NEC code, daisy chaining outlets
Tom Horne
> chain electrical outlets in a way that connection integrity is
> maintained through outlets. You're supposed to pigtail the connection
> to outlet, so the rest of circuit is not dependent on the outlet. Is
> this true?
>
> If so, why do Leviton and other makes outlet with four holes per side?
> If NEC actually prohibits device-dependent daisy chaining, having more
> than one hole per side just encourages electricians to cut corner and do
> it.
>
The NEC restriction is unique to a particular kind of circuit called a
multi wire branch circuit. Since the majority of receptacles are used
in other types of circuit there is no reason to manufacture as if that
were the only use.
--
Tom
indago
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> I recall somebody here saying it's against the current NEC to daisy
> chain electrical outlets in a way that connection integrity is
> maintained through outlets. You're supposed to pigtail the connection
> to outlet, so the rest of circuit is not dependent on the outlet. Is
> this true?
>
> If so, why do Leviton and other makes outlet with four holes per side?
> If NEC actually prohibits device-dependent daisy chaining, having more
> than one hole per side just encourages electricians to cut corner and do
> it.
>
>
>
There is the possibility that someone may want to separate the one outlet
from the other and have two separate circuits. This is done by breaking the
tie bar that binds one outlet to the other. Also, one could be used as a
switched outlet while the other stays hot.
Greg
> multi wire branch circuit. Since the majority of receptacles are used
> in other types of circuit there is no reason to manufacture as if that
> were the only use.
> --
> Tom
>
and explain how "other types of circuit" differ from it
PH
(if it does, please show me). However, pit tails are common practice and
strictly enforced many electrical inspectors.
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D86DBD6...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com...
Bob Weiss
>
> If it is not prohibited by Code, what authority does electrical inspectors
> have in enforcing pigtail? That is enforcing unwritten rules, which isn't the
> way it should be done in the trade.
>
>
>
Inspectors enforce more than the NEC, particularly local codes and
amendments to the NEC.
Bob Weiss N2IXK
PH
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> PH wrote:
>
> > I don't think NEC specifically prohibits daisy chained electrical
outlets
> > strictly enforced by many electrical inspectors.
>
snip>
> If it is not prohibited by Code, what authority does electrical inspectors
> have in enforcing pigtail? That is enforcing unwritten rules, which isn't
the
> way it should be done in the trade.
>
as per local authority have jurisdiction or to meet a local code.
Mark or Sue
"Greg" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sRJh9.43481$U_.2...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
It is two hots from opposite legs with a common neutral, and usualy fed from
a double pole breaker. The requirement in this case is to maintain the
integrity of the common neutral if a device (receptacle) is removed. If you
lose the neutral, it is possible to get all kinds of weird things occuring
as the power works its way through devices on each leg to compelte trhe
circuit.
So, you only have to pigtail the common neutral in a multiwire branch
circuit. Many times these split off to two separate 2 conductor branches.
From this point, it is just like a regular circuit and you should be able to
connect the daisy chain using the outlet screws for both hot and neutral. I
know of no NEC restriction preventing you from using as many outlet screws
as you need for the hot wire branches, regardless of circuit type.
--
Mark
Kent, WA
eh...@bellatlantic.net
AC/DCdude17 wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> PH wrote:
>
> > I don't think NEC specifically prohibits daisy chained electrical outlets
> > (if it does, please show me). However, pit tails are common practice and
> > strictly enforced many electrical inspectors.
>
> Someone said using an outlet on two separate circuit was a reason for multiple
> holes per side. That will be a reasonable answer for having two holes, but
> still doesn't justify four connections per side. Having that many holes
> simply encourages electricians to save time by daisy chaining.
>
> If it is not prohibited by Code, what authority does electrical inspectors
> have in enforcing pigtail? That is enforcing unwritten rules, which isn't the
> way it should be done in the trade.
It is prohibited by code as was mentioned earlier in the thread.
See 1999 NEC article 300-13 (b):
"In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded
conductor shall not depend on device connections such as
lampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such devices
would interrupt the continuity."
John Wilson
AC/DCdude17 wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> PH wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think NEC specifically prohibits daisy chained electrical outlets
>>(if it does, please show me). However, pit tails are common practice and
>>strictly enforced many electrical inspectors.
>>
>
> Someone said using an outlet on two separate circuit was a reason for multiple
> holes per side. That will be a reasonable answer for having two holes, but
> still doesn't justify four connections per side. Having that many holes
> simply encourages electricians to save time by daisy chaining.
>
> If it is not prohibited by Code, what authority does electrical inspectors
> have in enforcing pigtail? That is enforcing unwritten rules, which isn't the
> way it should be done in the trade.
The NEC defines "approved" as "acceptable to the Authority Having
Jurisdiction". This gives the AHJ all the authority they need to enforce
whatever. Of course, this assumes that the jurisdiction has adopted the
NEC and doesn't have their own code; for example, California has its
own, as do New York, Chicago, and some other cities.
There are some (very few) NEC rules that are worded "mumble shall be
acceptable". If the AHJ wants wiring a size bigger than the NEC
requires, it's up to the person doing the work to find out what's
required in this jurisdiction. Not much gets a property owner angrier
than having a job fail inspection, and the contractor tells him "I wired
according to the NEC, I didn't know there were local rules." Knowing
this stuff and getting it right is what a contractor gets paid for.
73,
JohnW
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
> See 1999 NEC article 300-13 (b):
> "In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded
> conductor shall not depend on device connections such as
> lampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such devices
> would interrupt the continuity."
Does this apply to residential, commercial, or industrial only?
Sincerely,
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Avenue
Worthington, OH 43085-2264
dphi...@worthingtonengineering.com
614.846.3891 voice
208.975.1011 fax
http://worthingtonengineering.com
Tom Horne
> and explain how "other types of circuit" differ from it
>
>
The definition given is taken from the National Electric Code ©.
Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists of two or more
ungrounded conductors that have a voltage between them, and a grounded
conductor that has equal voltage between it and each ungrounded
conductor of the circuit and that is connected to the neutral or
grounded conductor of the system.
Other circuits would differ from these by not having a grounded
conductor or by not having two or more ungrounded conductors.
--
Tom
Tom Horne
> require more as per local authority have jurisdiction or to meet a
> local code.
>
>
issues. Working as or for the AHJ does not give them the power to make
up rules as they go along. The local code has to be adopted by
authority of a statute or it is unenforceable.
--
Tom
Tom Horne
> Jurisdiction". This gives the AHJ all the authority they need to
> enforce whatever. Of course, this assumes that the jurisdiction has
> adopted the NEC and doesn't have their own code; for example,
> California has its own, as do New York, Chicago, and some other
> cities.
>
> There are some (very few) NEC rules that are worded "mumble shall be
> acceptable". If the AHJ wants wiring a size bigger than the NEC
> requires, it's up to the person doing the work to find out what's
> required in this jurisdiction. Not much gets a property owner angrier
> than having a job fail inspection, and the contractor tells him "I
> wired according to the NEC, I didn't know there were local rules."
> Knowing this stuff and getting it right is what a contractor gets
> paid for.
>
> 73, JohnW
Yes, and enforcing the code as adopted is the inspectors job. The idea
that the definition of approved gives the inspector the power to make up
the rules as he/she goes along is ludicrous in the extreme. Any
competent court would rule such an approach to be an "arbitrary and
capricious" exercise of the police power of the state.
--
Tom
Gfretwell
>that the definition of approved gives the inspector the power to make up
>the rules as he/she goes along is ludicrous in the extreme.
Some inspectors believe 90-4 gives them that authority.
PH
I know in my area, NEC is adopted and the inspectors require pigtails on all
outlets, regardless of single or multi-branch connections. My point earlier
was that single branch, multiple receptacle connections, are typically
pigtailed not daisy chained as per local inspectors and not NEC. I have no
idea if they have some special city rules (no state rules, only city
rules)... I just know all outlet must be pigtailed.
"Gfretwell" <gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918122325...@mb-mq.aol.com...
John Gilmer
> I know in my area, NEC is adopted and the inspectors require pigtails on
all
> outlets, regardless of single or multi-branch connections. My point
earlier
> was that single branch, multiple receptacle connections, are typically
> pigtailed not daisy chained as per local inspectors and not NEC. I have
no
> idea if they have some special city rules (no state rules, only city
> rules)... I just know all outlet must be pigtailed.
So: that means that they don't permit protection of several outlets from a
single GFCI.
Isn't that special!
PH
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3d892ee1$0$67...@dingus.crosslink.net...
> > idea if they have some special city rules (no state rules, only city
> > rules)... I just know all outlet must be pigtailed.
>
> So: that means that they don't permit protection of several outlets from
a
> single GFCI.
No, I didn't say that. Even though the downstream (protected) outlets are
on the same branch circuit protection (circuit breaker), they are on a
separate, protected, branch and the protected outlets would be pigtailed.
Gfretwell
>was that single branch, multiple receptacle connections, are typically
>pigtailed not daisy chained as per local inspectors and not NEC. I have no
>idea if they have some special city rules (no state rules, only city
>rules)... I just know all outlet must be pigtailed.
Certainly a building department can make any rule they like but U/L and the NEC
think "daisy chained" receptacles are OK (using the pairs of screws for in and
out). The only thing U/L says was not tested is using the screws and backstabs
together as a tap splitting off 2 or 3 circuits from one.
Tom Horne
That idea is a good definition for the legal term "Arbitrary and
capricious". To accept the idea that an inspector can require
installations to be built to a standard that is not in the code renders
the code meaningless. If the inspectors personal judgment is to be the
standard then why have a code at all. 90.4 gives the AHJ the latitude
"for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval
of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission
contemplated in a number of the rules." Interpretation does not mean
they can add requirements. Deciding on the approval of equipment and
materials means just that it does not include words like installations,
techniques, or construction for a reason. Those aspects are left to the
Code Making Panels (CMPs).
The industry trend toward Min / Max. code adoption is brought on by
attitudes like the one you allude to. When the appeals process becomes
state wide then the local jurisdictions face a major liability problem
if they permit their inspectors to make rulings at odds with the state
appeals board. Since state appeals boards will hear appeals made by
practitioners without the assistance of lawyers the cost of appeal
becomes reasonable and local boards quickly become adverse to looking
like fools by being over turned. That makes for a healthy reluctance to
turn down reasonable appeals.
The basic Idea here is that the AHJ and the inspectors who carry out
their work are exercising the police powers of the State. For them to
make up rules is the same thing as a police officer sighting you for
parking on a public street because your vehicle although legally parked
was obscuring the view of the stop sign. Your vehicle may in fact be
hiding the stop sign. The officer could be correct that it makes the
intersection more hazardous. But if the vehicle is lawfully parked the
sight will not stand court review. Just as most electricians will make
the changes an inspector demands rather than incur the delays and cost
of an appeal, most motorist will pay the fine rather than loose the time
it takes to appear in court but that does not make the officers action
right.
--
Tom
Tom Horne
> So: that means that they don't permit protection of several outlets from a
> single GFCI.
>
> Isn't that special!
>
>
>
What it is is "arbitrary and capricious" and a great example of abuse of
the exercise of the police power of the state.
--
Tom
Tom Horne
> Certainly a building department can make any rule they like but U/L and the NEC
> think "daisy chained" receptacles are OK (using the pairs of screws for in and
> out). The only thing U/L says was not tested is using the screws and backstabs
> together as a tap splitting off 2 or 3 circuits from one.
No, the building department can only make such rules as the enabling
legislation permits and by the process that state statute defines. That
usually means hearings, a public comment period and adoption by an
elected body. The courts simply will not put up with the legislative
function of adopting laws to be enforced using the police power of the
state being delegated to non legislative bodies.
--
Tom
Gfretwell
local building code official but in my experience that is not the way it is
going to work.
Florida just passed a unified building code but there are still local yahoos
who insist that they can "intrepret" their way back into the local ordinances
they were supposed to abandon.
I don't support that view but I do understand it happens. The builder usually
finds it easier to simply comply than to get into the proverbial "rasslin' in
the mud with a pig"
Gfretwell
addressed in the code. I also understand there are some who think it gives the
inspector, or more correctly the chief building official, sweeping powers.
Since it takes legislation to give the AHJ the power to enforce the NEC it
would depend on the wording of that enabling legislation as to how much
latitude they give to the CBO to modify it.
Jeff
Would only add that what Tom politely describes as "Arbitrary and
capricious"
stems from simple ignorance of inspectors.
For reasons Tom explained - we to often put up with their frivolity which
unfortunately makes them even more whimsical and leads to adoptions of
"nonsense" in their jurisdiction as described in other posts above.
There should be a system in place that would remove the inspector from his
job after a few successful appeals
The other reason we do not appeal is that one may have to deal with this guy
for years to come.
"Tom Horne" <hor...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D89F07B...@mindspring.com...
bob peterson
No offense - but are you kidding? Most of the time the standard is
what the inspector says it is.
art
outlets on one circuits, actually that is the way it is done (with pig
tails)
Art.
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3d892ee1$0$67...@dingus.crosslink.net...
>
>
John Gilmer
"art" <art_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gaui9.369353$Ag2.16...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> I do not think enforcing pig tails prohibits GFCI protection of multiple
> outlets on one circuits, actually that is the way it is done (with pig
> tails)
Really? "They" use pigtails at the GFCI!
Now THAT'S really special!
PH
Each city adopts it's own code (usually NEC) and then has their own permits
and fees. There since there a couple dozen cities just in the metro area,
you have to deal with each city separately. It is nearly impossible to know
the code for every city that you'll ever work so I just focus on NEC. I
don't claim to know the local codes, but I do know that you will not pass in
our area unless you use pigtails. I assume this is somewhere in the local
code but I took the inspector's word for it.
Since the inspector signs off on you installation, you kinda hafta follow
his rules. At one job the inspector made us take out the ground rods at the
service. He said ground rods are a last resort and since the building was
metal frame and had large footings with metal rebar, the building was going
to be a much better ground than three ground rods. Note that we planned to
connect the metal building, ground rod, water pipe and etc., but he had the
ground rods removed.
Another location required rigid metal conduit encased in 6" concrete 24"
below the surface when going under a driveway.
"Bob Weiss" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3D87D1F1...@verizon.net...
eh...@bellatlantic.net
"Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E." wrote:
>
> > It is prohibited by code as was mentioned earlier in the thread.
> > See 1999 NEC article 300-13 (b):
> > "In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded
> > conductor shall not depend on device connections such as
> > lampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such devices
> > would interrupt the continuity."
>
> Does this apply to residential, commercial, or industrial only?
The NEC does not restrict it - it applies to all multiwire
branch circuits.
Tom Horne
Then you do a calculation of the cost of appeal and the cost of
compliance with the inspectors whims and go with the lower cost. Either
way the customer gets screwed by the fact that you either included local
inspection practices in your bid or you add them to your bill.
Can anyone actually show that pig tailing is superior to daisy chaining.
The only receptacle contacts I don't use are the push in spring only
contact types. Both the screw binding and pressure plate terminals are
every bit as good as a wire nut in providing continuity. I can not
prove this but I suspect that under the pressure of production
expectations that the average wireman will make better connections daisy
chaining outlets than he/she will pig tailing. I think that would be
especially true if the high quality pressure plate terminal receptacles
are used. I also think that on a maxed out box that pig tail splices
over crowd the box and make a fault more rather than less likely.
It all comes down to the inspectors education and training. A qualified
professional inspector will not feel the need to behave as a little tin
pot god. I have had inspectors order the installation of a service
rated disconnect ahead of a fire pump controller because they did not
look at the controller and see the UL label that read "Suitable for use
as Service Equipment." That same inspector did not require that the
utility neutral be brought to the disconnecting means and bonded to it.
He fell into the common trap of seeing a three phase load and not
thinking about the source of supply. The disconnect was an extra that
made money for the contractor I was working for. The missing neutral
would have been a correction that the contractor would have to eat.
What the customer now has is a service with two listed disconnecting
means and no fault clearing pathway back to the Xo of the Utilities pad
mounted transformer except through the buildings structural steel. In
the event of a fault a lot of damage is likely together with a prolonged
arc that will ignite anything that will burn. Just as important there
are now two places for someone to interfere with the fire pumps power.
And since one of them is not supervised for switch condition the pump
can be deprived of power for days without anyone being the wiser. The
engineers had specified a fire pump controller with auxiliary contacts
to permit switch supervision. I was the fire alarm electrician on that
job and I requested the extra to install a power supervision relay in
the fire pump controller but I never got it. The upshot is an
incompetent inspector gave us a fat extra that made money for the
contractor and the customer ends up with an inferior installation of a
life safety system having paid a lot more money to get it.
The only answer that I can see is to work for state wide code adoption
with a state wide appeals process in every state. State wide secondary
appeals serve as a monitoring tool on the performance of local AHJ
offices and inspectors. It also provides an educational influence on
local code enforcement officials who then know that someone besides
local folks can judge their work. In order to avoid the embarrassment
of being overturned they conform their decisions to the outcome of the
state appeals board process. This inevitably leads to more predictable
application of the code and lower cost to customers.
--
Tom
daestrom
> outlets on one circuits, actually that is the way it is done (with pig
> tails)
>
> Art.
>
It depends on what you mean by GFCI protection. If the entire branch
circuit is fed from a GFCI in the service panel, then you are correct and
the use or non-use of pigtails doesn't change the GFCI protection.
But if the GFCI is an outlet type, all outlets downstream of it *must* be
fed through the GFCI in order to be protected. A pigtail connection between
the incoming and outgoing lines with the pigtail feeding the GFCI outlet
would not protect outlets on the outgoing line. Each outlet downstream
would have to be a GFCI outlet.
I'm quite sure the code allows protecting a string of outlets with a single
GFCI at the first position and feeding the remaining outlets from the
'load-side' of the GFCI (they even explain this in the instruction sheets
that come with UL approved GFCI outlets).
daestrom
art
Thanks.
Art
"daestrom" <daes...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JzMi9.11070$Kj4.2...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
art
Regards.
Art.
"John Gilmer" <gil...@crosslink.net> wrote in message
news:3d8a7c08$0$78...@dingus.crosslink.net...
art
I can not speak for NEC, I can speak for CEC amended for use in BC, Canada:
1994 edition, Rule 26-700(14):
"Where a receptacle, other then a ground fault circuit interrupter
receptacle, is connected to a circuit that serves other outlets, the
receptacle shall be installed in a manner that will permit it to be
disconnected from the circuit conductors without interrupting their
continuity."
Following that: you can use GFCI CCB and pigtail everything, or use GFCI
receptacle and you do not have to pigtail this particular one. (Note: it is
based on 1994 edition, there is a newer edition, I do not have it handy at
this moment, sorry)
Art.
"art" <art_k...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KNPi9.384454$f05.18...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
Ben Miller
in message news:bR%h9.148146$ja.22...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> > It is prohibited by code as was mentioned earlier in the thread.
> > See 1999 NEC article 300-13 (b):
> > "In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of a grounded
> > conductor shall not depend on device connections such as
> > lampholders, receptacles, etc., where the removal of such devices
> > would interrupt the continuity."
>
> Does this apply to residential, commercial, or industrial only?
>
It applies to everything. There is a basic safety issue if you open the
neutral to a multi-wire branch circuit. The 120 volt loads from each phase
will then be in series across 240 volts. The voltage across each load will
depend on the relative impedances, and some could see close to 240 volts
across them while others see a very low voltage.
Someone could remove a receptacle, cap off the wires, reenergize the
circuit, and see everything working fine. Later, a space heater gets plugged
in, and the lights, clock, and electric toothbrush on the other line all go
poof!
Ben Miller
--
Benjamin D. Miller, PE
B. MILLER ENGINEERING
http://home.att.net/~benmiller
art
multiwire cct's. The rule I quoted in the last post exempt that requirements
for branch circuit protected by GFCI, and this applies to the GFCI
receptacle only, nothing else. CEC does not distinguishes between multiwire
cct and the others. I can see the reason why: if you interrupt the neutral
conductor at any point of the circuit it will cause the potential raise of
the "neutral" downstream from that point to the line voltage (providing
there are some apliances pluged in down stream), this might be unhealthy for
people and electronic devices.
Another point regarding pig-tailing and CEC: it requires pigtails on the
bonding conductor for similar reasons.
Art
Remove 3Y to replay by email.
"Ben Miller" <benm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WKbj9.497859$me6.58232@sccrnsc01...
