Receptacles Downstream of GFCI's

Status
Not open for further replies.

Creeker

Member
Location
Hickory, NC
Questions

Are Standard 3-Prong 115 VAC Receptacles allowed to be connected to the load side (protected side) of GFCI's. (i.e., the first outlet is GFCI and the other non-GFCI's are fed from the load side of the GFCI (Daisy Chained))

Has there been and changes to NFPA 70 (NEC) is this matter. If so, what article/section/year?

Commercial/verse residential requirements regarding daisy chaining?

Location type requirements regarding daisy chaining (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, garage)

TIA :bye:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Questions

Are Standard 3-Prong 115 VAC Receptacles allowed to be connected to the load side

Yes and that is is standard practice.

Has there been and changes to NFPA 70 (NEC) is this matter. If so, what article/section/year?

In regards to what specifically?

Commercial/verse residential requirements regarding daisy chaining?

Location type requirements regarding daisy chaining (e.g., kitchen, bathroom, garage)

As far as 'daisy chaining' GFCIs that is not really addressed.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
You can feed downstream receptacle(s) from an upstream GFCI receptacle to provide the required GFCI protection. Is someone saying that you cannot?
 

Creeker

Member
Location
Hickory, NC
Though quite familiar with the NEC (use it on a daily basis for bigger power systems), in our new building, the electrician doing the installation mentioned that feeding down stream receptacles from a GFCI was not allowed. He stated his reference was some amendment to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets. His basis: if a homeowner had 5 outlets, and only the first outlet had the GFCI, and if that GFCI was replaced with a standard non-GFCI receptacle, then none of the 5 outlets would be protected. I can see his point, but I did not think there was a change to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets from a GFCI (after all there is a line side and a load side on most GFCI's). If there has been a change, I would like to know which section of the NEC was changed. If no change, which section of the NEC allows daisy chaining.

TIA
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Though quite familiar with the NEC (use it on a daily basis for bigger power systems), in our new building, the electrician doing the installation mentioned that feeding down stream receptacles from a GFCI was not allowed. He stated his reference was some amendment to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets. His basis: if a homeowner had 5 outlets, and only the first outlet had the GFCI, and if that GFCI was replaced with a standard non-GFCI receptacle, then none of the 5 outlets would be protected. I can see his point, but I did not think there was a change to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets from a GFCI (after all there is a line side and a load side on most GFCI's). If there has been a change, I would like to know which section of the NEC was changed. If no change, which section of the NEC allows daisy chaining.

TIA

If he's quoting the NEC verbatim he making things up. And really, what competent person would replace a GFCI receptacle with a non-GFCI receptacle?
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Though quite familiar with the NEC (use it on a daily basis for bigger power systems), in our new building, the electrician doing the installation mentioned that feeding down stream receptacles from a GFCI was not allowed. He stated his reference was some amendment to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets. His basis: if a homeowner had 5 outlets, and only the first outlet had the GFCI, and if that GFCI was replaced with a standard non-GFCI receptacle, then none of the 5 outlets would be protected. I can see his point, but I did not think there was a change to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets from a GFCI (after all there is a line side and a load side on most GFCI's). If there has been a change, I would like to know which section of the NEC was changed. If no change, which section of the NEC allows daisy chaining.

TIA

What hogwash.

I can see where nobody knows where the GFCI is that tripped. happens all the time.
So what
 

Creeker

Member
Location
Hickory, NC
You are correct, a competent person would not, but a homeowner who is not knowledgeable might.

Especially when a non-GFCI is ~$2 and a GFCI outlet is ~$12.

There are a bunch of things that can go bad with electrical stuff when ID Ten T's do electrical work.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
If you replaced a GFCI breaker with a non GFCI breaker you still have similar situation.

If you traded your Porsche for a Yugo - you end up with a Yugo.

One thing that has changed more recently is that GFCI devices (required by 210.8) must be readily accessible, and that sometimes does lead to putting a GFCI receptacle upstream from one that is not in a readily accessible location sometimes.

A GFCI not required by 210.8 may not need to be readily accessible, but there could be further requirements in other applicable sections, 210.8 is just the general requirements.
 

electricalist

Senior Member
Location
dallas tx
The job I just finished speced no line load gfci wiring. All areas requiring a gfci ,had to be a gfci.
Some places had gfci next to gfci. Same circuit.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
Though quite familiar with the NEC (use it on a daily basis for bigger power systems), in our new building, the electrician doing the installation mentioned that feeding down stream receptacles from a GFCI was not allowed. He stated his reference was some amendment to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets. His basis: if a homeowner had 5 outlets, and only the first outlet had the GFCI, and if that GFCI was replaced with a standard non-GFCI receptacle, then none of the 5 outlets would be protected. I can see his point, but I did not think there was a change to the NEC that prevented daisy chaining outlets from a GFCI (after all there is a line side and a load side on most GFCI's). If there has been a change, I would like to know which section of the NEC was changed. If no change, which section of the NEC allows daisy chaining.

TIA

If feeding downstream receptacles isn't allowed, then what are the load side terminals on the GFCI supposed to be for?
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
I don't see how anything in 300.13(B) could be read as requiring GFCI receptacles.

It doesnt. What it does say (2008 NEC) is that the continuity of the neutrals (grounded conductor) must be maintained in a MWBC independent of the device.

Which means pigtailing the device to the neutrals (so removal doesnt break grounded conductor continuity), hence only line side connection to a GFCI and no downstream protection... unless one could run a MWBC (say 12/3) to a j-box, then 12/2 to one set of receptacles (GFCI on first, wired line/load to protect downstream receptacles) and another 12/2 to the other set same way and have 2 branch circuits from one MWBC. Would that be an acceptable wiring method?

electricalist mentioned a job spec where line/load wiring of GFCI wasnt allowed. Job spec isnt NEC code tho.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
What it does say (2008 NEC) is that the continuity of the neutrals (grounded conductor) must be maintained in a MWBC independent of the device.

Which means pigtailing the device to the neutrals (so removal doesnt break grounded conductor continuity), hence only line side connection to a GFCI and no downstream protection...

Are you saying 300.13(B) prohibits using the line and load neutral connections? :huh:
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
Are you saying 300.13(B) prohibits using the line and load neutral connections? :huh:

On a MWBC, possibly. As I read 300.13(B), the grounded conductors of a MWBC cannot have continuity interrupted by device removal.

From this site:

http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1

and Mike Holt himself (bolding added):

"In multiwire branch circuits, the continuity of the neutral conductor must not be interrupted by the removal of a wiring device. In these applications, the neutral conductors must be spliced together at every device providing a pigtail to terminate to the wiring device [300.13(B)]. The opening of the ungrounded conductors, or the neutral conductor of a 2-wire circuit during the replacement of a device, doesn’t cause a safety hazard, so pigtailing these conductors isn’t required [110.14(B)]. Caution: If the continuity of the neutral conductor of a multiwire circuit is interrupted (opened), the resultant over- or undervoltage can cause a fire and/or destruction of electrical equipment.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
If the downstream circuit from a GFCI receptacle is MWBC rather than a purely two wire segment then the GFCI will be constantly tripping whenever there is a load on the other pole of the MWBC.
Just because a circuit leaves the panel as an MWBC does not mean that all extensions of that circuit must be considered MWBC too.
You can break out to a dedicated neutral at any point.
 

electricalist

Senior Member
Location
dallas tx
And resi guys would run a 12/3 to the kitchen gfci line side .Then 12/2 from from there for 1 sabc and another 12/2 to the red for the 2nd sabc.
Pig tailing the neutrals before the termination .
Therefore having a mwbc that protects down stream.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
And resi guys would run a 12/3 to the kitchen gfci line side .Then 12/2 from from there for 1 sabc and another 12/2 to the red for the 2nd sabc.
Pig tailing the neutrals before the termination .
Therefore having a mwbc that protects down stream.

Sent from my LGLS770 using Tapatalk
But if only one GFCI receptacle unit is used only one of the two downstream SABCs will be protected. You have to choose one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top