Double Throw Poles On Main OCPD's

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

north star

Senior Member
Location
inside Area 51
= ( ) =

If there are two or more separate OCPD's being used on the main electrical
conductors entering a panelboard, ...are they "required" to be
connected together, to disconnect all power, or can each OCPD be considered
compliant if they can disconnect the power, ...just not synchronously !

I do not know if I asked the question correctly or not. Sorry ! :blink:

Which NEC Articles are applicable ? I am using the `08 NEC.

Thanks!

= ( ) =
 
north star said:
= ( ) =

If there are two or more separate OCPD's being used on the main electrical
conductors entering a panelboard, ...are they "required" to be
connected together, to disconnect all power, or can each OCPD be considered
compliant if they can disconnect the power, ...just not synchronously !

I do not know if I asked the question correctly or not. Sorry ! :blink:

Which NEC Articles are applicable ? I am using the `08 NEC.

Thanks!

= ( ) =
Click to expand...

look at 230.70 and 230.71(B)
 
Based on the question, I think you are asking about 230.71 and 230.72 which allows 6 separate disconnects that are grouped in a common location to disconnect all the power to a structure.
 
= ( ) =

I am asking if it is "required" for two separate single pole circuit breakers
designated & installed as the main OCPD's in a panel, ...to actually disconnect
all power with two separate throws of both breakers, or is it "required" to
have the two separate circuit breakers simultaneous disconnect all power
with one throw of both breakers ?

Thanks!

= ( ) =
 
north star said:
= ( ) =

I am asking if it is "required" for two separate single pole circuit breakers
designated & installed as the main OCPD's in a panel, ...to actually disconnect
all power with two separate throws of both breakers, or is it "required" to
have the two separate circuit breakers simultaneous disconnect all power
with one throw of both breakers ?

Thanks!

= ( ) =
Click to expand...

Here is how I am interpreting what you are saying. You have two single pole circuit breakers feeding a panel. The service to the panelboard is 220-240, single phase which is fed through the two single pole circuit breakers.

If this is the case, you need a two-pole breaker to simultaneously disconnect both phases of the service to this panelboard.
 
hbendillo said:
Here is how I am interpreting what you are saying. You have two single pole circuit breakers feeding a panel. The service to the panelboard is 220-240, single phase which is fed through the two single pole circuit breakers.

If this is the case, you need a two-pole breaker to simultaneously disconnect both phases of the service to this panelboard.
Click to expand...

I interpret this to mean that I can use either a 2 pole CB or a 2 single pole breakers as long as they are handle tied to operate as one. :)
 
xformer said:
I interpret this to mean that I can use either a 2 pole CB or a 2 single pole breakers as long as they are handle tied to operate as one. :)
Click to expand...

A Handle Tie does not make 2 single pole breakers operate as one.

JAP>
 
jap said:
A Handle Tie does not make 2 single pole breakers operate as one.

JAP>
Click to expand...
It makes them operate as one when manually operated to serve as a disconnect. It does not make them common trip.

Most of the requirements in the code for simultaneous operation refer only to manual operation and not to common trip. (Although there are good reasons for using common trip in many cases.) The biggest exception, IMHO, is that if any kind of automatic trip opens the grounded conductor it must also simultaneously open all ungrounded conductors of that same circuit.
 
GoldDigger said:
It makes them operate as one when manually operated to serve as a disconnect. It does not make them common trip.

Most of the requirements in the code for simultaneous operation refer only to manual operation and not to common trip. (Although there are good reasons for using common trip in many cases.) The biggest exception, IMHO, is that if any kind of automatic trip opens the grounded conductor it must also simultaneously open all ungrounded conductors of that same circuit.
Click to expand...


Actually the hande tie itself does not make them operate as one. Its not nearly a good enough design to make it do so.

It does however lead you to place your fingers in a position to activate the 2 at the same time, or let you know to be sure if you switch one to the off position that it might be a good Idea to be sure the other one it was tied to made it to the off position also.

You can turn off 1 breaker and the other still be on even if it's linked by a simple flimsy handle tie.

The only true means of simultanious disconnect would be a multipole breaker with a single handle or a disconnect or switch where there is no slop to be dealt with.

JAP>
 
To me only a disconnect, switch or breaker with a single handle could by rights be considered a simultaneous means of disconnect.
All others, although very commonly used are just an aftermarket way of trying to make the device do what a single handle device does already.

JAP>
 
Crap, you can't see pics over there if you not logged in, sorry. Here is the pic in question.

14208729730_a4778f04ee_o.jpg
 
chris kennedy said:
Crap, you can't see pics over there if you not logged in, sorry. Here is the pic in question.
Click to expand...
Can't tell for sure from the pic, but if the top two handles are part of a single assembly, then there is a possibility that they are common trip, but for manual operation I do not think one handle would affect both poles. The other side of the story. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top