Originally Posted By: mpettitt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quick question, I came across an ITE main service panel today. The top three double pole breakers on the left bus bar were ITE, Siemans and Challenger and they all appeared a little crooked in their installation. Is it a concern to have mis-matched breakers in this panel. Thanks, Mike
Originally Posted By: Thomas Ogryski This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
With a few exceptions, breakers should be the same brand as the panel. Inside most panels is a label that lists the acceptable catalog numbers of the breakers allowed to be installed in the panel.
There are some breakers on the market that are "classified " for use in panels that are not made by the breaker manufacturer. For example, Siemans makes a breaker that is classified for use in some Square D panels. If a classified breaker is being correctly applied, you would have no way of knowing unless someone left the paperwork in the breaker box.
Another instance is what could be "you can't tell the players without a scorecard." There have been so many mergers & buyouts, it is hard to tell what is allowed. An example would be Bryant, which was bought out by Westinghouse, which eventually quit making breakers & their product line was bought out by Cutler Hammer (I think) who also owns Challenger(supposedly). So, if you have the documentation, a Challenger breaker may actually be "listed' for installation in a Bryant panel.
Confused? Me too. Which is why I hate inspecting homeowner installed services that involved used equipment.
Originally Posted By: mpettitt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Tom, thanks for the reply. Very well written. What do you think the appropiate comment would be to make in this case. Something like this maybe? Your thoughts
There are breakers in the main panel box that do not appear to fit properly, they are of varing brands and may not be compatible with the panel box. Recommend further evaluation by a licensed electrician.
Originally Posted By: away This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike,
I know you addressed your report verbiage to Thomas, but I thought I would add something I stole... ooops I mean something I read from someone else.
It covers, what was found, why it may be incorrect, what may happen if not corrected and a recommendation to get it corrected.
Some circuit breakers might be improperly matched with electric panel; panel is manufactured by ***** and one or more circuit breakers by *****.
When circuit breakers of one manufacturer are used in an electric panel by another manufacturer, the circuit breakers may not make proper contact or may not seat properly, possibly causing arcing, brownouts, and fires. Additionally, manufacturer warranties might be voided for both the circuit breaker and the electric panel.
Most manufacturers have verbiage similar to the following:
?Circuit breakers added or replaced shall be of the same manufacturer, type, and interrupting capacity.?
I recommend evaluation by a qualified and licensed electrician to ensure that breakers are seated properly, fully functional, and compatible with panel manufacturer.
Originally Posted By: Thomas Ogryski This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike,
I really don't know what to tell you to include in your report. My inspections involve writing violation notices when I run across something like this and there is usually not much in the way of explanantion, other than citing the appropriate code article.
Andrew's post seems to cover everything quite well.
If you're interested, UL has a circuit breaker and a panelboard marking guide available as a downloadable PDF. Take a look, you might find it interesting.
Originally Posted By: mpettitt This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Andrew and Tom, A double thank you to both of you, these are exactly the kind of answers I was hoping for. Andrew, if you don’t mind, I’ll save your well written verbiage for future use. thanks, mike