Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

[aelectricalman]

I am looking for a 100amp 2 pole Trilliant breaker. Not a main breaker, but a normal breaker. I am aware of the extreme rareness of this, for I have everything in stock but 70amp +. I am willing to spend good money for this breaker if anyone wants to send me a private message.

I went to a 6000 square foot house with a 200 amp trilliant panel. They have a Square D subpanel feeding from the Trilliant, but feed from the line side of the trilliant. In essence they were pulling up to 300 amps on this service. All was well, well now its time to sell the house. A home inspector wrote it up and now the new homeowners have it pending on the correction of the panel. Now, the problem is this. If the panel is changed to put the subpanel on a 100 amp breaker, the house will loose 100 amps, and boy does it need it. Breakers are already tripping like it is. What a situation to be in. I see the real fix as being upgrading to a 300 amp service. The probabal fix is to change the trilliant and be done with it. The homeowner, im sure, will take the cheapest rout out of this problem.


Moderators, please place this where you see fit. Thank you.

Chris Hill

 

[roger]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Chris what size service? Changing this sub fed panel from the line side of another sub fed panel will not change much, and I question if there is a violation at all with the way you wrote your post.

If the conductors and terminations are correct, there is nothing wrong with the installation as it is.

The breakers tripping would be isolated problems with the individual circuits.

Are you saying the Trilliant panel is a 200 amp Main panel?


Roger

[ June 23, 2005, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Stop me if im wrong! A subpanel has to be fed from a breaker? It is a subpanel, not a second main panel.

 

[iwire]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Is it a sub panel or just another service panel?

 

[roger]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

What is the definition of a subpanel?

Roger

 

[iwire]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Close

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Roger, this subpanel is not protected under the main panel (trilliant). It is sent off the line side of the breaker, hence not protected, and adding an addition 100 amp to the service which is only rated to be 200 amps. Granted the feeder wire size may or may not support this, it is a 200 amp service, made into a 300 via a line sided subpanel.

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

its a subpanel

 

[roger]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Chris, you still didn't explain what the definition of a subpanel is?

How far away from this main panel is the SQ D panel?

Roger

 

[roger]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Originally posted by iwire:
Close

Roger

 

[iwire]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

I agree with Roger quite a bit here.

However if this second panel is not a service panel I have a suggestion if you can not get the 100 amp breaker you want.

Install a 100 amp OCPD (a fused disco, breaker and enclosure, etc.) that is service rated to feed the 'subpanel'

You will end up with the same capacity and two service disconnects.

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

The subpanel is next to the main panel!

 

[tx2step]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Let me see if I understand the situation.

1. The service entrance is 200 Amp, hopefully #3/0 Cu? It runs directly to the Trilliant 200A MCB.

2. There is a 100A SqD panel mounted next to the Trilliant panel. That panel is an MLO panel and is fed off the lugs of the Trilliant MCB? Hopefully with #3 Cu.

Do I have the situation right?

If so, then this is how I see it:

1. The lugs of the Trilliant MCB are probably not rated for more than one conductor. But maybe the AHJ will let that slide? If so, this is the cheap route. Did the service conductor and the subfeed conductor fit in each lug OK?

2. If not, you can cut a J-Box in ahead of the Trilliant panel, intercepting the service conductors. You can splice the service wires if needed, and you can tap a 100A feed to the SqD panel. See 230.46 NEC 2005.

3. If you will put a 100/2 CB in the SqD panel to serve as a main circuit breaker, then you can go with #3 Cu and fall within the tap distance and amperage rules (if they even apply here). The #3 can be fed from the lugs of the Trilliant MCB if the AHJ will let you, or it can be tapped in a J-box that you cut in.

4. If they are adjacent to each other, you can have up to six service disconnecting means. See 230.71(A) and 230.72. With this arrangement, you will have a total of only two. The two panels are adjacent to each other, so you should be OK.

5. Whether the service entrance is overloaded or not must be determined by a load calculation. It is not determined by adding the 200A and 100A main CBs maximum capacities together.

In commercial applications, it's not uncommon to see a 1000A MLO main panel with 4 ea. 200 amp and 2 ea. 400 amp CBs feeding subpanels. That is legal, even though it is potentially possible to overload the service entrance and main panel. It just has to stay within the 6-disconnect (6-circuit) rule. It's the contractor's responsibility to size the entrance and main panel correctly for the building load to make sure that doesn't happen. That is why you do a service load calculation. You can oversize a sub-panel/feeder above its calculated load if you like. You can oversize all of them if you like.

It is also not uncommon to have a wireway with several panels, enclosed CBs or disconnects tapped off of it, but staying within the 6-disconnect rule. The wireway essentially serves the place of the MLO main panel -- it's usually cheaper, but I don't like doing it unless I have to -- there are too many wire joints.

6. I think that the GEC would have to go to each panel and that there would have to be a main bonding jumper to the neutral in each panel. Each panel is considered service equipment.

This installation arrangement should be legal. That would depend on your two individual panel and overall service load calculations. But it may also allow the homeowner to eventually overload the 200A entrance (if they haven't already). It would also depend on the SqD panel being rated for service entrance equipment, but I think that all of them are.

Hopefully, your AHJ will see all of this as legal, too. I'd run it past him first before I did it, though.

Anyone see any holes in this?

--Edited to correct my paragraph numbering snafu :roll:

[ June 24, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: tx2step ]

 

[roger]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Chris, Tx2step is correct. The lugs were my biggest question also.

In the mean time, I'll check with our breaker dealers today, one may be able to help.

Roger

 

[pierre]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

This service as described, is almost compliant. Like Roger has stated, the only issue may be the lugs that this is all terminated to.


"3. If you will put a 100/2 CB in the SqD panel to serve as a main circuit breaker, then you can go with #3 Cu and fall within the tap distance and amperage rules (if they even apply here). The #3 can be fed from the lugs of the Trilliant MCB if the AHJ will let you, or it can be tapped in a J-box that you cut in."

Tap rules are for feeders, and do not apply here.
Yes you can tap service conductors.

"IV. Service-Entrance Conductors"

230.42 Minimum Size and Rating.
(A) General. The ampacity of the service-entrance conductors before the application of any adjustment or correction factors shall not be less than either (1) or (2). Loads shall be determined in accordance with Article 220. Ampacity shall be determined from 310.15. The maximum allowable current of busways shall be that value for which the busway has been listed or labeled.
(1) The sum of the noncontinuous loads plus 125 percent of continuous loads
(2) The sum of the noncontinuous load plus the continuous load if the service-entrance conductors terminate in an overcurrent device where both the overcurrent device and its assembly are listed for operation at 100 percent
of their rating

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Just spoke with my AHJ and he said no to the above application because the trilliant breakers lugs are not listed for taps. He said that the subpanel must come off of a 100 amp breaker in the actual main panel. I agree with you guys but hes da man. I want to help the lady but its looking grime.

 

[tx2step]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Chris -

Did you run by the AHJ the idea of cutting in a new J-Box ahead of the Trilliant panel and tapping the service entrance conductors in the new J-Box to feed the 100A SqD panel?

That would certainly meet code.

Of course, that doesn't mean he'll see it that way. That's why I always ask first when I think they may veto something. Experience levels and opinions vary between AHJ's -- It's good to know how yours usually thinks.

 

[charlie]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

But maybe the AHJ will let that slide?

Tx2step, that statement really caught my attention. Are you aware that you are ultimately responsible for your work? Unless the AHJ has given you permission in writing, he has not given you permission to violate the Code.

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

The cheapest solution we came up with is this. We will change the meter base out to a 300 amp. The subpanel will now become a main feeder for it has a main breaker. This will legally and safely make this a 300 amp service. The problem I saw before was that the feeders coming to the house were not up to par for a 300 amp service yet it had the capability of pulling 300amps. Whereas if the subpanel was feed from a 100 breaker in the trilliant main, it could pull 100 amps from the available 200 amps. How could it be legal to do the original installation? I am not understanding this concept. However, I will parallel the feeders from the new 300 amps meters' load side making the 100 panel a second main. It will cost her $800 to $1000 as opposed to $1400 to $1600. Thanks for help guys and gals.

P.S. Could someone please help me by answering the question I posed somewhere there in the middle. Thanks.

 

[tx2step]

Re: Trilliant Breakers - for lack of a better place

Charlie -- OK, you caught me!

[ June 25, 2005, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: tx2step ]