Handle Ties

Status
Not open for further replies.
jamesguy10

jamesguy10

Senior Member
Location
Amsterdam NY
Has anyone ever made their own handle ties out a a piece of bare copper pushed through the breakers and bent on both ends? Is this a violation in any way? We have done it when they didnt have enough 2 pole QO breakers for our lighting panel and they sent us a bunch of single poles. It works fine, passed inspection, and are not incredibly easy to remove.
 
I've done electrical for a long time now so of course I have done it but it is not legal (listed). Now I would just do what it takes to get the proper breaker just in case someone sees it someday.;)
 
I have had to on QO because they do not make a 2 pole tandem. Rather than a wire bent over, the holes in the handle are just right to tap a 6-32. I have used 2 single pole tandems and tied the inside handles to make 2 single pole and 1 two-pole. All that being said, it is not listed handle ties, but you gotta do what you gotta do to use the available space.
 
Older codes said "approved" not identified. In many cases a screw, nail or other item would be "approved". Remember this is not making two breakers into a common trip device, it is only providing a means of common disconnect.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Older codes said "approved" not identified. In many cases a screw, nail or other item would be "approved". Remember this is not making two breakers into a common trip device, it is only providing a means of common disconnect.
Don
Click to expand...

In reality they do common trip, just not internally (if you use a large enough wire to tie the handles anyways)
 
James,
In reality they do common trip, just not internally
Click to expand...
In some cases they may common trip, but most of the time they won't. The handles of breakers are required to be "trip free" by the product standards. That means that the breaker will trip even if the handle is physically held in the on position. There is very little force transfered to the handle when a beaker trips and in most cases this force in not enough to turn the other breaker off via a handle tie.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is very little force transfered to the handle when a beaker trips and in most cases this force in not enough to turn the other breaker off via a handle tie.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. On much more than one occasion, I have found a tripped breaker where the handle did not move until I nudged it.
 
e57 said:
So does the '08 require a handle tie - or common trip on MWBC's?
Click to expand...

[210.7(B)] just says "a means"

I think the days of MWBC in residential are numbered if [210.12] AFCI 2008 is adopted in everyone's home town. rbj :)
 
Lets say you need to feed a piece of commercial kitchen equipment. It requires a 50 amp 3 phase 208Y/120 branch circuit.

That circuit by NEC definition is a multi wire branch circuit.

It happens the customers distribution panels are all fused disconnect style. If we read 210.7(B) we can see they left the door open for a 3 pole switch to be 'the means'.
 
Handle Ties

Jim W in Tampa said:
Thats a solution we seen 20 years ago.Wasnt legal then or now.Inspectors use to let alot of things pass that shouldnt.
Click to expand...

This inspector never passed it.
 
Not to nit pick, but you were going for 210.4(B), right Bob? (All right, I am nit-picking. :D )

210.7(B) wouldn't apply to the circuit you described. ;)
 
funny how i was just dealing with this issue of using "'U L' listed for the purpose " ;) .

Had a an OLD breaker (squared D) go out, and originally they had a 'top and bottom' tandem (peanut) breaker they used and had a nail between the 2 tandem breakers and it worked fine for 30 years it seem. They do not make top and bottom tandems any more. just side by side.

Problem is i could not use side by side in this panel box :( !! I was bummed thinkin i might have to change out the whole box but i was able to find an old used top/bottom tandem breaker.

I went and got the 'UL listed for the purpose' PINS to put between the breakers to cause them to trip together. Problem is that with this 'square d' pins with these 'old tandem breakers' almost would NOT let the cover be put back on cause the opening on the cover wasn't wide enuff because of the pins!! . ARRGH!!

Not say i justify not using the 'UL LISTED for the purpose' products but in my opinion the old nails worked better and were more rigid, and more safe!! I can see how an inspectors let it go in the past and in my opinion was a better way to deal with it and safer.
 
brother said:
funny how i was just dealing with this issue of using "'U L' listed for the purpose " ;) .

Had a an OLD breaker (squared D) go out, and originally they had a 'top and bottom' tandem (peanut) breaker they used and had a nail between the 2 tandem breakers and it worked fine for 30 years it seem. They do not make top and bottom tandems any more. just side by side.

Problem is i could not use side by side in this panel box :( !! I was bummed thinkin i might have to change out the whole box but i was able to find an old used top/bottom tandem breaker.

I went and got the 'UL listed for the purpose' PINS to put between the breakers to cause them to trip together. Problem is that with this 'square d' pins with these 'old tandem breakers' almost would NOT let the cover be put back on cause the opening on the cover wasn't wide enuff because of the pins!! . ARRGH!!

Not say i justify not using the 'UL LISTED for the purpose' products but in my opinion the old nails worked better and were more rigid, and more safe!! I can see how an inspectors let it go in the past and in my opinion was a better way to deal with it and safer.
Click to expand...

These pins ARE NOT intended to cause both breakers to trip together. The Square D Digest clearly says they are for making an "independent trip" 2P.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top