Siemens Panel with Eaton Breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lady Engineer said:
We did establish that and I said I felt it's a good guideline, but it's not the real issue. The issue was GFCI vs. GFP. Don, insists on using GFCI, but 427.22 says GFEP, which has been the real debate. Our current debate is this a code violation or not.

He says he's a stubborn old guy, but really he's just standing his ground as am I. lol :D
Click to expand...
Lets be clear here...I never said I would use a GFCI on a heat trace circuit...I just said I don't believe it is a code violation if you do.
 
Lady Engineer said:
We did establish that and I said I felt it's a good guideline, but it's not the real issue. The issue was GFCI vs. GFP. Don, insists on using GFCI, but 427.22 says GFEP, which has been the real debate. Our current debate is this a code violation or not.

He says he's a stubborn old guy, but really he's just standing his ground as am I. lol :D
Click to expand...

I am trying to catch up but what code section prohibits the use of a GFCI?

GFCI is just sensitive GFP.
 
iwire said:
I am trying to catch up but what code section prohibits the use of a GFCI?

GFCI is just sensitive GFP.
Click to expand...
Bob,
The code section specifies GFP and since GFP and GFCI are not the same device and are listed under different standards, the idea is that the term used in the code book acts to prohibit the use of a GFCI on those circuits.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Lets be clear here...I never said I would use a GFCI on a heat trace circuit...I just said I don't believe it is a code violation if you do.
Click to expand...

Gosh, Don like I just said the debate is whether it's a code violation, and you gave me reasons why GCFI could be used and it's not a code violation. :)

I still stand that it is a code violation, because when the code says use a particular equipment, but using something that will "work", I feel that's compromising the code.

If UL didn't specify the difference, nor the NEC, I would say sure they are interchangeable. However, they both state GFP for equipment, GFCI for personnel, so I don't think you can just skirt around it.

Like my previous example, using a breaker instead of a fuse for a motor circuit. Both will trip if there's overcurrent, but the code says 175% of the FLA for a fuse, and 250% of the FLA for a breaker. (Hey, the are both for overrcurrent protection of the wire) I would think a code official would flag this as well, so why wouldn't he/she flag the GFCI for heat tracing?

The best bet is for the NEC to make it clearer, and this debate would not be a problem.

Check out, http://www.electricsmarts.com/container.aspx?tab=featured&storyid=8891 (I'm sure you all know this already), plus same thing as ECM.
 
Lady Engineer said:
...Like my previous example, using a breaker instead of a fuse for a motor circuit. Both will trip if there's overcurrent, but the code says 175% of the FLA for a fuse, and 250% of the FLA for a breaker. (Hey, the are both for overrcurrent protection of the wire) I would think a code official would flag this as well, so why wouldn't he/she flag the GFCI for heat tracing? ...
Click to expand...
Are you telling me it would be a code violation to use a breaker at 175% of the full load current for a motor circuit? If that is what you are telling me, then we are in disagreement on that too.:)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Are you telling me it would be a code violation to use a breaker at 175% of the full load current for a motor circuit? If that is what you are telling me, then we are in disagreement on that too.:)
Click to expand...

Same here. Seen many cases where 10HP 480 volt 3 phase motors were on 15 amp breakers and never a problem with nuisance tripping. 15 amp is only like 107% of 430.250 full load value yet if you want to follow the 250% rule then you should be using a 35 amp breaker.
 
kwired said:
Same here. Seen many cases where 10HP 480 volt 3 phase motors were on 15 amp breakers and never a problem with nuisance tripping. 15 amp is only like 107% of 430.250 full load value yet if you want to follow the 250% rule then you should be using a 35 amp breaker.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how much you deal with Code reviewers, their classes, or inspectors but I haven't too many who wouldn't say it's not a violation. I do believe some AHJs won't flag it, but if you're not doing it to code, I feel you're violating the code. I don't care if it works, like they have said.

If you use a breaker, instead of a fuse when sizing for a fuse at 175%, yes I feel that's a violation too. Sure, it may or may not trip, but it doesn't mean you haven't violated the code. That's JMO... :)
 
Last edited:
My point is, why have a code if you're going to just do something because it works or it's been "done" that way for years. The NEC is the standard for a reason, and that's the guideline. I feel like this, if the NEC says use this equipment or size your equipment this way, why deviate.

Way out example:

GFCI trips on piping of a Cooling Tower pipe that is heat traced, but I could have made the contractor use the 30ma tripping device, which like we established is less sensitive to the GFCI. The GFCI trips, the pipe bursts, and now the pipe must be replaced. Since I did not use the proper GFP tripping device, who do you think the judge is going to hold responsible?
 
Last edited:
Lady Engineer said:
...GFCI trips on piping of a Cooling Tower pipe that is heat traced, but I could have made the contractor use the 30ma tripping device, which like we established is less sensitive to the GFCI. The GFCI trips, the pipe bursts, and now the pipe must be replaced. Since I did not use the proper GFP tripping device, who do you think the judge is going to hold responsible?
Click to expand...
That is exactly why I said that if I was you, I would not permit the use of GFCI on that circuit, but that is not the same as saying it is a code violation to use the GFCI. It remains my opinion that there is no code violation using the GFCI in place of a GFP oh heat trace circuits.
 
Lady Engineer said:
...If you use a breaker, instead of a fuse when sizing for a fuse at 175%, yes I feel that's a violation too. Sure, it may or may not trip, but it doesn't mean you haven't violated the code. That's JMO... :)
Click to expand...
The code section in question sepecifies a maximum, not a minimum rating for the OCPD.
430.52(C) Rating or Setting.
(1) In Accordance with Table 430.52. A protective device that has a rating or setting not exceeding the value calculatedaccording to the values given in Table 430.52 shall be used.​
Click to expand...
The only way the use of a smaller rated device becomes a code violation is if the smaller rated device does not permit the motor to start. 430.52(B)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The code section in question sepecifies a maximum, not a minimum rating for the OCPD.

The only way the use of a smaller rated device becomes a code violation is if the smaller rated device does not permit the motor to start. 430.52(B)
Click to expand...

True, it's maximum, and I always use the size closest, which is sometimes the smaller one, because this is the MAXIMUM fuse or c.b. size that can be used. But to use the incorrect factor from table 430.52 for the device being installed, I still feel is a violation. That's all... :) We will have to disagree on this.

Going back to the court example, feel the judge will find me liable and at that point, I don't have the code to back me up. Same again, we'll have to disagree on this. :)
 
Last edited:
Lady Engineer said:
I'm not sure how much you deal with Code reviewers, their classes, or inspectors but I haven't too many who wouldn't say it's not a violation. I do believe some AHJs won't flag it, but if you're not doing it to code, I feel you're violating the code. I don't care if it works, like they have said.

If you use a breaker, instead of a fuse when sizing for a fuse at 175%, yes I feel that's a violation too. Sure, it may or may not trip, but it doesn't mean you haven't violated the code. That's JMO... :)
Click to expand...
Don already addressed it - T430.52 is maximum overcurrent protection. There is no minimum. I will argue this one to death as compared to the GFCI 4-6 mA vs GFPD 30 or 50 mA as it is much more clear as printed in NEC.

Lady Engineer said:
My point is, why have a code if you're going to just do something because it works or it's been "done" that way for years. The NEC is the standard for a reason, and that's the guideline. I feel like this, if the NEC says use this equipment or size your equipment this way, why deviate.

Way out example:

GFCI trips on piping of a Cooling Tower pipe that is heat traced, but I could have made the contractor use the 30ma tripping device, which like we established is less sensitive to the GFCI. The GFCI trips, the pipe bursts, and now the pipe must be replaced. Since I did not use the proper GFP tripping device, who do you think the judge is going to hold responsible?
Click to expand...
I see that as a design issue and not a code violation. The judge is not going to know anything about electrical installations or codes, he is going to be convinced by the party that gives him the better explanation of what was wrong and why - even if it is technically inaccurate, that is what attorneys do, twist things to try to make their point of view come out looking like it is right.

Lady Engineer said:
True, it's maximum, and I always use the size closest, which is sometimes the smaller one, because this is the MAXIMUM fuse or c.b. size that can be used. But to use the incorrect factor from table 430.52 for the device being installed, I still feel is a violation. That's all... :) We will have to disagree on this.

Going back to the court example, feel the judge will find me liable and at that point, I don't have the code to back me up. Same again, we'll have to disagree on this. :)
Click to expand...
Anything that does not exceed values in T430.52 is code legal. There is more consistency in fuses but breakers and their suggested sizes for certain HP of motors varies from one manufacturer to the next, but most are below the allowed 250%. My earlier example of 10 HP 480 volt many breaker manufacturers suggest 25 amp breaker, 250% is actually 35 amps, and like I said I have seen many on 15 amp breakers that never trip when starting, I don't necessarily install them on 15's but will in a pinch occasionally if 15 amp is all that is available, usually with intent of changing it later.
 
kwired said:
Don already addressed it - T430.52 is maximum overcurrent protection. There is no minimum. I will argue this one to death as compared to the GFCI 4-6 mA vs GFPD 30 or 50 mA as it is much more clear as printed in NEC.


I see that as a design issue and not a code violation. The judge is not going to know anything about electrical installations or codes, he is going to be convinced by the party that gives him the better explanation of what was wrong and why - even if it is technically inaccurate, that is what attorneys do, twist things to try to make their point of view come out looking like it is right.

Anything that does not exceed values in T430.52 is code legal. There is more consistency in fuses but breakers and their suggested sizes for certain HP of motors varies from one manufacturer to the next, but most are below the allowed 250%. My earlier example of 10 HP 480 volt many breaker manufacturers suggest 25 amp breaker, 250% is actually 35 amps, and like I said I have seen many on 15 amp breakers that never trip when starting, I don't necessarily install them on 15's but will in a pinch occasionally if 15 amp is all that is available, usually with intent of changing it later.
Click to expand...

Just because it's the maximum doesn't mean you can just use the FLA to size the device. I think it's code standard that should be followed. I'll be honest with you, it may not trip even with using a smaller rated device, but it doesn't mean you designed it to code. It does not mean you can use any size you want.

Plus, for you as an EC you probably would want to installed the GFCI due to the price, but as the Engineer I'm left this the headache of the thing tripping after you leave, and explaining to the client AND judge why I didn't follow the NEC code. I disagree that it's lawyer issue, I'm required by the state to follow codes and standards, and if I don't I am liable.

The GFCI are not the same and treating the devices like they are, I feel is violation, especially when the NEC and UL make a distinction between the two devices on how they should be used. Just like treating CBs and Fuses like they are the same.

I don't agree with you, sorry. :(
 
Last edited:
Lady Engineer said:
427.22 states using GFP for Heat Tracing.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, here is the NEC definition of same

Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment. A system intended
to provide protection of equipment from damaging
line-to-ground fault currents by operating to cause a disconnecting
means to open all ungrounded conductors of the
faulted circuit. This protection is provided at current levels less
than those required to protect conductors from damage
through the operation of a supply circuit overcurrent device.
Click to expand...

If I install a GFCI for this application it meets all that is in the definition.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Bob,
The code section specifies GFP and since GFP and GFCI are not the same device and are listed under different standards, the idea is that the term used in the code book acts to prohibit the use of a GFCI on those circuits.
Click to expand...


And I submit the NEC definition of GFP does not exclude GFCI.
 
iwire said:
Yes it does, here is the NEC definition of same



If I install a GFCI for this application it meets all that is in the definition.
Click to expand...

Under UL 943 and 1053 they are not the same device. They do they same thing, but even per Art. 100, the code states GFCI and GFP.

The Definition you gave is under Art. 100 under GFP of Equipment, here's the definition under GFCI.

GFCI: A device intended for protection of personnel that functions to de-energize a circuit or portion thereof within an established period of time when a current to ground exceeds the values established for a Class A device.

FPN: Class A ground fault circuit interrupters trip when current to ground is 6 ma or higher and do no trip when the current to ground is less then 4 ma. For further information see UL 943, Standard for Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters.
 
Lady Engineer said:
Under UL 943 and 1053 they are not the same device. They do they same thing, but even per Art. 100, the code states GFCI and GFP.

The Definition you gave is under Art. 100 under GFP of Equipment, here's the definition under GFCI.

GFCI: A device intended for protection of personnel that functions to de-energize a circuit or portion thereof within an established period of time when a current to ground exceeds the values established for a Class A device.

FPN: Class A ground fault circuit interrupters trip when current to ground is 6 ma or higher and do no trip when the current to ground is less then 4 ma. For further information see UL 943, Standard for Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters.
Click to expand...
Looking only at the NEC, do the functions of a GFCI meet all of the required functions of a GFP?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Looking only at the NEC, do the functions of a GFCI meet all of the required functions of a GFP?
Click to expand...

Function wise, yes.

But so would a fused switch vs. cb in some applications, but you can't always use them interchangeable unless under the the right applications and still be code compliant. Again, my main position is what works, is not always be code compliant, just because it works.

Before you guys say I'm "PMSing", I'm going to leave it at that. For the record, I'm not. It's Friday, and today is a good day. :)

*I know you were all thinking it, you don't have to say it* ;)

Have a great weekend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top