15/20A quad receptacle with two branch circuits. (210.4 or 210.7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MAC702 said:
I don't see how the individual receptacles can be separated from the assembly, and would think that means they are on the same yoke/strap.

Is this device assembled in such a way that the individual outlets can be on different circuits? From my interpretation of "2 poles, 3 wires" at this description, I'm thinking no.

https://www.zoro.com/hubbell-wiring...uad-20a-5-20r-125v-ivory-hbl420hi/i/G0594167/
Click to expand...
Actually yes. I can't speak to that particular unit, but others can be split to be fed by two circuits. Pass & Seymour 420-HI for example.
https://www.gordonelectricsupply.co...h~product~part~5629846~ds~dept~process~search

At issue is: what is a "yoke or mounting strap"? NEC doesn't define it (natch). I take a rather literal view ad NEC seems to be literal in the things it does define. These quads have no yoke that I have seen, nor a mounting strap. They are plastic composite molded faces with mounting holes.

Larry Fine mentioned that we may see a code change regarding this so I'm guessing these have been interpreted as not being subject to 210.7.:?
 
Craigv said:
Yes, this is what I see referred to as a "quad receptacle" and what the industry will show you if you request one or search online. I *think* that's what Tom Baker and Larry Fine are referring to in the posts for which I raised my question. This type of device has no "yoke or strap" as it's essentially 4 receptacles in a trim or cover plate, so my interpretation and what I thought Larry inferred, is that it is not subject to 210.7.
Click to expand...
I was comparing two duplex receptacles in a 2-gang box in a wall as contrasting with two duplex receptacles on a 4" raised cover.

I was saying that I can see the logic in choosing to see two receptacles on a raised cover as benefiting from a handle-tied breaker.
 
Today’s graphic is on 210.7. But again, it seems that though we are required to have the breakers tied or a dp breaker if we are splitting the top from the bottom... if we simply put two outlets in a double gang box that is not necessary. By code, that is. By good safety practice, I think I will err on side of caution for my own work and try to either tie the handles or use dp breakers... if only to ease my own mind when I sleep.
 
jumper said:
The NEC required handle ties or DP breakers for two circuits on one yoke or strap, ie split wired duplex, for many years. The rule for simultaneous disconnecting a MWBC was introduced in the 2008.
Click to expand...
This still applies even if the two receptacles are in separate boxes, Op described having a MWBC, if he ran two separate neutrals he could have two duplex receptacles in same box with one on each circuit and no handle ties.

MAC702 said:
Think about a box with three duplex receptacles. Are you now going to want a 3-pole breaker or three-handle tie? Etc.

Common yoke requirement is sufficient.
Click to expand...
If supplied by a MWBC, yes. If three hots/three neutrals and just one circuit per duplex, no.

Craigv said:
Two duplexes are two devices, with two yokes, which is irrelevant to 210.7.

I'm referring to a single device quad receptacle as was previously mentioned...it has no yoke or mounting strap. This quad, and any duplex that is capable of being split-wired to two circuits are both single devices fed by 2 circuits, with the only code-relevant difference being the absence of a yoke or mounting strap.
Click to expand...
Not same kind of mounting means as typical duplex but still has one mounting frame for the assembly. Haven't dealt with what you are describing in a while, does one have to remover jumpers/tabs to use with MWBC? I think you do.
 
kwired said:
Not same kind of mounting means as typical duplex but still has one mounting frame for the assembly. Haven't dealt with what you are describing in a while, does one have to remover jumpers/tabs to use with MWBC? I think you do.
Click to expand...

I think yes, for MWBC you would leave the grounded side tab and break the ungrounded side tab. For two discrete circuits break both tabs.
 
LarryFine said:
I was comparing two duplex receptacles in a 2-gang box in a wall as contrasting with two duplex receptacles on a 4" raised cover.

I was saying that I can see the logic in choosing to see two receptacles on a raised cover as benefiting from a handle-tied breaker.
Click to expand...
Then I totally misread what you meant. Thought you were referring to the quad device pictured above. And since it has no yoke for mounting, I thought your mention of a someday code change referred to this. IMO if a device or assembly can be fed by two circuits and the removal of the device for servicing takes both circuits with it, ad with the single device quad receptacle, or a cover-mounted pair of duplexes, Code should require simultaneous disconnect. This isn't the same as removing one duplex from a 5g box with 5 circuits. But that's just me...
 
Craigv said:
Then I totally misread what you meant. Thought you were referring to the quad device pictured above. And since it has no yoke for mounting, I thought your mention of a someday code change referred to this. IMO if a device or assembly can be fed by two circuits and the removal of the device for servicing takes both circuits with it, ad with the single device quad receptacle, or a cover-mounted pair of duplexes, Code should require simultaneous disconnect. This isn't the same as removing one duplex from a 5g box with 5 circuits. But that's just me...
Click to expand...
I think that "quad" device is still considered to be on one yoke (one support frame of some sort) though. You can't really take it apart and have multiple functioning units the way it is made.
 
kwired said:
I think that "quad" device is still considered to be on one yoke (one support frame of some sort) though. You can't really take it apart and have multiple functioning units the way it is made.
Click to expand...

I suppose the definition of "yoke or mounting strap" is as usual, up to AHJ interpretation. At least this one is at best a minimal issue.
 
kwired said:
I think that "quad" device is still considered to be on one yoke (one support frame of some sort) though. You can't really take it apart and have multiple functioning units the way it is made.
Click to expand...

Craigv said:
I suppose the definition of "yoke or mounting strap" is as usual, up to AHJ interpretation. At least this one is at best a minimal issue.
Click to expand...

MAC702 said:
This is what makes sense to me, also.
Click to expand...

I would like to agree, but dictionary definitions and the substantiation for the 2014 code change do not support this argument.
 
jumper said:
I would like to agree, but dictionary definitions and the substantiation for the 2014 code change do not support this argument.
Click to expand...

Do tell. I personally think a quad unit has no "yoke or strap" and therefore isn't subject to 210.7. But given how stuff goes undefined in NEC, I also assume it's gonna get enforced that way.
 
Don't know why the plastic housing isn't a "yoke." A yoke holds things together, like with two oxen pulling a wagon. If the term is not specifically defined in the Code, then common sense and accepted definitions should be obvious. I'd have never thought someone would say those 4 receptacles can't be considered to be yoked together. The yoke of a duplex might be a grounded metallic strap. I don't see that it needs to be to meet the definition. Indeed, it is relevant that both yoke and strap are terms used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top