14 ga. on 20 or 30 a circuit

[Smart $]

How about 240.4(D)(3)???? it says unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G) you cant OCP higher then 15 amp on a #14. This is not a tap if it is a multi outlet branch circuit.
The problem that will occur over time is when the outlet is overloaded the 14 will have the insulation harden and fall off causing an eventually failure in the circuit that could lead to a fire, This is not just my opinion it is a situation I see frequently in older homes.
Don't forget that just because one article of the code makes it seem as if you could do this it still doesn't override article 240.4(D) unless there is a specific article allowing you to ignore 240.4(D)

There is... 240.4(E) Tap Conductors renders 240.4(D) moot, and a full 20A rating of 14 AWG can be used.

Of course this portion of a branch circuit must qualify as a tap first per 240.4(E). Per 240.21(A) the requirements of 210.19 and 210.20 must be satisfied (which includes satisfying 210.21 for outlet devices).

 

[Smart $]

Of course this portion of a branch circuit must qualify as a tap first per 240.4(E). Per 240.21(A) the requirements of 210.19 and 210.20 must be satisfied (which includes satisfying 210.21 for outlet devices).

From the way I am interpretting these requirements, there is no limitation on distance... so a 14 AWG tap for a receptacle on a 20A multioutlet branch circuit is not limited to pigtails. 14 AWG can also be run to any dead-end receptacle on this circuit.

Comments?

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

There is... 240.4(E) Tap Conductors renders 240.4(D) moot, and a full 20A rating of 14 AWG can be used.

Of course this portion of a branch circuit must qualify as a tap first per 240.4(E). Per 240.21(A) the requirements of 210.19 and 210.20 must be satisfied (which includes satisfying 210.21 for outlet devices).

MY real problem is that 210.20(B) (one of the conditions that have to met to qualify 240.21(A) says

(B) Conductor Protection. Conductors shall be protected
in accordance with 240.4.
It's a big circle and your back to 240.4(D)​

 

[Smart $]

MY real problem is that 210.20(B) (one of the conditions that have to met to qualify 240.21(A) says

(B) Conductor Protection. Conductors shall be protected
in accordance with 240.4.
It's a big circle and your back to 240.4(D)​

210.20(B) is there just in case that is where you start...

My rule for NEC circle-jerks is they are satisfied on first pass, can be ignored on second.

 

[acrwc10]

210.20(B) is there just in case that is where you start...

My rule for NEC circle-jerks is they are satisfied on first pass, can be ignored on second.

As I said in a previous post The OP is asking about "RECEPTACLES'' and everyone is arguing that you can use the tap rule for this and that, Yes there are applications where the tap rule would be able to be applied but this isn't one of them.

 

[Smart $]

...Yes there are applications where the tap rule would be able to be applied but this isn't one of them.

Well you need to cite a code reference to back your statement up...

Up until today...er... yesterday... I was of the same opinion. But having went through the requirements more times than I care to admit in the last 24 hours, I cannot see where receptacles are prohibited from being connected with tap conductors to a multioutlet branch circuit.

 

[JohnJ0906]

240.4(D) restricts #14 to 15 amp OCPD, unless it meets 240.4(E)_or (G).
240.4(E)(1) refers back to 210.19(A)(3) and (4) only, ranges, cooking appliances, and other loads. It doesn't refer to 210.19(A)(2).
IMO, #14 taps are not allowed on 20 receptacle circuits, because the requirements of 240.4(D) are still applicable.
JMO

 

[realolman]

I think that may be the answer.

What JohnJ0906 says does seem to be correct, and that would make table 210.24 consistent with the other pertinent parts of the code.

It doesn't make any sense to me, but it does seem to be consistent.

Why would it be OK to run household cooking appliances on # 12 from a 50 amp circuit?

but maybe that's another thread.:smile:

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

240.4(D) restricts #14 to 15 amp OCPD, unless it meets 240.4(E)_or (G).
240.4(E)(1) refers back to 210.19(A)(3) and (4) only, ranges, cooking appliances, and other loads. It doesn't refer to 210.19(A)(2).
IMO, #14 taps are not allowed on 20 receptacle circuits, because the requirements of 240.4(D) are still applicable.
JMO

Your are correct IMO in regards to 240.4(E)(1)......My problem really is with 240.(E)(3) which points you to 240.21...........
240.21(A) points you to 210.19.....perhaps 240.21(A) should specifically say 210.19(3)and(4) if those are the only sections covered by the 240.21(A) branch circuit tap rule.

 

[nakulak]

As I said in a previous post The OP is asking about "RECEPTACLES'' and everyone is arguing that you can use the tap rule for this and that, Yes there are applications where the tap rule would be able to be applied but this isn't one of them.

OK ... how about an example of a 14 ga. tap on a 20 or 30 a circuit, as allowed by table 210.24, AND in compliance with 240.4 (D).

the request was made for examples, hence examples were provided

 

[acrwc10]

How about 240.4(D)(3)???? it says unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G) you cant OCP higher then 15 amp on a #14. This is not a tap if it is a multi outlet branch circuit.
The problem that will occur over time is when the outlet is overloaded the 14 will have the insulation harden and fall off causing an eventually failure in the circuit that could lead to a fire, This is not just my opinion it is a situation I see frequently in older homes.
Don't forget that just because one article of the code makes it seem as if you could do this it still doesn't override article 240.4(D) unless there is a specific article allowing you to ignore 240.4(D)

Well you need to cite a code reference to back your statement up...
Up until today...er... yesterday... I was of the same opinion. But having went through the requirements more times than I care to admit in the last 24 hours, I cannot see where receptacles are prohibited from being connected with tap conductors to a multioutlet branch circuit.

If you look at post #18 you would see I did sight a code section. If you choose to run #14 pigtails on a 20 amp circuit It's your name on the job not mine, First there is table 240.3 ( unless what you are wanting to connect is covered there ) your stuck with 15 amp on a #14, then moving down the page you come to 240.4(D) that clearly states "UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED in 240.4 (E or (G) over current protection shall NOT EXCEED that required in by (D)(1) through (D)(7).
Seems clear to most of us.

 

[Smart $]

Your are correct IMO in regards to 240.4(E)(1)......

Not really. Branch circuits loads as covered under 210.19 are one of the following: 1) household ranges and cooking appliances covered by 210.19(A)(3), 2) loads listed in Table 210.2 per 210.19(A)(4), and 3) other loads not covered by the precedng two, also per 210.19(A)(4).

Recptacle outlets are covered under 210.19(A)(4) when they are not for loads listed in Table 210.2 or for houshold ranges and cooking appliances per 210.19(A)(3). To support this claim, refer to 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1(c) where it says, "Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets..." To me, this says receptacle outlets are covered under 210.19(A)(4) but the Exception does not apply to them.

As for the stipulation of 210.19(A)(2), it seems to me that its requirement is rescinded for a compliant branch circuit tap conductor. Question: Would not a tap under 210.19(A)(3) for, say a household range mean that the branch circuit that is being tapped is a multioutlet branch circuit? My answer is, of course, yes... why else would you be tapping the circuit! So the same applies to any other tapped multioutlet branch circuit as long as the tap conductors are compliant within their respective requirements.

All in all, though, I believe the qualifying parameters and subsequent requirements for branch circuit tap conductors could use substantial improvement

 

[Smart $]

If you look at post #18 you would see I did sight a code section. If you choose to run #14 pigtails on a 20 amp circuit It's your name on the job not mine, First there is table 240.3 ( unless what you are wanting to connect is covered there ) your stuck with 15 amp on a #14, then moving down the page you come to 240.4(D) that clearly states "UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED in 240.4 (E or (G) over current protection shall NOT EXCEED that required in by (D)(1) through (D)(7).
Seems clear to most of us.

And we have then since looked at qualifying receptacle pigtails, and even expanded upon that, under 240.4(E), which rescinds or otherwise renders 240.4(D) requirements moot by its very own condition: "Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G)..."

However, I do understand it is sometimes hard to accept the code says something different than a well-rooted belief that is says something else

Additionally, just because it very much appears to permit the reduced-size tap conductors does not mean I condone such in practice :grin:

 

[stew]

i can tell you one thing that in my neck of the woods if you tap a 20 amp circuit downline with a 14 it will fail unless specifically permitted. 14 on a 20 amp breaker =red tag

 

[Smart $]

i can tell you one thing that in my neck of the woods if you tap a 20 amp circuit downline with a 14 it will fail unless specifically permitted. 14 on a 20 amp breaker =red tag

That don't suprise me.

But it does not mean it is not permitted by code. It just means that the AHJ and/or its representative(s) interpret and enforce the code differently than it is written. Nothing unusual

 

[don_resqcapt19]

240.4(E) does not apply. A #14 connected to a #12 on a 20 amp OCPD is not a tap conductor because the OCPD does not have a rating that exceeds the ampacity of a #14. That leaves 240.4(D)(3) and the maximum OCPD for the #14 is 15 amps.

 

[Smart $]

240.4(E) does not apply. A #14 connected to a #12 on a 20 amp OCPD is not a tap conductor because the OCPD does not have a rating that exceeds the ampacity of a #14. That leaves 240.4(D)(3) and the maximum OCPD for the #14 is 15 amps.

Hmmm.... while I agree with the reasoning, we're back to Table 210.24 contradicting the premise 14 AWG tap conductors cannot exist on a 20A ocp branch circuit.

A conundrum and a paradox :grin:

 

[Smart $]

240.4(E) does not apply. A #14 connected to a #12 on a 20 amp OCPD is not a tap conductor because the OCPD does not have a rating that exceeds the ampacity of a #14. That leaves 240.4(D)(3) and the maximum OCPD for the #14 is 15 amps.

Hmmm again...

This makes me refute my position on agreeing with you

A #14 can be a tap conductor connected to a #12 on a 20A OCPD. Why or how? It's right there in the defintion of a tap conductor:

Tap Conductors. As used in this article, a tap conductor is defined as a conductor, other than a service conductor, that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4.​

A 20A OCPD exceeds the value permitted under 240.4(D) for a 14 AWG conductor.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Hmmm.... while I agree with the reasoning, we're back to Table 210.24 contradicting the premise 14 AWG tap conductors cannot exist on a 20A ocp branch circuit.

A conundrum and a paradox :grin:

#14 tap conductors cannot exist on a 20 amp branch circuit as they are not tap conductors per the code. They are protected at their ampacity. It appears to me that the part of the table that shows #14 taps on 15 and 20 amp circuits is not valid because the #14 is not a tap.
I think this is another case of the code using field language and not code language. The #14 connected to the #12 is a "tap" in the field language, but is not a "tap" in code language.

 

[JohnJ0906]

Not really. Branch circuits loads as covered under 210.19 are one of the following: 1) household ranges and cooking appliances covered by 210.19(A)(3), 2) loads listed in Table 210.2 per 210.19(A)(4), and 3) other loads not covered by the precedng two, also per 210.19(A)(4).

Recptacle outlets are covered under 210.19(A)(4) when they are not for loads listed in Table 210.2 or for houshold ranges and cooking appliances per 210.19(A)(3). To support this claim, refer to 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1(c) where it says, "Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets..." To me, this says receptacle outlets are covered under 210.19(A)(4) but the Exception does not apply to them.

Receptacles are not coverd by 210.19(A)(4). Except for single receptacles, I think it is clear that 210.19(A)(2) applys.

As for the stipulation of 210.19(A)(2), it seems to me that its requirement is rescinded for a compliant branch circuit tap conductor. Question: Would not a tap under 210.19(A)(3) for, say a household range mean that the branch circuit that is being tapped is a multioutlet branch circuit? My answer is, of course, yes... why else would you be tapping the circuit! So the same applies to any other tapped multioutlet branch circuit as long as the tap conductors are compliant within their respective requirements.

There is nothing that I have read that recinds 240.4(D) for receptacle circuits.

All in all, though, I believe the qualifying parameters and subsequent requirements for branch circuit tap conductors could use substantial improvement

THAT I agree with whole heartedly.