As most of us know, the tripped position of a circuit breaker is
different than the Off position. The tripped position is kind of mid-way
between Off and On. We then need to turn the breaker Off and then On to
reset it. As far as I know, there is no way for the user to manually set
a breaker to the tripped position. The only options a user has is On or Off.

So let's assume we have this (common?) situation:

2 adjacent single pole breakers are tied together with the appropriate
tie bar based on the breaker's manufacturer. This is done to ensure that
both breakers are always turned off at the same time, killing power to
both circuits.

Now let's look at this situation:

One of the circuits has a problem and requires it's breaker to trip.
However, that breaker's handle is tied to the adjacent breaker's handle.

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

"DerbyDad03" wrote in message
...
As most of us know, the tripped position of a circuit breaker is different
than the Off position. The tripped position is kind of mid-way between Off
and On. We then need to turn the breaker Off and then On to reset it. As
far as I know, there is no way for the user to manually set a breaker to
the tripped position. The only options a user has is On or Off.

So let's assume we have this (common?) situation:

2 adjacent single pole breakers are tied together with the appropriate tie
bar based on the breaker's manufacturer. This is done to ensure that both
breakers are always turned off at the same time, killing power to both
circuits.

Now let's look at this situation:

One of the circuits has a problem and requires it's breaker to trip.
However, that breaker's handle is tied to the adjacent breaker's handle.

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since the
adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In other
words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to deal with
the breaker that has no need to trip?


The purpose of the tie bar is to cut off the breaker on the side that is not
tripped. In other words, in effect both will either be tripped or atleast
in an off position.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a
corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as
is; flipping them both down and back on will reset.

It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.

--

On 4/5/2014 9:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a
corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as is;
flipping them both down and back on will reset.

It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.

That is, to be perfectly clear--the effect of the tie on tripping is
immaterial and the breaker functions as if it weren't there. It doesn't
even try to move the other one; not it's job.

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 9:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a
corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as is;
flipping them both down and back on will reset.

It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.

That is, to be perfectly clear--the effect of the tie on tripping is
immaterial and the breaker functions as if it weren't there. It doesn't
even try to move the other one; not it's job.

--

Thanks to all for the same answer. Glad to see that there is consensus. ;-)

Next question: the reason for these tied breakers is that there is a
bathroom with a fan/heater/light combo unit. The fan/heater are on one 20A
breaker. The other 20A breaker feeds a GFI and the light in the combo unit
as well as a can light over the shower stall are fed from the load side of
the GFI.

The GFI eliminates the danger from the light fixture over the shower and
the ganged breakers ensure that the entire fan/heater/light unit is dead
since it kills both circuits at the same time.

Do you see anything wrong with this setup?

On Saturday, April 5, 2014 11:26:38 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
dpb wrote:

On 4/5/2014 9:17 AM, dpb wrote:

On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

...



What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since

the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In

other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to

deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?



It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a

corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as is;

flipping them both down and back on will reset.



It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.



That is, to be perfectly clear--the effect of the tie on tripping is

immaterial and the breaker functions as if it weren't there. It doesn't

even try to move the other one; not it's job.



--



Thanks to all for the same answer. Glad to see that there is consensus. ;-)



Next question: the reason for these tied breakers is that there is a

bathroom with a fan/heater/light combo unit. The fan/heater are on one 20A

breaker. The other 20A breaker feeds a GFI and the light in the combo unit

as well as a can light over the shower stall are fed from the load side of

the GFI.


The GFI eliminates the danger from the light fixture over the shower and

the ganged breakers ensure that the entire fan/heater/light unit is dead

since it kills both circuits at the same time.



Do you see anything wrong with this setup?

Personally, I would have just put the light in the fan/heater/light fixture
on the same circuit as the fan/heater with one breaker. Then just use a
second breaker for the GFCI and shower light. That way you have one breaker for the fan/heater/light, one for the GFCI receptacle and shower light,
and no need to tie them together.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

As most of us know, the tripped position of a circuit breaker is
different than the Off position. The tripped position is kind of mid-way
between Off and On. We then need to turn the breaker Off and then On to
reset it. As far as I know, there is no way for the user to manually set
a breaker to the tripped position. The only options a user has is On or Off.

So let's assume we have this (common?) situation:

2 adjacent single pole breakers are tied together with the appropriate
tie bar based on the breaker's manufacturer. This is done to ensure that
both breakers are always turned off at the same time, killing power to
both circuits.

Now let's look at this situation:

One of the circuits has a problem and requires it's breaker to trip.
However, that breaker's handle is tied to the adjacent breaker's handle.

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

The handle tie is for manual control and visual purposes (QO breakers
have a single handle regardless of poles). There is an internal common
trip mechanism.

On 4/5/2014 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

Do you see anything wrong with this setup?

Personally, I would have just put the light in the fan/heater/light fixture
on the same circuit as the fan/heater with one breaker. Then just use a
second breaker for the GFCI and shower light. That way you have one breaker for the fan/heater/light, one for the GFCI receptacle and shower light,
and no need to tie them together.

Nothing "wrong" with it per Code, but I'd've gone trader's route, too.

--

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 10:37 AM, trader_4 wrote:
...

Do you see anything wrong with this setup?

Personally, I would have just put the light in the fan/heater/light fixture
on the same circuit as the fan/heater with one breaker. Then just use a
second breaker for the GFCI and shower light. That way you have one
breaker for the fan/heater/light, one for the GFCI receptacle and shower light,
and no need to tie them together.

Nothing "wrong" with it per Code, but I'd've gone trader's route, too.

--

It's been setup that way for a long time and I doubt the homeowner is going
to change it now, but I agree that it might have made sense to use one
breaker for the FHL unit and the other for the GFI/light.

Thanks again.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 09:56:03 -0400, DerbyDad03
wrote:

As most of us know, the tripped position of a circuit breaker is
different than the Off position. The tripped position is kind of mid-way
between Off and On. We then need to turn the breaker Off and then On to
reset it. As far as I know, there is no way for the user to manually set
a breaker to the tripped position. The only options a user has is On or Off.

So let's assume we have this (common?) situation:

2 adjacent single pole breakers are tied together with the appropriate
tie bar based on the breaker's manufacturer. This is done to ensure that
both breakers are always turned off at the same time, killing power to
both circuits.

Now let's look at this situation:

One of the circuits has a problem and requires it's breaker to trip.
However, that breaker's handle is tied to the adjacent breaker's handle.

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?
GENERALLY the second braker will trip to the off position. Because it
is an ambiguous condition, it is PREFERRED to use a twinner breaker
rather than linking 2 standard breakers for that application (like a
220 breaker). They are built to trip together.

On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 15:26:38 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 9:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a
corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as is;
flipping them both down and back on will reset.

It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.

That is, to be perfectly clear--the effect of the tie on tripping is
immaterial and the breaker functions as if it weren't there. It doesn't
even try to move the other one; not it's job.

--

Thanks to all for the same answer. Glad to see that there is consensus. ;-)

Next question: the reason for these tied breakers is that there is a
bathroom with a fan/heater/light combo unit. The fan/heater are on one 20A
breaker. The other 20A breaker feeds a GFI and the light in the combo unit
as well as a can light over the shower stall are fed from the load side of
the GFI.

The GFI eliminates the danger from the light fixture over the shower and
the ganged breakers ensure that the entire fan/heater/light unit is dead
since it kills both circuits at the same time.

Do you see anything wrong with this setup?
Use a double pole breaker and you are fine. Mechanically linking 2
separate breakers may be an issue, sunctionally, or in code, or both.

On 4/5/2014 9:26 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 9:17 AM, dpb wrote:
On 4/5/2014 8:56 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

What is going to happen when the fault tries to trip the breaker since
the adjacent breaker can't be manually set to the tripped position? In
other words, how is the tripping force on the rigid tie bar going to
deal with the breaker that has no need to trip?

It doesn't--the trip mechanism doesn't require movement--it's a
corollary event the result of the tripping. The other will remain as is;
flipping them both down and back on will reset.

It's a UL reqm't that a tied breaker can't not trip owing to the tie.

That is, to be perfectly clear--the effect of the tie on tripping is
immaterial and the breaker functions as if it weren't there. It doesn't
even try to move the other one; not it's job.

--

Thanks to all for the same answer. Glad to see that there is consensus. ;-)

Next question: the reason for these tied breakers is that there is a
bathroom with a fan/heater/light combo unit. The fan/heater are on one 20A
breaker. The other 20A breaker feeds a GFI and the light in the combo unit
as well as a can light over the shower stall are fed from the load side of
the GFI.

The GFI eliminates the danger from the light fixture over the shower and
the ganged breakers ensure that the entire fan/heater/light unit is dead
since it kills both circuits at the same time.

Do you see anything wrong with this setup?


Fine as is.

If the circuits have a common neutral the breakers for the 2 circuits
need a handle tie so there is a common disconnect. That is another
reason why a handle tie was used. (That requirement was added relatively
recently.)