UBI-brand FPE Circuit Breaker Replacement test results:

Current results of overcurrent tests performed on UBI circuit breakers sold as replacements for FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers: as of April 2017, testing of 420 UBI circuit breakers show overall a high failure rate of about 42% - higher than FPE circuit breakers, and significantly-higher than the performance of most other brands and designs of circuit breakers.

In addtion, two-pole UBI breakers frequently jam after which they will not trip at any level of overcurrent.

This article series gives expert advice about replacing FPE Stab-Lok® circuit breakers - Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® breakers and discusses how to repair FPE StabLok Panels and circuit breakers for actual improvements in electrical safety.

Replacement FPE Stab-Lok® circuit breakers are unlikely to reduce the failure risk of this equipment. We recommend that residential FPE Stab-Lok® electrical panels be replaced entirely or the entire panel bus assembly be replaced, regardless of FPE model number or FPE year of manufacture. We do not sell circuit breakers nor any other products. 

UBI Replacement Circuit Breaker Independent Test Results - 2017 Update

UBI replacement circuit breakers like the equipment shown at the top of this page are sold as replacement units for FPE Stab-Lok or Federal Pacific Electric or Federal Electric or Federal Pioneer circuit breakers, and for other electrical panel brands including for Zinsco circuit breakers.

The photo of gray 15, 20 and 50A circuit breakers shown just above/left illustrates UBI-brand replacement circuit breakers, provided by reader E.K. (2014) who included the image in an FPE UBI breaker field failure report described

at FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS.

Page top photo of smoking UBI - FPE circuit breaker: The FPE-replacement UBI circuit breaker shown at the top of this page smokes without tripping off when subjected to 60A or 400% of rated current.

Smoke (red arrows) is coming out of the toggle slot at the top of the breaker and out of the arc chute (lower right). The orange arrow points to a burn spot near the breaker bottom where internal parts are overheating.

[Click to enlarge any image]

The test conditions that led to this smoking breaker that did not trip in response to an overcurrent are explained by Dr. Jess Aronstein:

One of the 15-amp 2-pole breakers [among a group of UBI breakers undergoing independent testing] went to 200% of rated current without tripping. Typically, when a circuit breaker does not trip at 200% it is not a calibration error, but is most likely due to jamming of the mechanism. It happens most often on the 2-pole breakers.

I ran the jammed 15-amp breaker up to 60 amps, 400% of rated current. It still did not trip. The photo below was taken just before I shut it down. - J.A. by private email to editor 2017/03/04

Results of Independent UBI-FPE Circuit Breaker Tests

A reader E.K. corresponded with us beginning in 2014 that in 2004 his condominium association replaced all of the old original FPE circuit breakers in the condominium complex with UBI replacement breakers. The reader explained that he discovered that the new replacement UBI circuit breakers were faulty.

The reader quoted below, a resident of Northgate Gardens, a large condominium complex in Waltham MA, subsequently provided a collection of UBI circuit breakers to Dr. Jess Aronstein for independent testing. Results are reported below.

The same person who sent these UBI circuit breakers to Aronstein for testing is an electrical engineer (EE) who had one circuit breaker passing about 200% of rated current without tripping. He had his panel changed and the condo board is considering making it a mandatory change in all other units. (They "upgraded" from the original FPE breakers some years ago.)

In a letter to the condominium board the reader's comments included this remark:

In my other condo we also had the same type of electrical panels; back in 2003 we had a fire inside a wall of one of the units which caused extensive damage, we were fortunate that no one was injured. - Anon [by private email]
a
[Editor's note: the 2003 fire referred to by the reader's comment took place at a different facility, not at Northgate Gardens in Waltham. However that distinction does not preclude the occurrence a fire or other loss involving an FPE electrical panel wherever that equipment remains installed.]

Below we provide two tables of independent test results for UBI-Brand replacement circuit breakers for FPE panels. The first table is a summary of test results to date while the second table provides more details of some of the tests.

Notes to the table above

Source:

• "Circuit Breaker final data" Private email, J. Aronstein to D. Friedman et als, 2017/04/18
• Dr. Jess Aronstein, protune@aol.com is a research consultant and an electrical engineer in Schenectady, NY. Dr. Aronstein provides forensic engineering services and independent laboratory testing for various agencies.
  
  Dr. Aronstein has published widely on and has designed and conducted tests on aluminum wiring failures, Federal Pacific Stab-Lok electrical equipment, and numerous electrical products and hazards.
  
  See ALUMINUM WIRING BIBLIOGRAPHY and FPE HAZARD ARTICLES, STUDIES,and BACK-WIRED ELECTRICAL DEVICES and UBI FPE CIRCUIT BREAKER TEST RESULTS also ZINSCO FAILURE REPORTS for examples.

Some FPE-UBI Breaker Test Details

Notes to the table above

FPE-UBI Breaker Test data as of 2 January 2017

UBI FPE Replacement Breaker Test Comments from Dr. Aronstein:

Overall, half of the UBI breakers so far tested from Northgate Gardens failed to meet the industry (and therefore the NEC) safety standard requirement. The safety exposure due to these failures ranges from mild to severe (the 50-amp jammed breakers).

The test procedure that I use encompasses the UL 100% (should not trip), 135% (must trip within one hour), and the 200% (must trip) requirements. Breakers that fail to trip properly are on the test stand for more than two hours. A failing double pole breaker can take more than 6 hours to test. Based on the UBI circuit breaker failure rate experienced to date, I expect it to take about three weeks to complete testing of the first batch that you have sent.

The more breakers that are tested, the more certain the conclusion will be -- from a statistical standpoint -- and the more likely it will be that corrective action will be taken by other homeowners and by responsible government agencies.

So, all readers are encouraged to collect and send samples of FPE replacement-type circuit breakers.

Older FPE-UBI Breaker Test Data: 3 December 2014:

Included in the lower portion of the table above are the December 2014 results of the tests on the UBI "Stab-Lok" (FPE replacement) circuit breakers that you sent. The breakers were tested at 135%, which is the required UL "must trip" level. Those that failed to trip at 135% (sustained for one hour minimum) were subjected to higher current until they tripped or reached 200% of rated current.

Five of the seven UBI breakers that the reader sent failed to trip as required at 135% of rated current. The sample size is small, but it may properly reflect the state of UBI's quality control at the time your breakers were purchased.

Overall, [J.A. had as of 12/14 ] tested 23 UBI Stab-Lok type breakers, with 8 failures. I have also tested 3 UBI Zinsco replacement type breakers, and all 3 failed to trip as required at 135%. [See ZINSCO CIRCUIT BREAKER TEST REPORT] That totals 11 failures out of 26 UBI breakers tested [in 2014].

• Jesse Aronstein ¹, (Life Senior Member, IEEE), & David W. Carrier ² MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - SOME HOLES IN THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY NET [PDF] Received December 4, 2017, accepted January 24, 2018, date of publication February 7, 2018, date of current version March 15, 2018. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2803298
  1 Consulting Engineer, Schenectady, NY 12309, USA, 2 SUNY Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA, Corresponding author: Jesse Aronstein (AronsteinJ@verizon.net)
  
  This paper is also available at no charge at the IEEE Explore website. It can be accessed for online reading at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8283732/
  and can be downloaded directly from IEEE at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8283732
• Jesse Aronstein, Ph.D., P.E., 2 January 2017, private email to E.K. and to D Friedman.
• Jesse Aronstein, Ph.D., P.E., 3 Dec 2014, private email to E.K., B.G. and to D Friedman.
• EK to J.A. & to the Editor, 2017/01/02: Thank you Dr. Aronstein,
  
  This gloomy initial result should prove to anyone who still believe it is a mistake to replace the FPE panels on the complex that all panels must be replaced.
  I will do my very best to convince other electricians who work on the complex to donate the old breakers to this important study.
  
  So, stay tuned, many more breakers will be shipped to you for testing. It will be helpful that when the final report will be published the names of the electricians who agreed to donate their old breakers will be mentioned.
• EK to J.A. & to the editor: 2015/08/13
  
  Thank you Dr. Aronstein, the failure rate is alarming (above 70%). These breakers have a sticker date of 2004. Did the breakers that failed the 135% test did eventually trip at higher current below 200% of the rated current? - Anon to J Aronstein & D Friedman, 12/3/2014, updated 13 August 2015
• Kelly, Timothy P., "[FPE] ELECTRICAL PANEL [REPLACEMENT] CLARIFICATION" [PDF], letter, Kelly to Northgate Board of Trustees / Condo Association, Jacqueline Road, Waltham MA 02452, 21 November 2016.
  
  This letter recommends replacement of the FPE Federal Pacific Electrical panels and notes that the Northgate Garden's Board of Trustees had at that time decided to mandate that the panels be replaced.
• EK to Editor, by private email 2017/03/14: All electricians who helped in this study by donating the old breakers to be mentioned and thanked. Here are more electricians to thank:
  
  • Chad Garvey, Burlington, MA. 781 983-5630, Email: Chad@bfgarveyandsons.com
  • David Palmieri, Randolph, MA. 781 961-7400, Palmieri Electric, Email: dpelectric@aol.com
• FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS - reports of actual Federal Pacific and Federal Pionieer and UBI panel and circuit breaker failures
• William Tinker, licensed Master Electrician, Gilbertville MA, contributor of the UBI FPE circuit breakers whose test reports are described as of 2 January 2017.
  Contact: William Tinker, Master Electrician, 233 Upper Church Street, Gilbertville MA 01031 USA, Tel: 1-774-230-3837 Email WFTEC@aol.com
• ZINSCO CIRCUIT BREAKER TEST REPORT - similar testing on replacement circuit breakers sold for Zinsco electrical panels

 

UBI (or other brand) Replacement FPE or FP Stab-Lok Circuit Breakers for Testing

Updated, 2017/04/18: The sample size of Northgate UBI circuit breakers is considered sufficient to prove the defect level.

Three thousand FPE type breakers tested to date (2018): the statistical certainty of conclusions drawn from the data is very high.

These breakers have a significantly-high rate of failure to perform safely. Details are

at CIRCUIT BREAKER FAILURE RATES and also

at FPE INVESTIGATION CPSC

Homeowners and renovators who encounter these panels should replace the entire panel and circuit breaker set with new equipment. Panel replacement, can involve significant expense, typically $800 to $1800 depending on service size and other factors.

FPE - UBI Replacement Circuit Breaker Discussion [with a vendor of replacement breakers]

For space and clarity, this discussion is now located

at UBI CIRCUIT BREAKER VENDOR COMMENTS On FPE Stab-Lok replacement breakers, posted by a manufacturer sales representative as comments

to FPE Stab-Lok® : FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN.

U.L. 489 Circuit Breaker Test Standard

Below is a description of the UL (and probably ETL) follow-up service for breakers listed under UL489. Note that the only testing required is at the factory, "observed" by the UL inspector.

Certification tests to the UL 489 Standard are witnessed by UL engineering representatives. At the successful completion of the test program, UL permits circuit breakers to bear a UL Listing mark combined with the product identity of “CIRCUIT BREAKER” or “CIRCUIT BREAKER FRAME.”

These circuit breakers are then required to undergo subsequent follow-up testing on a regular basis: quarterly, semiannually or biannually depending on the circuit breaker size and quantities produced. All follow-up tests are witnessed by UL field representatives.

Watch out: In our opinion there is a big hole in the electrical safety net. Nobody is sampling replacement circuit breakers from the market chain to check their quality level, and there is no test data available to the public to serve as guidance in selecting a brand of breaker.

• Jesse Aronstein ¹, (Life Senior Member, IEEE), & David W. Carrier ² MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - SOME HOLES IN THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY NET [PDF] Received December 4, 2017, accepted January 24, 2018, date of publication February 7, 2018, date of current version March 15, 2018. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2803298
  1 Consulting Engineer, Schenectady, NY 12309, USA, 2 SUNY Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA, Corresponding author: Jesse Aronstein (AronsteinJ@verizon.net)
  
  This paper is also available at no charge at the IEEE Explore website. It can be accessed for online reading at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8283732/
  and can be downloaded directly from IEEE at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8283732
• "UL 489 Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and Circuit-Breaker Enclosures", UL (Underwriters Laboratories), UL Headquarters 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL 60062 U.S.A. Tel: 847.272.8800 Customer Service: 877.UL.HELPS (877.854.3577) Email:CustomerExperienceCenter@ul.com, Edition 13, 10/24/2016, ANSI approved 10/24/2016, DOD approved 01/18/1985, Original source for this standard: http://ulstandards.ul.com/standard/?id=489_12
  
  Excerpts from UL-489:
  
  1.1 The requirements of this standard cover molded-case circuit breakers, circuit breaker and ground-fault circuit-interrupters, fused circuit breakers, high-fault protectors, and high-fault modules.
  
  These circuit breakers are specifically intended to provide service entrance, feeder, and branch circuit protection in accordance with the National Installation Codes in Annex B, Ref. No.1. ...
  
  1. 1.2 This standard covers molded-case switches and fused molded-case switches.
  
  Excerpt from UL Web Page for this Standard:
  UL is a global independent safety science company offering expertise across three strategic businesses: Commercial & Industrial, Consumer and UL Ventures. Our breadth, established objectivity and proven history mean we are a symbol of trust, enabling us to help provide peace of mind to all.

 

InspectAPedia is an independent publisher of building, environmental, and forensic inspection, diagnosis, and repair information provided free to the public - we have no business nor financial connection with any manufacturer or service provider discussed at our website.

We are dedicated to making our information as accurate, complete, useful, and unbiased as possible: we very much welcome critique, questions, or content suggestions for our web articles. Working together and exchanging information makes us better informed than any individual can be working alone.

More information about this website is at ABOUT InspectApedia.com

...

---

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---

Reader Q&A - also see RECOMMENDED ARTICLES & FAQs

Question:2022/04/15 What can be done to remove and replace the Fed Pac breakers without unnecessarily changing panels?

What can be done to remove and replace the Fed Pac breakers without unnecessarily changing panels?

Please advise which breakers we can use ,as obviously the panel itself is not a trip issue. - Anonymous in private email to Dr. Jess Aronstein - conversation excerpted here with permission.

Electrical Engineer's reply:

Your electrician is proposing to install UBI breakers to replace the FPE breakers. The report that you attached has substantive data on the UBI breakers.

In particular, I trust that you have seen the following regarding UBI FPE type replacement breakers:

Page 11, Table 3B line 3 (UBI breakers)
Page 11, Section 3C
Page 12, Tables 3C and 3D
Page 12, Section 3D
Page 24, Sections 14 and 15
Page 25, Figure 11

The report is up-to-date and the test results are accurate. There is no data data that contradicts the test results or the conclusions. The manufacturer has no substantive test data to offer that backs up the advertising piece that the electrician sent to you.

The UBI breakers that he is proposing to install are not UL "approved". While they are "listed and labeled" by ETL (a competitor of UL) and therefore meet the letter of the NEC and NYC codes, they are substandard and do not meet the actual functional requirements for circuit overload protection.

If you need more detailed information, see the website www.fpe-info.org and the technical paper "Molded Case Circuit Breakers - Some Holes in the Electrical Safety Net" which can be accessed at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8283732

Below is a pertinent quote and photo from that paper. "Brand 10" is UBI. (IEEE editorial rules prohibit use of the actual brand name.)

Feel free to contact me if you or your electrician need additional information.

Jesse Aronstein, Ph.D., P.E.

Fig. 8 shows a field sample of a Brand 10 (X) 2-pole 15A breaker that jammed and did not trip when tested up to 60A (400% of rating).

FIGURE 8.

Brand 10 (X) 15A 2-Pole Breaker, Jammed, Tested to 60A.

The burn mark on the side of the case corresponds to the position of the severely overheating bimetallic element of the internal mechanism. The toggle face of this breaker, as seen by a person looking at the load center, has a perfectly normal appearance and the breaker’s toggle action feels normal.

The sample shown in Fig. 8 was manufactured in 2004 and installed in a condominium complex the following year. It is one of about 3,000 of that brand in the complex that replaced the original Brand 9 (X) breakers for safety reasons. All of the replacement breakers are now being replaced, once again for safety reasons. Of the 420 Brand 10 (X) breakers from this complex that have been tested, 177 (43%) failed to trip at or below 135% of rated current as required and 14 of the 104 2-pole breakers jammed.

The condominium owners have now replaced two brands of substandard circuit breakers. They are exposed to the possibility that the new breakers that they are installing are also substandard. Brand 10 (X) is not the only one marketed today that performs poorly in the tests.

This independent UBI circuit breaker test report MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - SOME HOLES IN THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY NET [PDF] is up-to-date and the test results are accurate.

Th 2018 report cited above continued testing and reported further results supporting conclusions that the author had found by previous testing given in

https://inspectapedia.com/fpe/FPE-Hazards-Aronstein-2017-11-10.pdf - the article that you cited.

Question: 2022/04/14 - comment on the accuracy of Independent Tests of replacement circuit breakes for FPE panels

I was shown your article in below link regarding federal pacific.

Can you please inform on the accuracy of below and attached from my electrician that as long as the actual breakers are replaced then no need to replace the panels. - Anonymous in private email to Dr. Jess Aronstein

https://inspectapedia.com/fpe/FPE-Hazards-Aronstein-2017-11-10.pdf

Below is excerpted from email to this InspectApedia.com reader, and was sent by his electrician:

---

Please see attached UL approved replacement circuit breakers for the federal pacific panels.

With these breakers, there is absolutely no reason to replace the panel boxes, only the circuit breakers.

There are many insurance companies that accept these breakers.

Please advise

Thank you.

Abraham Gelb
Zerem Electric Corporation
3011 Avenue L
Brooklyn NY 11210
O: 718-377-8685
C: 917-299-0805

 

On 2021-05-11 by danjoefriedman (mod) - bothoriginal & replacement FPE breakers are unsafe; replacements fail as badly as the originals - risking fire, property loss, injury

@John

Independent tests by industry experts found that replacement circuit breakers of this type and brand had the same failure rate as the originals. They should not be used.

Dr. Jess Aronstein's independent UBI circuit breaker test report MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - SOME HOLES IN THE ELECTRICAL SAFETY NET [PDF] is up-to-date and the test results are accurate.

That report continued testing and reported further results supporting conclusions that the author had found by previous testing, for example at https://inspectapedia.com/fpe/FPE-Hazards-Aronstein-2017-11-10.pdf

There is no data data that contradicts the test results or the conclusions.

The manufacturer has no substantive test data to offer that backs up the advertising material that you've seen.

UBI breakers sold as replacements for FPE circuit breakers are not UL "approved".

While they are "listed and labeled" by ETL (a competitor of UL) and therefore meet the letter of the NEC and NYC codes, they are substandard and do not meet the actual functional requirements for circuit overload protection.

If you need more detailed information, see the website

www.fpe-info.org

and the technical paper "Molded Case Circuit Breakers - Some Holes in the Electrical Safety Net" which can be accessed

at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8283732

On 2021-05-11 by John J Hazel - notes on "obsolete" FPE breakers

@Anonymous,

It was Connecticut Electric's own old website that used the word Obsolete. The new website does not use that word and is much more user friendly.

On 2018-04-09 by danjoefriedman (mod) - "Obsolete" is the wrong word; "Unsafe" would be more-appropriate.

Sorry Connecticut Electric & John, but what you report is inaccurate and risks putting consumers at risk, as is the assumption that contemporary or recently-made FP (Federal Pioneer) or UBI circuit breakers perform better than older FP or FPE circuit breakers.

Independent testing has shown that such is not the case.

In fact "old" and "worn-out" or simply "obsolete" do not describe the circuit breakers discussed in this article series, nor would those conditions explain the failure rates given.

A circuit breaker is expected to perform properly from new until the electrical panel is replaced.

It was indeed disappointing to learn that even brand new replacement circuit breakers of several circuit breaker brands including FP and UBI have been found to have a significant rate of failure to trip in response to overcurrent.

The testing of these circuit breakers has been performed by engineers who have a very long and completely-respected history in the profession of forensic engineering, and who are independent from the companies involved.

Their credentials can be found under Aronstein and Carrier at ABOUT InspectApedia.com - this page is located at inspectapedia.com/Admin/About_InspectApedia.php )

This website, InspectAPedia.com is an independent publisher of building, environmental, and forensic inspection, diagnosis, and repair information provided free to the public - we have no business nor financial connection with any manufacturer or service provider discussed at our website. We do not sell products nor services.

We welcome informed, polite questions and criticism.

We would welcome copies of (or being referred to copies of) actual reports of corporate or independent testing or other documents that support the claims made by those semi-anonymous but critical readers below.

Having worked on this topic since the 1980s,, it remains the case that I know of no technical papers, studies, or reports (even company reports) on field performance of breakers or on the performance of new breakers that contradict the data and conclusions that we have posted in this article series.

Where life safety issues are at stake readers should be particularly wary posts by aonymous readers or by those who are pehaps using a nom-de-plume, who are of unknown expertise and who are neither identified nor accountable for their claims.

On 2018-04-09 by Connecticut Electric

@John J. Hazel, What do you mean, John? We, at Connecticut Electric, manufacture NEW aftermarket replacements for the FPE panels.

They are considered obsolete by sites like this that wish to push you a new panel change out by saying that FPE panels are unsafe.

They use fear of a few bad cases to make a profit, SHAMEFUL!

On 2018-03-23 by danjoefriedman (mod)

John

Do you think perhaps it's competitive ?

On 2018-03-22 by John J. Hazel

Why does Connecticut Electric insist on calling the UBI type F breakers obsolete ? Genuine trademarked Stab-Lok breakers are still being manufactured by Federal Pioneer, a division of Schneider Electric.

...

Continue reading at FPE REPLACEMENT BREAKERS or select a topic from the closely-related articles below, or see the complete ARTICLE INDEX.

Or see these

Recmmended Articles

• CIRCUIT BREAKER FAILURE RATES - independent test results for several widely-used brands of circuit breakers
• COUNTERFEIT FPE Stab-Lok CIRCUIT BREAKERS
• FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS - over 270 field reports concerning FPE & FP circuit breaker failures
• FPE REPLACEMENT BREAKERS
• FPE REPLACEMENT PANEL
• FPE Stab-Lok® : FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN
• ZINSCO REPLACEMENT CIRCUIT BREAKERS
• ZINSCO CIRCUIT BREAKER TEST REPORT - similar testing on UBI replacement circuit breakers sold for Zinsco electrical panels

Suggested citation for this web page

UBI FPE CIRCUIT BREAKER TEST RESULTS at InspectApedia.com - online encyclopedia of building & environmental inspection, testing, diagnosis, repair, & problem prevention advice

INDEX to RELATED ARTICLES: ARTICLE INDEX to FPE STAB-LOK BREAKERS & PANELS

Or use the SEARCH BOX found below to Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Questions & answers or comments about the purchase of replacement FPE Stab Lok circuit breakers: where they are obtained, where they are made, are they tested, how they may be expected to perform, whether or not you should use them.

Try the search box just below, or if you prefer, post a question or comment in the Comments box below and we will respond promptly.

Note: appearance of your Comment below may be delayed: if your comment contains an image, photograph, web link, or text that looks to the software as if it might be a web link, your posting will appear after it has been approved by a moderator. Apologies for the delay.

Only one image can be added per comment but you can post as many comments, and therefore images, as you like.
You will not receive a notification when a response to your question has been posted.
Please bookmark this page to make it easy for you to check back for our response.
Our Comment Box is provided by Countable Web Productions countable.ca

Citations & References

In addition to any citations in the article above, a full list is available on request.

---

ADVERTISEMENT

---