Single Receptacle Question

[Paul Ternstrom]

I guess this all comes down to definitions. I have never considered that the handle of the circuit breaker did not "trip off the load". In his seminars and teachings, Mike Holt has always stressed the importance of looking at the strict wording of the code and its definitions to get the root of what a section means. That's how this whole conversation got started - the inspector had his definition of what a MWBC was and we have gone back and forth discussing what a MWBC is. But it all comes back to the definition in Sec 100 which says a MWBC is two or more hots with a shared neutral. A line to line load is multiple wires, and is a branch circuit, but it is not a MWBC unless there is a neutral involved. So the requirements of 210(4) do not apply unless there is a shared neutral in the mix. Great conversation, everyone!

 

[winnie]

Simultaneously disconnecting all of the conductors associated with the handle tie is dependent on on my hand positioning when I go to shut them off, not the tie itself.

If I read your interpretation correctly, you are saying that a handle tie is a 'means to simultaneously disconnect', but not a mandate to simultaneously disconnect.

That by moving the handle tie the right way you can optionally open all associated circuits at the same time, or only 1.

I can see this for 2 poles tied together, but not for 3.

Jon

 

[jap]

No I am not saying a handle tie is a means to simultaneously discconnect, to the contrary.

Try this.
Put 3 individual breakers in a panel one on top of the other, then, get a field installed handle tie and tie the 3 breakers together.
Now,
Very slowly turn off the bottom or upper most breaker.

Did you open all 3 breakers? not likely.

Reason being is because a handle tie is not like a disconnect where when you pull the handle all the poles open at the same time because they are on a common actuator.

Nor a pull out where if you try an pull the pullout sideways it doesnt come out of the slot easily.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that a handle tie is a means of simultaneously disconnecting anything.

JAP>

 

[roger]

I guess this all comes down to definitions. I have never considered that the handle of the circuit breaker did not "trip off the load". In his seminars and teachings, Mike Holt has always stressed the importance of looking at the strict wording of the code and its definitions to get the root of what a section means. That's how this whole conversation got started - the inspector had his definition of what a MWBC was and we have gone back and forth discussing what a MWBC is. But it all comes back to the definition in Sec 100 which says a MWBC is two or more hots with a shared neutral. A line to line load is multiple wires, and is a branch circuit, but it is not a MWBC unless there is a neutral involved. So the requirements of 210(4) do not apply unless there is a shared neutral in the mix. Great conversation, everyone!

Here is an illustration that is pertinent to the conversation.

 

[infinity]

It has nothing to do with common tripping all the individual breakers associated with the tie.

Nor is the handle tie associated with simultaneously disconnecting all of the ungrounded conductors.

Simultaneously disconnecting all of the conductors associated with the handle tie is dependent on on my hand positioning when I go to shut them off, not the tie itself.

I would like to see someone turn off one breaker and not the other(s) when a handle tie is used.

 

[jap]

Here is an illustration that is pertinent to the conversation.

I would like to see someone turn off one breaker and not the other(s) when a handle tie is used.

Stop by,,,,

JAP>

 

[winnie]

Try this.
Put 3 individual breakers in a panel one on top of the other, then, get a field installed handle tie and tie the 3 breakers together.
Now,
Very slowly turn off the bottom or upper most breaker.

Did you open all 3 breakers? not likely.

Reason being is because a handle tie is not like a disconnect where when you pull the handle all the poles open at the same time because they are on a common actuator.

If you grab the handle tie and pull to the side, do all breakers open?

If you have a 3 pole handle tie and put your hand on the outer 2 poles, does the center pole open?

Or with common handle ties do you still have to separately push on each of the 3 pole actuators?

In other words: if you have a handle tied breaker, can you turn off all poles with a single 'correct' hand motion, even if by using a _different_ hand motion you can selectively turn off poles?

If a there isn't _some_ correct hand motion that turns off all poles, then I agree, handle ties do not qualify as 'means to simultaneously disconnect'. But if there is an easy way to disconnect all poles _if desired_, even if there is also a way to separately switch poles, then I believe you have 'means to simultaneously disconnect'.

-Jon

 

[jap]

Simultaneous means all at the exact same time.

A common trip breaker yes.

A multi pole breaker where the handles are tied together with a handle tie, in my mind, not so much.


JAP>

 

[winnie]

Fair enough. In my mind 'simultaneous' in this case means 'caused by a single operation'. But I concur: handle ties will not synchronize the opening of the contacts nearly as well as other means.

-Jon

 

[jap]

It's really not worth arguing about anyway.

JAP>

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would like to see someone turn off one breaker and not the other(s) when a handle tie is used.

If you try hard enough, you can do that with the pin type that one company uses for a 2 breaker handle tie.
With that brand, I would much prefer a 6-23 screw and a 3 nuts over the identified handle tie from the manufacturer. That same brand has a great identified handle tie for three breakers.

 

[Paul Ternstrom]

To further complicate the issue, NEC Sec 240.15(B) says that circuit breakers shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both manually and automatically... and for multiwire branch circuits, subsection (1) specifically says the use of identified handle ties shall be permitted to do that for multiwire branch circuits that serve only single phase line to neutral loads.

 

[roger]

To further complicate the issue, NEC Sec 240.15(B) says that circuit breakers shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both manually and automatically... and for multiwire branch circuits, subsection (1) specifically says the use of identified handle ties shall be permitted to do that for multiwire branch circuits that serve only single phase line to neutral loads.

The actual wording includes;

unless otherwise permitted in
240.15(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(4).

And here is the rest, take note of (2)

(B) Circuit Breaker as Overcurrent Device. Circuit breakers
shall open all ungrounded conductors of the circuit both
manually and automatically unless otherwise permitted in
240.15(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(4).
(1) Multiwire Branch Circuits. Individual single-pole circuit
breakers, with identified handle ties, shall be permitted
as the protection for each ungrounded conductor of multiwire
branch circuits that serve only single-phase line-to neutral
loads.
(2) Grounded Single-Phase Alternating-Current Circuits.
In grounded systems, individual single-pole circuit
breakers rated 120/240 volts ac, with identified handle ties,
shall be permitted as the protection for each ungrounded
conductor for line-to-line connected loads for single-phase

 

[Paul Ternstrom]

The actual wording includes;


And here is the rest, take note of (2)

Thank you for including the whole text. That was what I was talking about. Sec. (B) gives the requirement for manual and automatic shutoff of the circuits, and Subsection (1) says it is permitted to use handle ties to do it. I did not mention (2), (3), or (4) because this discussion has been about MWBC, and not any of these others.

I'm a bit confused about what you were replying to. Can you please give me more info about your thoughts in your last post? To me, it seems maybe you are implying that subsection (1) REMOVES some or all of the requirements of (B)? I read Sec. 240.15(B) to say "...unless otherwise permitted" and then (1) thru (4) gives us what it is that is permitted in each of those four different scenarios, in order to comply with the requirement given in (B).

 

[roger]

The last sentence of (B) tells us that 1 through 4 are exceptions to the general rule meaning that by allowing handle ties on single pole breakers the "automatic" is not a requirement for these sections. IOWs, these sections do not need to be fed from common trip devices.

 

[Paul Ternstrom]

The last sentence of (B) tells us that 1 through 4 are exceptions to the general rule meaning that by allowing handle ties on single pole breakers the "automatic" is not a requirement for these sections. IOWs, these sections do not need to be fed from common trip devices.

There isn't a "last sentence" in (B) as it is all one complete sentence. So are you then saying we can throw out the entirety of (B) based on (1) thru (4)? Or how would we determine where would we stop throwing it out? There is no wording in (B) that calls anything an Exception. Rather, "unless otherwise permitted" is Permissive, giving the way to be compliant with (B) when you find yourself in one of the four scenarios (1) thru (4).

Regarding your last sentence, "IOWs, these sections do not need to be fed from common trip devices", this sentence would not be accurate IF you have a MWBC. Then they are REQUIRED to be tied together by 210.4(B) by some means, as we have been discussing this whole thread.

 

[roger]

you have a MWBC. Then they are REQUIRED to be tied together by 210.4(B) by some means, as we have been discussing this whole thread.

Nobody has said the breakers do not need to be tied as we have been discussing in this whole thread, where did you get the idea that anybody was saying they didn't? They just don't have to be common trip and it seems that you are saying they have to be. Handle ties may or may not cause both devices to trip but they are not required to. If you know of a manufacturer that guarantee their handle ties will provide common tripping of multiple breakers please post it here.
Another note on the ties, they are required to be identified and even though IMO a nail, wire, screw, etc.... works as well if not better they aren't allowed.

 

[kwired]

Yes, the handle tie we're discussing, which is for opening all poles during manual operation.

The "common trip" refers to the internal mechanism that opens all poles during a short/overload.

Manual operation is not "tripping."

Similar to having a two or three pole fuse disconnect. An individual pole experiences overcurrent condition and it opens, but the other two remain in operation. But if you want to disconnect the circuit you throw the handle and it opens all poles whether any were already tripped or not.

 

[kwired]

Simultaneous means all at the exact same time.

A common trip breaker yes.

A multi pole breaker where the handles are tied together with a handle tie, in my mind, not so much.


JAP>

That all comes down to how much time variance is allowed. Few milliseconds variance is maybe likely even on a common trip device.


My experiences with handle ties is mostly on the QO series breakers. The simple barrel type tie that fits in the holes of the handles and sits between the two handles will pull the adjacent handle enough to turn it off if you pull the first one to full off position, this happens when trying to reset a single pole that has tripped, you pretty much are not resetting it without turning the other pole off in the process. If you use this barrel type of tie to tie three poles together (I haven't tried it) you may get one turned off while the center one is tripped and not pull hard enough on the handle to turn the third one off, IDK. I also don't think they suggest using this type for three pole applications though. They do have another tie that actually goes around the outside of the handles and offer it in two and three pole versions. I think that one would be difficult to turn any pole off and not pull the others enough to cause them to switch to the off position. Is it simultaneously - again subject to a time allowance.

 

[Sberry]

I did a counter top upgrade and ran mwbc to each duplex so there was no way no how unless they add 3 ways it could get overloaded. I used 15A, recepts,, after I did it I thought,,, was this a violation? I ask my insp bud,,, says no,,, its not a single recept,,, ok makes me feel a little better. There were 2 things wrong,,, the original installer extended one of the counter top circuits way around the other place and did an install convenient for them while making it obvious he had never been to the hunters supper or a big potluck done by these Methodist women.
Very poor design and execution, 1 circuit was never used as it was on the counter top but so out of the way and the other had a bunch on it, had it even been staggered with the first may have been usable but the had cords from hell in a church, bout burned the place down from it a couple times.