There can be unpleasant repercussions for many if a circuit breaker in improperly sized or set for a branch motor circuit

If a motor isn't adequately protected, a short circuit will likely result in premature replacement. Then there's the problem of nuisance tripping upon initial start-up because the magnetic setting of the breaker is too low. Both of these situations can cause any electrical worker to sweat, as the facility manager hovers over him, impatiently waiting for his production line to fire up so he can make quota. Traditionally, an electrician has had to rely on the manufacturer's setting, which is inevitably changed prior to start-up. This leads to a trial-and-error process to establish a breaker setting, particularly when working with motor circuit protectors !"#s$, a %&-recogni'ed instantaneous trip breaker used e(clusively on branch motor circuits. )nce installed and after setting the appropriate dial on the !"#'s faceplate, if the breaker doesn't trip upon start-up, it is usually left alone, possibly leaving the setting too high for proper protection. *nother school of thought is to reduce the trip level until it trips, then raise it slightly, thus achieving the breaker setting. +owever, that setting may also not provide the best overall protection for the motor.

Tracking that breaker setting can be a little nerve-racking. It's not an e(act science, but neither are the comple( mathematical algorithms that have been developed to get closer to an appropriate setting. "omplicating the issue even further are the various types of motors available, including standard and energy-efficient models. The nuances of si'ing and setting !"#s for branch motor circuits to protect against short circuits requires you to have a firm understanding of the ,-" and overcome the challenges of initial motor inrush currents. The advent of electronic !"#s, which use a microprocessor to guarantee the correct settings, can help take the guesswork out of the initial setup of these types of protective devices.

Initial current in-rush

.hen installing a piece of equipment or replacing branch-circuit protection for e(isting equipment, initial start-up can be nerve-racking, and the reason for all the trepidation is motor current inrush, or the surge in current that occurs at start-up to get through the motor's resting torque. /epending on the motor type 0 a standard motor or one of the new energy-efficient motors that are now on the market 0 and other circuit parameters, the duration of that initial current spike can be 1 to two full cycles before decaying to the motor's operating current 2&*$. 2or e(ample, the operating current for a motor may be 3*, but it may take a full 4.45 seconds for the current to decay to that level. *t start-up, current inrush may top out at 6*. *n !"# has to be able to 7ride through8 this inrush without tripping. If a trip occurs, it's back to the drawing board to alter the setting 0 much to the chagrin of the plant manager. The ,-" states in Table 9:4.5; that short-circuit protection for !"#s shall be no more than eight times the 2&*. There is an e(ception that allows protection to be set to 3: times the 2&* for standard motors types *, B, ", and /$ and up to 3< times the 2&* for high-efficiency motors. +owever, it's also important to note that our own field e(perience and research has found that the average set point is a whopping ;: times higher than 2&* for both standard and energy-efficient motors, which not only violates ,-" requirements but also leaves the motor unprotected.

)bviously, this is not an optimal situation. If breaker protection is oversi'ed, it may not trip during a current spike, which will result in motor burnout and early replacement. This means added costs for the plant 0 not only for a new motor and the labor to install it, but also for troubleshooting time to set the circuit protection for that new motor. If breaker protection is undersi'ed, annoying nuisance tripping becomes the problem, meaning more time has to be taken for ad=ustments. The solution is to locate the fine line between oversi'ed and undersi'ed protection on the front end of the process and set the breaker accordingly. But ascertaining that fine line is easier said than done.

MCPs defined
"onventional !"#s are electro-mechanical trip mechanisms that work purely on magnetics, meaning they are designed to protect a motor from short-circuit events. *n !"# senses a difference in current quickly, and instantaneously opens in the event of a short circuit. *n !"# is designed to allow for the initial inrush current of the motor it's connected to. *n !"# typically has a single dial called a magnetic ad=ustment range. *fter determining the motor's 2&* from its nameplate, the electrical worker refers to ,-" Table 9:4.5; and selects the appropriate initial breaker trip level, then rotates the dial with a screwdriver to the selected setting. 2ollowing that is the process of trial and error described earlier 0 if the !"# doesn't trip upon start-up, the trip level should be reduced until it does, and vice versa if it does trip initially. But a conventional !"# is somewhat limited, because although it is designed to 7dial back8 protection after initial current in-rush, there can still be a protection gap above the motor's locked rotor current. 2or e(ample, a contractor may set an !"# to protect for up to 35* of in-rush current, before setting back to >* for operating current protection. But what if the locked rotor current is only :*, a figure that might not be known at the time the !"# is set? That creates a gap between locked rotor current :*$ and ma(imum operating current protection >*$. In other words, the !"# won't trip until it senses >* of current, but a spike could reduce the operational life of a motor, requiring early replacement and related costs and hassle. !athematical equations have been developed to reduce this protection gap, incorporating locked rotor current along with factors such as percent loading, operating temperature, and in-rush characteristics, and thus allow a conventional !"# to better protect the motor by reducing the protection gap. *lthough these calculations have been used for decades, they take time and offer no guarantee that the fine line between short-circuit and overload protection is achieved. In the prior e(ample, perhaps the calculations reduce the protection gap by ;*, meaning the !"# won't trip until it senses 6* of current. +owever, the danger of burning out the motor is still present. .orst of all, the electrical worker might not even know it, and could be in for some heavy e(plaining later. *n alternative now entering the market is the electronic !"#, which uses an internal microprocessor to calculate the algorithms necessary to not only reduce the gap in short-circuit protection on initial current inrush, but also to eliminate it. 2or e(ample, an electronic !"# could be set to ride through the initial current in-rush of >*, then automatically set back protection to the locked rotor current amperage of 9*, allowing the motor to run on an appropriate operating current. In the event of a short circuit, the microprocessor will order the breaker to trip instantaneously.

Achieving balance
*chieving proper balance between overload and short-circuit protection, along with gaining ,-" compliance, doesn't have to be a source of angst. ,ew technologies are entering the market that will make the process easier, provide adequate, compliant motor circuit protection, and reduce the incidence of burned-out motors or nuisance tripping.