handle ties
- Thread starter frank
- Start date
- Status
A
a.wayne3@verizon.net
Guest
Re: handle ties
If Ul approved as a handle tie weather an aftermarket of oem then it is acceptable isn`t it ?????
If Ul approved as a handle tie weather an aftermarket of oem then it is acceptable isn`t it ?????
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Re: handle ties
A handle tie cannot be used to create a multi-pole breaker when all poles of the breaker are required to operate at the same time (common trip).
For example:
Multi-wire circuit feeding two seperate outlets (no common yoke) - Handle tie is allowed
Multi-wire circuit feeding two receptacles on a common yoke - Handle tie is not allowed
A handle tie cannot be used to create a multi-pole breaker when all poles of the breaker are required to operate at the same time (common trip).
For example:
Multi-wire circuit feeding two seperate outlets (no common yoke) - Handle tie is allowed
Multi-wire circuit feeding two receptacles on a common yoke - Handle tie is not allowed
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: handle ties
Jim,
In general, 240.20(B) requires a common trip for multipole breakers.
Don
[ April 22, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
Jim,
I don't agree. 210.4(B) does not require a common trip device, it only requires a common disconnect. A handle tie will provide a common disconnect, but not a common trip.
In general, 240.20(B) requires a common trip for multipole breakers.
Don
[ April 22, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Re: handle ties
I do not consider a handle tie as always opening all breaker poles simultaneously. I have seen too many instances where one breaker was on and the other was off, this is very common with the Square D QO1HT
I do not consider a handle tie as always opening all breaker poles simultaneously. I have seen too many instances where one breaker was on and the other was off, this is very common with the Square D QO1HT
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: handle ties
Jim,
If the handle ties don't provide a common disconnect, what purpose do they serve?
Don
Jim,
If the handle ties don't provide a common disconnect, what purpose do they serve?
Don
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: handle ties
Frank,
It appears that 240.20(B)(3) would permit that. You would run the risk of "single phasing" the load if one breaker opened.
Don
Frank,
It appears that 240.20(B)(3) would permit that. You would run the risk of "single phasing" the load if one breaker opened.
Don
Re: handle ties
This is the way that I view it.
Handle ties do not make multiple breakers common trip. Multipole breaker are commonly made of 2 or more single pole breakers but have an internal trip bar which run through the entire assembly where if one pole trips the common trip bar will trip the other poles which is hidden. The handle tie on these breaker assemblies only prevents one pole from being manually opened without opening the other poles. Thus, the "handle tie" is marked "common trip."
If one were to supply a home run circuit where the 2 hots land on the same yoke such as splitting a duplex outlet in a kitchen then you must feed then with two single pole breakers adjacent to each other tied together with a handle tie. If one part of the home run circuit trips the handle tie most likely will not pull the other breaker it is tied to the off position which is not an issue. What is the issue is when the outlet must be worked on or replace the handle tie assures that both sides of the circuit are opened.
This is the way that I view it.
Handle ties do not make multiple breakers common trip. Multipole breaker are commonly made of 2 or more single pole breakers but have an internal trip bar which run through the entire assembly where if one pole trips the common trip bar will trip the other poles which is hidden. The handle tie on these breaker assemblies only prevents one pole from being manually opened without opening the other poles. Thus, the "handle tie" is marked "common trip."
If one were to supply a home run circuit where the 2 hots land on the same yoke such as splitting a duplex outlet in a kitchen then you must feed then with two single pole breakers adjacent to each other tied together with a handle tie. If one part of the home run circuit trips the handle tie most likely will not pull the other breaker it is tied to the off position which is not an issue. What is the issue is when the outlet must be worked on or replace the handle tie assures that both sides of the circuit are opened.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: handle ties
I think the NEC can sound contradicting somtimes as here in230.71(B) it will allow single pole breakers tied together as a disconect but in 230.74 it says that it must simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded service conductors. so does this meen that as far as the CMP's are considered, the use of handle ties when used as a meen's of disconect is simultaneously disconnecting all the poles? or is this another one for the CMP's to redo?
230.71(B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers, capable of individual operation, shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all conductors of the service with no more than six operations of the hand.
FPN: See 408.16(A) for service equipment in panelboards, and see 430.95 for service equipment in motor control centers.
230.74 Simultaneous Opening of Poles.
Each service disconnect shall simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded service conductors that it controls from the premises wiring system.
I think the NEC can sound contradicting somtimes as here in230.71(B) it will allow single pole breakers tied together as a disconect but in 230.74 it says that it must simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded service conductors. so does this meen that as far as the CMP's are considered, the use of handle ties when used as a meen's of disconect is simultaneously disconnecting all the poles? or is this another one for the CMP's to redo?
230.71(B) Single-Pole Units. Two or three single-pole switches or breakers, capable of individual operation, shall be permitted on multiwire circuits, one pole for each ungrounded conductor, as one multipole disconnect, provided they are equipped with handle ties or a master handle to disconnect all conductors of the service with no more than six operations of the hand.
FPN: See 408.16(A) for service equipment in panelboards, and see 430.95 for service equipment in motor control centers.
230.74 Simultaneous Opening of Poles.
Each service disconnect shall simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded service conductors that it controls from the premises wiring system.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: handle ties
The use of handle ties are just for the purpose of common switching as templdl has pointed out. There is a vast difference between common switching and common trip.
Code Making Panel 4 (CMP-4) recognizes common switching the same as the use of a switch and fuses. You will find the protection of service equipment (Article 230) is done with the availability of common switching. The same concept is applied to multi-wire branch-circuits.
CMP-10 is trying to require common trip circuit breakers on all circuits except for service equipment (where it has no control) and multi-wire branch-circuits. Kinda makes you wonder when we are going to require common trip fuses. This was attempted last cycle for the 2002 Code and they didn't have enough votes. They are attempting it again this cycle and it looks like it may happen. If it passes, you can expect to pony up an additional 15 to 20% more for common trip instead of two and three pole breakers.
The use of handle ties are just for the purpose of common switching as templdl has pointed out. There is a vast difference between common switching and common trip.
Code Making Panel 4 (CMP-4) recognizes common switching the same as the use of a switch and fuses. You will find the protection of service equipment (Article 230) is done with the availability of common switching. The same concept is applied to multi-wire branch-circuits.
CMP-10 is trying to require common trip circuit breakers on all circuits except for service equipment (where it has no control) and multi-wire branch-circuits. Kinda makes you wonder when we are going to require common trip fuses.
This was attempted last cycle for the 2002 Code and they didn't have enough votes. They are attempting it again this cycle and it looks like it may happen. If it passes, you can expect to pony up an additional 15 to 20% more for common trip instead of two and three pole breakers. - Status