 
augie47 said:
As long as the loads are line to neutral, 240.15(B)(1) allows handle ties.
Click to expand...

lakee911 said:
Yup ... see few posts up though. It says line to line.
Click to expand...

Yes, 240.15(B)(2) permits individual single pole circuit breakers with identified handle ties as the protection for each ungrounded conductor for line to line connected loads for single phase circuits or 3 wire DC circuits.

Also 240.15(B)(3) permits the same for 4-wire 3 phase systems.

Chris
 
lakee911 said:
Yup ... see few posts up though. It says line to line.
Click to expand...


Yup, and in past codes 240.20(B)(3) stated
(3) 3-Phase and 2-Phase Systems For line-to-line loads in 4-wire, 3-phase systems or 5-wire, 2-phase systems having a grounded neutral and no conductor operating at a voltage greater than permitted in 210.6, individual single-pole circuit breakers with identified handle ties shall be permitted as the protection for each ungrounded conductor.
Click to expand...

Roger
 
Samuel Ramser said:
internal vs external trip devices? Do you have code referance(s) for this
Click to expand...

What do you mean by an external trip device?

An external handle tie is not a trip device and will not cause the other breakers tied together to trip when 1 breaker trips under overcurrent.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
...and will not cause the other breakers tied together to trip when 1 breaker trips under overcurrent.
Click to expand...

should say may not necessarily cause it to trip.

Technically, on a 2W line to line load, both phases wouldn't have to trip in order to shut the unit down. Of course LOTO protocol would require it to be off before working on it.
 
augie47 said:
... Most inspectors that I know will not accept "home-made" means such as screws or wires to establish simultaneous disconnect.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the code requires a device identified for the purpose and an inspector has a good code reason to not accept a home made solution, a 6-32 screw with nuts provides a far more secure handle tie for two QO breakers than does the factory supplied identified for the purpose device.
I also agree that the handle tie only provides a common means of disconnect, it does not create a common trip breaker.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While I agree that the code requires a device identified for the purpose and an inspector has a good code reason to not accept a home made solution, a 6-32 screw with nuts provides a far more secure handle tie for two QO breakers than does the factory supplied identified for the purpose device.
I also agree that the handle tie only provides a common means of disconnect, it does not create a common trip breaker.
Click to expand...

If I encounter one of the 6-32 arrangements you describe, it looks "factory" to me :) . A piece of #12 bent on both ends does not.
 
augie47 said:
If I encounter one of the 6-32 arrangements you describe, it looks "factory" to me :) . A piece of #12 bent on both ends does not.
Click to expand...

Dog gone it, now I have to go change something in my panel at home. :grin:

Roger
 
roger said:
Dog gone it, now I have to go change something in my panel at home. :grin:

Roger
Click to expand...

If your panel is representitive of 90& of the panels I have seen in electricians (and inspectors) homes, I bet that handle tie would not be the only eyebrow raising sight :grin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top