916 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO.
3, MAY/JUNE 2000
A Perspective of Low-Voltage Circuit
Breaker Interrupting Rating
Raymond D. Valentine, Life Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper reviews application of all three types of
low-voltage circuit breakers for three-phase fault interrupting duty
by reference to the circuit breaker’s interrupting requirement and
rating. After a discussion of the rating process for circuit breaker
design and the fault-current evaluation process for circuit breaker
application, it then considers the effect of the erroneous assump-
tion that the load-side bolted fault interrupting let-through current
of all circuit breakers is equal to the calculated line-side prospec-
tive fault current.
Index Terms—Circuit breaker, interrupting, let-through, low
voltage, rating.
I. BASIC INTERRUPTING RATING OVERVIEW
HE one-word qualifier that should be the focus of atten-
T tion in application is the word “rating.” However, rating
may not mean exactly what we think it means at first thought.
For example, under “interrupting rating,” the National Electrical
Code (NEC) statement is that circuit breakers “...shall have an
interrupting rating sufficient for the nominal circuit voltage and
current that is available at the line terminals of the equipment”
[1], [9]. Interrupting rating should, therefore, be specified by
reference to the available fault current at the terminals of the
circuit breaker and it is. However, failure to account for the
differences in the process of interruption can lead to problems
in application. The circuit breaker interrupting requirement is
for sufficiency and there can be a wide range in the amount of
let-through current that different circuit breakers allow.
The function of a circuit breaker is to provide switching and
overcurrent protection functions. They are to protect phase con-
ductors downstream from damage due to current in excess of
their ratings [2], [3]. They are not in the circuit primarily to pro-
tect the ultimate load device. They may provide a measure of
backup protection for other devices, but, generally, that is not
their primary function. More sensitive specific-purpose devices
like overloads and motor circuit protectors are usually used to
provide the load protection.
When the circuit breaker interrupts fault current flow, the
amount of current it interrupts does not have to be equal to
the available fault current. An assumption that it is equal to
Paper IPCSD98–37, presented at the 1998 Industry Applications Society An-
nual Meeting, St. Louis, MO, October 12–16, and approved for publication in
the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS by the Power Systems
Protection Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society. Manuscript
submitted for review October 16, 1998 and released for publication January 29,
2000.
The author is at 3216 Brison Court, Murrysville, PA 15668-1214 USA
(e-mail: rdmcval@nb.net).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0093-9994(00)04389-9.
0093–9994/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
the available fault current could be pessimistic or optimistic de-
pending upon the point of view, and it could lead to an improper
conclusion [10].
A related aspect of conductor protection is that the circuit
breaker must be terminated with conductor of rated wire size
to properly heat sink the circuit breaker. This is 60  C or 75  C
wire, not the smaller 90  C wire that is sometimes used in cir-
cuits. This also means that the connectors at the circuit breaker
must be large enough and of the correct type to properly ac-
commodate the size and material of the wire. Connectors for
copper and aluminum conductors are marked to indicate their
suitability for use with these materials.
Consistent with their primary purpose of protecting the phase
wire, circuit breakers are tested with rated wire to prove their
ability to perform the function. The amount of let-through cur-
rent allowed by the circuit breaker is not a significant factor as
long as protection is provided.
II. TEST BASIS FORSHORT-CIRCUIT INTERRUPTING
CURRENT RATING
A specific set of current interrupting ratings has been agreed
upon by manufacturers and users and all standard circuit
breakers utilize these standard interrupting ratings. The stan-
dards also specify the different test voltage and test circuit X/R
requirements that must be used to establish these ratings. Power
circuit breaker short-circuit interrupting tests, for example,
are performed per IEEE Standards C37.13 and C37.50 at
maximum voltage [4], [14]. Molded-case circuit breaker and
insulated-case circuit breaker short-circuit interrupting tests
are performed per UL-489 Standard at rated voltage [13].
The required X/R ratios of the test circuits are specified in
these standards and, for molded-case and insulated-case circuit
breakers, they are related to the interrupting ratings being
sought. They are as listed in Table I.
Knowing the value of X/R at which the circuit breaker proof
test was made makes evaluation of the circuit breaker for in-
terrupting rating a simple comparison of the evaluated prospec-
tive interrupting current for the application to the circuit breaker
nameplate interrupting current rating as long as the prospective
circuit X/R ratio is less than or equal to the test value. This is the
major benefit of the change from total current rating to symmet-
rical current rating for circuit breakers which is used now. That
is, with the change to symmetrical current rating, asymmetry
during fault inception and interruption is accounted for in the
symmetrical current interrupting rating for all values of X/R up
to the test value, and the test values are high enough to eliminate
VALENTINE: A PERSPECTIVE OF LOW-VOLTAGE CIRCUIT BREAKER INTERRUPTING RATING
TABLE I
RANGES OF TEST CIRCUIT X/R RATIO FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
LOW-VOLTAGE CIRCUIT BREAKERS
the necessity to do a separate engineering evaluation in a large
number of practical cases. This is true for power circuit breaker
as well as for molded-case and insulated-case circuit breaker ap-
plications.
III. CIRCUIT BREAKER EVALUATION
When circuit X/R ratio exceeds the test value of X/R ratio, it
is necessary to evaluate the circuit breaker for interrupting capa-
bility. The process of evaluation is the same for molded-case and
insulated-case circuit breakers as it is for power circuit breakers.
One multiplies the calculated symmetrical fault current of the
application circuit by a multiplying factor which is a function
of the X/R ratio of the application circuit to get an evaluated
short-circuit current. Then, the circuit breaker interrupting cur-
rent rating is compared to the evaluated prospective short-circuit
current. If the evaluated short-circuit current is greater than the
circuit breaker interrupting rating, then the circuit breaker may
not have the capability to interrupt current in that circuit and
may not be applied.
Since the test X/R ratios differ, the multiplying factors for dif-
ferent circuit breaker types and interrupting ratings also differ,
but they are applied in the same manner. One important obser-
vation is that all fault-current multiplying factors are of magni-
tude 1.0 or greater. This correctly indicates that the application
prospective current can never be evaluated to be less than its cal-
culated symmetrical value and, conversely, the interrupting cur-
rent rating of a circuit breaker may never be made greater than its
nameplate rating on the basis of an evaluation calculation. IEEE
Std 1015-1997, the Blue Book, [5] lists multiplying factors for
power circuit breakers taken from IEEE Std C37.13-1990, Table
3 and multiplying factors for molded-case and insulated-case
circuit breakers in Table 3-25.
IV. SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF FAULT CURRENT
Obviously, one of the realities of the actual physical system
is that, when any circuit breaker is connected to a point in
the system, some additional impedance is added through the
917
circuit breaker which would reduce the fault current at the load
terminals of that circuit breaker from the value calculated as
prospective. However, this fact is neglected for the purpose
of circuit breaker application. This is because proof tests for
circuit breakers is done from a calibrated source bus and, in the
tests, the circuit breaker actually interrupts the resulting real
fault current that flows from the prospective current source.
For molded-case circuit breakers, the real interrupted current
is essentially never equal to the prospective fault current
calculated because of the rapid rate at which molded-case
circuit breakers can respond to overcurrent and introduce
dynamic impedance into the circuit [7]. Some molded-case
circuit breakers can limit the current in interruption enough to
satisfy the definition of “current limiting” and can, therefore,
be listed as special-purpose current-limiting circuit breakers.
However, even when they are not fast enough to satisfy the
definition, essentially, all molded-case circuit breakers limit
fault current to some degree in interruption. The net result
is that molded-case and most insulated-case circuit breakers
essentially never let through prospective fault current [11].
In contrast, power circuit breakers essentially do not affect the
first cycle of fault let-through current because it takes a period
of time on the order of that of one power system cycle to do the
decision making and implementing of a mechanism trip. After
that, the circuit breaker interrupts the current.
With this perspective, the following sections examine a few
of the consequences of these different actions.
V. A PERSPECTIVE OF POWER CIRCUIT
BREAKER APPLICATIONS
A question that might be asked about power circuit breaker
applications is: “Is let-through current equal to the calculated
symmetrical fault current at the point of application?” In light of
the preceding discussion, for a fault very near the load side ter-
minals the answer is: “Yes, until the protective relaying senses
the fault, initiates a trip, and the circuit breaker interrupts the
fault.” This answer suggests consideration of the definition of
the word “instantaneous” as applied to circuit breaker tripping.
If there is no intentional delay, then it is instantaneous. It prob-
ably should also suggest consideration of the “O and CO” tests
performed on power circuit breakers during proof testing and,
in particular, the requirement of a power circuit breaker to be
able to “make” under fault conditions. The “O” test means the
circuit breaker is initially closed and it is required to open upon
inception of a fault. The “CO” test means the circuit breaker
is initially open and it is required to close into a fault and then
open. To “make” means that the circuit breaker must be able to
close and latch against the forces of the fault current. Then, sub-
sequently, it opens and interrupts [14].
Note that molded-case and insulated-case circuit breakers do
not have a “make” requirement. The power circuit breaker, be-
cause of its method of sensing current, its stored energy oper-
ating system mechanism design, and its general massiveness
is relatively slow to respond to an overcurrent trip relative to
power system cycle time. This is one of the primary differ-
ences between smaller molded-case and insulated-case circuit
breakers and typically larger power circuit breakers. Because of
918 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 36, NO. 3, MAY/JUNE 2000
its relative slowness, a power circuit breaker tends to let cur-
rent through for a longer time during an instantaneous overcur-
rent trip condition, but this delay is not intentional, and it must
still protect its downstream circuit conductors, and it does so as
proved by test.
Therefore, we might think of a power circuit breaker as being
more representative of a solid piece of bus for a short time which
is usually longer than 1/2 cycle before it introduces any dynamic
impedance into the circuit during interruption. This also means
that a current-limiting fuse or a circuit breaker in series with
it upstream would likely have ample time to operate in its cur-
rent-limiting mode before the power circuit breaker could begin
to open. Fused power circuit breakers work in this mode, but
at the expense of the loss of circuit breaker capability under
high-level faults. The fuses are used to protect downstream con-
ductors at a level lower than the circuit breaker alone can pro-
vide under certain severe fault conditions. For faults below that
limiting level, the circuit breaker operates in its normal mode to
protect the circuit. The ranges of interrupting protection for the
power circuit breaker and the fuses or limiters are shown on the
coordination curve for the fuse being used.
VI. A PERSPECTIVE OF INSULATED-CASE AND MOLDED-CASE
CIRCUIT BREAKER APPLICATIONS
Asking the same question as was asked for the power circuit
breaker case above, the answer for molded-case circuit breakers
in general would be: “No, the let-through current is not equal to
the prospective fault current, except in the very early lower cur-
rent stage of buildup. The typical molded-case circuit breaker
will generally blow open, limiting even the first half-cycle of
fault current.” For insulated-case circuit breakers, because of
their larger size and the similarity of some of their operating
mechanisms to those of power circuit breakers, the “no” is not as
sure. It could be true in some cases and false in others. Those in-
sulated-case circuit breakers whose operating mechanisms will
permit a blow-open will behave in that manner if fault current
is large enough. Others will tend to hold closed more like a
power circuit breaker. Therefore, because insulated-case circuit
breakers as a type span the gap between typical molded-case
circuit breakers and power circuit breakers, their behavior in in-
terrupting fault current cannot be as readily generalized. Insu-
lated-case circuit breakers are usually certified to UL-489 like
molded-case circuit breakers, but could be certified to ANSI like
power circuit breakers.
In the case of molded-case circuit breakers, one immediate
consequence of the “no” answer is that molded-case circuit
breakers should not to be expected to be representative of a
solid piece of bus for a time sufficient for another current-lim-
iting device in series to operate. They introduce dynamic
impedance into the circuit so quickly that there is danger that
a current-limiting fuse or a current-limiting circuit breaker in
series would not be exposed to its required current-limiting
operational condition long enough to be able to follow through
and interrupt in that mode.
When other molded-case circuit breakers or fuses are chosen
to operate upstream in series with a molded-case circuit breaker,
then a special situation exists. If the downstream circuit breaker
has an interrupting rating less than that which is required for full
rating, then, obviously, the combination must be series rated. If
the molded-case circuit breaker’s interrupting rating is sufficient
for its position in the circuit, then there is no question about its
ability to interrupt because, in that case, it is fully rated. The
only question then arises with series rating.
There seems to be a strong temptation for some engineers
to attempt to calculate the requirements of an upstream series
fuse based on an estimate of the downstream molded-case
circuit breaker’s i2 t interrupting let-through. However, even if
the downstream molded-case circuit breaker i2 t interrupting
let-through is known, the dynamics of interruption is not
quantified. There is just not enough information normally avail-
able to do it. The result is that, in many cases, the calculated
performance of a proposed series combination is not obtained
in practice. At this time, the only way to know how a series
combination will work is by testing it.
The up-over-and-down method for fuses of estimating an
equivalent required short-circuit interrupting rating based on
current-limited fuse let-through may work very well when
the fuse is operating into a bolted short circuit, but it is not
generally applicable to the case where the fuse is separated
from the bolted fault by a molded-case circuit breaker. One
fallacy in this method is that one cannot be sure that the
fuse will have enough time to interrupt in its current-limiting
mode because of the speed of operation of the downstream
molded-case circuit breaker in interruption. Another is that the
current limiting characteristic shown may not be valid for the
X/R ratio of the application circuit. This can result in a change
in the fuse interrupting response [12]. At this time, there is
no mathematical procedure known which is easy enough to
be employed conveniently and accurate enough in result to be
used in place of a series test [8], [11].
Another consequence of the “no” answer for molded-case cir-
cuit breakers is that the actual fault current flow is further re-
duced from the prospective value. This is a beneficial side effect,
since, in the ideal case, it would be desirable to allow no current
flow into a fault. Although the actual interrupting let-through
current is not required by the Standards to be published for stan-
dard (not current-limiting) circuit breakers, if it was, it could
vary considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer and from
case to case while still being satisfactorily low enough (or suffi-
cient) to protect downstream conductor. Interrupting let-through
current is required to be published only for those low-voltage
molded-case circuit breakers that are rated “current-limiting”
and the circuit condition for that measurement must be that of
a bolted short circuit downstream of the circuit breaker when
the test is made. The bolted short circuit assures that the circuit
breaker is operating in its current-limiting mode.
In light of these considerations, the conservative worst case
assumption that a molded-case circuit breaker with a 100-kA in-
terrupting rating, for example, will let anywhere near this value
of current flow into the fault from a 100-kA prospective system
is incorrect. The let-through current on test is more likely be
a fraction of the value of the 100-kA prospective peak and, in
practice, it will probably be at even a more reduced level as
a result of practical fault impedance [6]. However, a bolted-
fault condition can occur downstream of a molded-case circuit
VALENTINE: A PERSPECTIVE OF LOW-VOLTAGE CIRCUIT BREAKER INTERRUPTING RATING
breaker, especially at startup where a wiring error is a possi-
bility.
The conservative most optimistic assumption from the cir-
cuit breaker point of view, that molded-case circuit breakers
as a class of circuit breaker generally “blow open” under the
influence of heavy fault current, would be closer to the truth.
Molded-case circuit breakers generally do not wait for sensors
to detect severe faults and for the sensors to send a signal to a trip
unit to initiate opening and then wait for interruption to occur.
They “blow open,” which means that, by design, they use force
produced by the fault current flow itself to drive the contact arms
open so quickly that the terminology “blow open” has been ap-
plied. Due to this driving force, to some degree and over some
range below maximum interrupting rating, some molded-case
circuit breakers operate even faster, the higher the prospective
fault current level. Their interrupting characteristic curves slope
downward in time with increasing current. The nature of dy-
namic impedance complicates desktop analysis [7], [8].
VII. SUMMARY
Actual fault current let-through of a low-voltage circuit
breaker is not always equal to the available fault current. It can
vary widely depending upon the circuit characteristics and the
specific circuit breaker being considered. Interrupting current
let-through measurements are only published for current-lim-
iting circuit breakers because current-limiting performance is
measured relative to an i2 t criterion and an i2 t performance
measurement is most appropriate for showing that compliance.
Interrupting current let-through for noncurrent-limiting circuit
breakers is inconsequential for phase conductor protection and
can vary considerably between circuit breakers. Therefore, a
qualitative evaluation of a circuit breaker’s ability to protect
standard size wire is made during proof testing. In practice, a
circuit breaker’s ability to protect conductors is shown by its
time–current characteristic being below and to the left of its
cable damage curve on a coordination diagram.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Different types of circuit breakers interrupt fault current dif-
ferent ways. The differences are insignificant with respect to the
circuit breaker’s primary function of interrupting fault current
and protecting downstream phase conductors. However, the dif-
ferences can be very significant to other functions.
The assumption that total available fault current flows in a
bolted load-side fault and that this level of current is interrupted
919
by the circuit breaker is generally false. It is an optimum as-
sumption when used to apply the circuit breaker by its inter-
rupting rating and it should be used in that case, but it is pes-
simistic when used to postulate the circuit breaker’s effect on
other circuit devices connected in series.
REFERENCES
[1] Interrupting Rating, National Electrical Code, Article 110-9, 1993.
[2] Circuit Impedance and Other Characteristics, National Electrical Code,
Article 110-10, 1993.
[3] NEMA Circuit Breaker Section, “What is the purpose of a circuit
breaker?,” EC&M, July 1994.
[4] IEEE Standard for Low-Voltage AC Power Circuit Breakers Used in En-
closures, IEEE/ANSI Std C37.13, 1990.
[5] IEEE Recommended Practice for Applying Low-Voltage Circuit
Breakers Used in Industrial and Commercial Power Systems,
IEEE/ANSI Std 1015-1997 (IEEE Blue Book), 1997.
[6] IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for Indus-
trial Plants, IEEE/ANSI Std 141-1993 (IEEE Red Book, ch. 5), 1993.
[7] Y. K. Chien and F. D. Graham, “Molded-case circuit breaker systems:
Testing with conductors,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, 1993,
pp. 1536–1539.
[8] B. DiMarco and S. Hansen, “Interplay of energy in circuit breaker and
fuse combination,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annual Meeting, 1991, pp.
1765–1769.
[9] J. A. DeDad, “Roundtable discussion on circuit breaker testing, applica-
tion and operation,” EC&M, pp. 35–49, October 1992.
[10] A. J. Smith III, “Short circuit ratings, labels and fault withstandability of
molded-case and insulated-case circuit breakers and combination motor
starters,” in Proc. IEEE PCIC, 1991, pp. 1830–1838.
[11] G. D. Gregory and W. M. Hall, “Predicting molded-case circuit breaker
performance during short-circuit conditions in an electrical system,” in
Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, 1991, pp. 1754–1764.
[12] S. Schaffer, “Current-limiting effect charts a valuable engineering tool,”
in Conf. Rec. IEEE-IAS Annu. Meeting, 1991, pp. 1776–1779.
[13] Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Cir-
cuit-Breaker Enclosures, UL 489 Standard For Safety.
[14] American National Standard Test Procedures for Low-Voltage AC Power
Circuit Breakers Used in Enclosures, ANSI C37.50-1981, 1981.
Raymond D. Valentine (S’60–M’61–SM’82–
LS’99) is a Consulting Engineer in private practice.
He retired as a Fellow Engineer from Westinghouse
in 1994 after 39 years of service. From 1988 to 1994,
he worked in the Applications and Standards De-
partment of the company’s Distribution and Control
Business Unit’s Technical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
During this period, he worked on applications and
development of molded-case, insulated-case, and
low-voltage power circuit breakers and accessories.
Mr. Valentine has been an active participant in the
Low-Voltage Protection Subcommittee of the I&CPS Power Systems Protec-
tion Committee of the IEEE Industry Applications Society since 1988. He cur-
rently serves as Chair of both the Low-Voltage Protection Subcommittee and its
Molded-Case Circuit Breaker Working Group and is Vice-Chair of the Power
Systems Protection Committee.