Quad breakers

[mlnk]

Some quad breakers are labeled "common" trip. This means that they have an internal common trip mechanism in addition to the visible handle tie.
I see how this works for the 240 v. breaker in the middle.
But does this apply to the outer set also? Do they have some kind of connection that tunnels thru the middle breaker? In other words, if the visible outer handle tie is broken or removed, do those outer breakers trip together?

Some quad breakers are labeled "independent". This means that the middle 240 v. is internal common trip and the outer breakers are standard independent breakers with a handle tie only on the middle set.

Do they just manufacture one quad breaker (the independent type) then label it common trip because they have added the C shaped outer handle tie? In other words, if you remove the outer handle tie....do you now have the equivalent of the independent type ?

I have read manufacturer descriptions and cannot find an answer anywhere.

Now, the tougher question....Can an inspector require that each 120 v. circuit be fed from a separate circuit breaker? That is, prohibit using a 240 v. breaker to power two unrelated distinct separate 120 v. circuits? I understand how this would make trouble shooting easier. Is the NEC silent on this issue?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Some quad breakers are labeled "common" trip. This means that they have an internal common trip mechanism in addition to the visible handle tie.
I see how this works for the 240 v. breaker in the middle.
But does this apply to the outer set also? Do they have some kind of connection that tunnels thru the middle breaker? In other words, if the visible outer handle tie is broken or removed, do those outer breakers trip together?

Some quad breakers are labeled "independent". This means that the middle 240 v. is internal common trip and the outer breakers are standard independent breakers with a handle tie only on the middle set.

Do they just manufacture one quad breaker (the independent type) then label it common trip because they have added the C shaped outer handle tie? In other words, if you remove the outer handle tie....do you now have the equivalent of the independent type ?

I have read manufacturer descriptions and cannot find an answer anywhere.

Now, the tougher question....Can an inspector require that each 120 v. circuit be fed from a separate circuit breaker? That is, prohibit using a 240 v. breaker to power two unrelated distinct separate 120 v. circuits? I understand how this would make trouble shooting easier. Is the NEC silent on this issue?

quad breaker does not have internal common trip for the outside poles.
I don't know if I understand correctly. If you have MWBC then you need a tie between breakers. There is not code that prohibits a two pole breaker from being used as a single pole and a spare or two single pole circuits. If you need a handle tie because of a MWBC then yes I prefer using 2 single pole and listed tie as you can troubleshoot a fault easier than with a internal common trip.

Hope that answers it.

 

[infinity]

Main circuit breakers like in the photo have all 4 poles internally tied together. You could remove the handle-tie and it would still trip all 4 at once.

 

[mlnk]

I am using the middle of the quad for a multi wire circuit, shared neutral. The outer are for separate circuits.

My question is: Can I remove the handle tie for the outer breakers? Is it an accessory that is OK to be removed? Or will that void the warranty?
I just do not like the idea that one circuit tripping will shut off another unrelated circuit.

 

[Sierrasparky]

If not a shared neutral you are ok ,

 

[infinity]

I am using the middle of the quad for a multi wire circuit, shared neutral. The outer are for separate circuits.

My question is: Can I remove the handle tie for the outer breakers? Is it an accessory that is OK to be removed? Or will that void the warranty?
I just do not like the idea that one circuit tripping will shut off another unrelated circuit.

What is the CB model number? If it's internally connected to trip all 4 poles then removing the handle-tie will do nothing.

 

[mlnk]

Sorry for double submission. The breaker is BQC220220 cutler hammer, eaton

 

[Jraef]

Yes, you can remove the clip on the outer poles of a “quad” and use those two a separate 1 pole breakers. Those outer poles are not internally linked, that’s why you can’t use that as a 2 pole breaker on a circuit with a common neutral, such as an MWBC, or a 4 wire dryer outlet. You also cannot separate the inner 2 poles, they are internally linked.

Likewise you can’t buy two “twins” and mount them side-x-side, add clips and have the inner pair used as a two pole breaker if there is a common neutral being used in the circuit.

The 4 pole breakers that are all tied together is sometimes also called a “quad”, but technically it is really acting as a single 2 pole breaker with each pole being split in two. You can’t separate anything with those breakers.

The part number you posted however is a true quad breaker consisting of two independent 20A two pole breakers, hence the “220220” in the number.

 

[curt swartz]

Yes, you can remove the clip on the outer poles of a “quad” and use those two a separate 1 pole breakers. Those outer poles are not internally linked, that’s why you can’t use that as a 2 pole breaker on a circuit with a common neutral, such as an MWBC, or a 4 wire dryer outlet. You also cannot separate the inner 2 poles, they are internally linked.

Likewise you can’t buy two “twins” and mount them side-x-side, add clips and have the inner pair used as a two pole breaker if there is a common neutral being used in the circuit.

The 4 pole breakers that are all tied together is sometimes also called a “quad”, but technically it is really acting as a single 2 pole breaker with each pole being split in two. You can’t separate anything with those breakers.

The part number you posted however is a true quad breaker consisting of two independent 20A two pole breakers, hence the “220220” in the number.

There is no requirement that the breakers feeding multi-wire circuits be common trip. Handle ties are sufficient.

 

[Sierrasparky]

There is no requirement that the breakers feeding multi-wire circuits be common trip. Handle ties are sufficient.

I was going to say that!.

 

[mlnk]

So some people think the BQC220220 has internal common trip on the outer 20/20 and some people think it does not.

 

[infinity]

So some people think the BQC220220 has internal common trip on the outer 20/20 and some people think it does not.

We'll which is it?

 

[jaggedben]

According to the catalog, there are two part numbers, the BQ220220, and the BQC220220. The one with the 'C' has common trip on both sets of tied-together poles and the one without has none on either.

I always check what it says on the actual breaker.

 

[Sierrasparky]

It is my understanding that neither have internal trip.
The C has handle ties for both inner and outer
The one without as only a tie for the inner.
Maybe someone is willing to sacrifice a old one.

 

[jaggedben]

It is my understanding that neither have internal trip.

And you don't believe what the manufacturer states because ... ?

The C has handle ties for both inner and outer
The one without as only a tie for the inner.

Not true. They both come both ways. Single poles on the outside (no handle ties) are indicated by an additional '1' before the amperage in the part number, eg. BQ2202115 or BQC2202115. The versions with handle ties on the outside poles are BQ220215 and BQC220215.

The 'C' seems indeed to stand for 'Common Trip'.

The reason I say always check what it says on the breaker - i.e. whether it says common trip or not - is that neither I nor the guys at my supply house have an easy time keeping track of the different part numbers.

 

[mjf]

I would think that if the breaker is UL listed with a handle tie, removing it would void the UL listing. Any thoughts?

 

[jaggedben]

I would think that if the breaker is UL listed with a handle tie, removing it would void the UL listing. Any thoughts?

I think it depends if it's designed to be removed by the user or not. But in the case of most quads I've seen, it's not.

 

[Coppersmith]

Main circuit breakers like in the photo have all 4 poles internally tied together. You could remove the handle-tie and it would still trip all 4 at once.

Since it is a GE breaker, It's probably just as likely to not trip at all and catch fire.

 

[LarryFine]

I was told by a factory rep that those 4-body, 2-pole breakers consist of two bodies that monitor the current and the other two merely switch current. It doesn't compute, because the two bodies that monitor current would only see 50% of it, but it could work that way..