Leviton

I thought there was some testing done various brands breakers and the new Leviton ones failed to trip within UL spec?
 
gene6 said:
I thought there was some testing done various brands breakers and the new Leviton ones failed to trip within UL spec?
Click to expand...
Their breakers are listed to UL 489 just like all of the other brands. Part of the listing requires trip testing to the specification in UL 489.
 
I have installed a few Leviton load centers but no smart breakers, just AF, GF, etc. Have not been told by any customers they have had nuisance trips.
 
gene6 said:
There was an IEEE article published recently
Click to expand...
You are correct, UL is not enforced, but this forum is generally not an academic audience. You must quote relevant authority, and link to original documents.

Faulty Residential Circuit Breakers – A Persistent Fire Safety Problem
Jesse Aronstein, Senior Life Member, IEEE
DOI 10.1109/OJIA.2023.3237956

Abstract:
“..The standard calibration test at 200% of rated current is shown to be incapable of indicating whether or not a breaker will trip properly, as required by the applicable standard, at 135% of rated current. A third brand tested came on the market recently. Its thermal-magnetic breakers trip correctly, but the brand's hydraulic-magnetic breakers are erratic, with 38% of the samples malfunctioning. The malfunctions are attributed to thermal distortion that causes mechanical binding of the triggering mechanism. Some breaker brands with a high defect rate have been in the distribution chain for many years and are permanently installed in homes. The increased risk of fire and injury for the occupants of these dwellings is significant. The long-standing history of this problem and the fire safety consequences are discussed.”

With cpsc.gov political appointments, and OSHA defunded, there is no enforcement before casualty, so UL effectively remains a self-regulated industry standard.

UL member MFG’s may challenge the study methods, voluntarily recall, or require case-by-case proof, before warranty of replacements.

Just like defective AFCI or GFCI are not replaced, until factory tech support conducts the diagnostic with someone over the phone, and approves each individual replacement.
 
ramsy said:
Faulty Residential Circuit Breakers – A Persistent Fire Safety Problem
Jesse Aronstein, Senior Life Member, IEEE
DOI 10.1109/OJIA.2023.3237956
Click to expand...
A paper from a single author. 28% of the referenced materials are from this same author.
Just because it is published by a trade institution, IEEE, does not give it additional gravitas.
 
gene6 said:
There was an IEEE article published recently (open access free to read) attempting to verify UL testing of several brands of residential breakers and the new Leviton "Smart" breakers are "Brand 14" in the paper.
Click to expand...
With a quick read, I did not find the temperature that the breakers were tested at for this report. All of the U 489 tests are based on the breaker being in a 40°C ambient. The trip curve shifts when the ambient is less.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
With a quick read, I did not find the temperature that the breakers were tested at for this report.
Click to expand...
It does not state that explicitly, but it refers to the 135% calibration test at 25C required by UL 489, so it is implicit the testing was done at 25C.

don_resqcapt19 said:
All of the U 489 tests are based on the breaker being in a 40°C ambient.
Click to expand...
Apparently that is not the case. UL 489 7.1.2.1.7 starts off with "Calibration tests of a circuit breaker shall be conducted with the temperature of the ambient air at 25.3 C (77.5 F), except the 100-percent calibration test required at 40 C (104F) shall be conducted with the temperature of the ambient air at 40.3 C (104.5 F). . . ."

UL Table 7.1.1.2 lists a series of 15 tests. 5 of them are "calibration at 25C" at 100%, 135% or 200%. One of them is "200% trip out at 25C".

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
It does not state that explicitly, but it refers to the 135% calibration test at 25C required by UL 489, so it is implicit the testing was done at 25C.


Apparently that is not the case. UL 489 7.1.2.1.7 starts off with "Calibration tests of a circuit breaker shall be conducted with the temperature of the ambient air at 25.3 C (77.5 F), except the 100-percent calibration test required at 40 C (104F) shall be conducted with the temperature of the ambient air at 40.3 C (104.5 F). . . ."

UL Table 7.1.1.2 lists a series of 15 tests. 5 of them are "calibration at 25C" at 100%, 135% or 200%. One of them is "200% trip out at 25C".

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Interesting. Every time trip current trip chart and every breaker I have seen indicates a 40C ambient. It appears that there are some notes in UL 489 as to the 40C marking and the testing for breakers with that marking, including one that says a breaker that does not pass the 40C calibration tests may be marked as a 25C breaker. But the free viewing is not something I am going to try to fight my way through.
 
Krush0607 said:
Wondering how many companies that use Leviton load centers and breakers have tons of nuisance trip calls?
Click to expand...
Any particular reason you are singling out Leviton? I have about 60 Leviton breakers in my new house. I think I have 1 bad AF, just haven't gotten around to replacing it yet.

I know lots of different electricians all with favorite brands, I can't say as any of them are any better or worse than any of the others.
 
We install nothing but Leviton load centers. Not the smart breakers though.
We have numerous breakers tripping for no reason at all, we do around 300 houses a year.

We get 5 or so calls a week for tripping breakers.

Leviton has told us that this happens in various areas but it’s not a complaint across the board.

I’m looking for other electricians having this issue.
 
ramsy said:
You are correct, UL is not enforced, but this forum is generally not an academic audience. You must quote relevant authority, and link to original documents.

Faulty Residential Circuit Breakers – A Persistent Fire Safety Problem
Jesse Aronstein, Senior Life Member, IEEE
DOI 10.1109/OJIA.2023.3237956

Abstract:
“..The standard calibration test at 200% of rated current is shown to be incapable of indicating whether or not a breaker will trip properly, as required by the applicable standard, at 135% of rated current. A third brand tested came on the market recently. Its thermal-magnetic breakers trip correctly, but the brand's hydraulic-magnetic breakers are erratic, with 38% of the samples malfunctioning. The malfunctions are attributed to thermal distortion that causes mechanical binding of the triggering mechanism. Some breaker brands with a high defect rate have been in the distribution chain for many years and are permanently installed in homes. The increased risk of fire and injury for the occupants of these dwellings is significant. The long-standing history of this problem and the fire safety consequences are discussed.”

With cpsc.gov political appointments, and OSHA defunded, there is no enforcement before casualty, so UL effectively remains a self-regulated industry standard.

UL member MFG’s may challenge the study methods, voluntarily recall, or require case-by-case proof, before warranty of replacements.

Just like defective AFCI or GFCI are not replaced, until factory tech support conducts the diagnostic with someone over the phone, and approves each individual replacement.
Click to expand...
OSHA defunded? The last I heard, OSHA is self funded by the fines levied, at least that’s the way they used to be. Something changed?
 
ramsy said:
...

With cpsc.gov political appointments, and OSHA defunded, there is no enforcement before casualty, so UL effectively remains a self-regulated industry standard.

...
Click to expand...
UL product listing standards and the standards from other standard writing organizations are ANSI standards and the process to create a new standard or modify an existing one are pretty much the same as those used produce the next edition of the NEC.
The same rules about standards technical panel membership apply. No single interest group can have more than 1/3 of the total members and all changes require a 2/3s or greater majority.
 
hillbilly1 said:
OSHA defunded? The last I heard, OSHA is self funded by the fines levied, at least that’s the way they used to be. Something changed?
Click to expand...
Try "OSHA defunded" in your search engine, and see what comes up?
"OSHA strapped for resources" and sometimes "OSHA budget cuts," was common headlines before the pandemic, but when OSHA tried to enforce COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace, headlines blew up with 131 House members voting for an amendment to defund OSHA, etc..

OSHA gets the message, and backs off. Perhaps not dead yet, but on their way.
 
jim dungar said:
A paper from a single author. 28% of the referenced materials are from this same author.
Just because it is published by a trade institution, IEEE, does not give it additional gravitas.
Click to expand...
Insurance has retro-actively rejected most existing fuse-box brands, and non-renewed or cancelled those policies in mass. This conversion of forfeited insurance premiums may be citing Aronstein et al, for their actuarial-data mandate.
don_resqcapt19 said:
No single interest group can have more than 1/3 of the total members and all changes require a 2/3s or greater majority.
Click to expand...
Jesse Aronstein's IEEE reports show photos of burn damage on MCCB exteriors, with up to 50% failure to trip, across multiple brands.

For whatever reason the failures pass NRTL testing.

Apparently no quality control exists for ANSI / UL standards during variations in material and production on the factory floor.
 
ramsy said:
Insurance has retro-actively rejected most existing fuse-box brands, and non-renewed or cancelled those policies in mass. This conversion of forfeited insurance premiums may be citing Aronstein et al, for their actuarial-data mandate.

Jesse Aronstein's IEEE reports show photos of burn damage on MCCB exteriors, with up to 50% failure to trip, across multiple brands.

For whatever reason the failures pass NRTL testing.

Apparently no quality control exists for ANSI / UL standards during variations in material and production on the factory floor.
Click to expand...
Why would you think that exterior burn damage should result in a trip?
The manufacturer should have quality control, but random listed items are tested by the listing agency at some set interval after the initial listing was issued.
Any change in design requires the product to be re-evaluated for compliance with the product standard, but the listing agency has no way to know that a change has been made, unless it the random product testing does not pass the requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top