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

[victor.cherkashi]

I provide two branch circuits into 20A quad receptacle. Each branch circuit is 20A breaker with 3#12 wiring.


I am looking at 210.4 and 210.7, it seem to me they don't apply in my case. Am I right? Is there any other section in code requires 'simultaneously disconnect'?

210.7 Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke or mounting strap, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those devices shall be provided at the point at which the branch circuits originate.

 

[infinity]

Two separate duplex receptacles do not require simultaneous disconnect unless there's a MWBC involved.

 

[Andy Delle]

I provide two branch circuits into 20A quad receptacle. Each branch circuit is 20A breaker with 3#12 wiring.


I am looking at 210.4 and 210.7, it seem to me they don't apply in my case. Am I right? Is there any other section in code requires 'simultaneously disconnect'?

210.7 Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke or mounting strap, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those devices shall be provided at the point at which the branch circuits originate.

I would still use a common break handle even if code did not require it. Since this is a quad, removing the face exposes both circuits. Now if this was wired every other receptacle box on the opposing phase, then I think single handle breakers would be OK but the code still rules.

 

[charlie b]

Two separate duplex receptacles do not require simultaneous disconnect unless there's a MWBC involved.

That's 210.4. The question also mentioned 210.7. Wiring a quad with separate circuits for each duplex does not involve "equipment on the same yoke or mounting strap." So here again, no handle tie is required.

 

[infinity]

That's 210.4. The question also mentioned 210.7. Wiring a quad with separate circuits for each duplex does not involve "equipment on the same yoke or mounting strap." So here again, no handle tie is required.

That's correct, a quad as mentioned by the OP is typically two duplex receptacles so in that case they wouldn't be on the same yoke or strap.

 

[tom baker]

Right there is no yoke or strap, and the NEC recognizes this when you do a load calc, its 90 VA per outlet (this was changed due to the quads)

 

[MAC702]

I would still use a common break handle even if code did not require it. Since this is a quad, removing the face exposes both circuits. Now if this was wired every other receptacle box on the opposing phase, then I think single handle breakers would be OK but the code still rules.

I see your point, however, it's already quite common to have multiple circuits in such situations. For example, a box with multiple switches often is fed from multiple circuits.

 

[Craigv]

Right there is no yoke or strap, and the NEC recognizes this when you do a load calc, its 90 VA per outlet (this was changed due to the quads)

Why is NEC concerned only with the mounting method for equipment fed by multiple circuits? How is "yoke or strap" mounted equipment different in terms of needing simultaneous disconnection?

 

[Adamjamma]

my own thought is that this needs the handles of the breakers tied, for safety reasons... but it is not against code to have more than one circuit in a box supplying outlets as long as they do not share yokes, in the 2011 or the 2017 codes, and not tie the breakers. I dont like it but it is legal..lol... now, if you split the plugs, so upper part is one circuit and lower part is second circuit, think that needs breakers tied even if not an MWBC... but main section of tying the breakers has to do with the MWBC systems...

At least if I am reading these code books right...yayyy got a copy of the 2017 for my birthday...lol...

 

[LarryFine]

Why is NEC concerned only with the mounting method for equipment fed by multiple circuits? How is "yoke or strap" mounted equipment different in terms of needing simultaneous disconnection?

Because the typical two-gang receptacle installation permits one receptacle to be removed at a time, and one duplex receptacle must be removed in its entirety.

If you're using two cover-mounted receptacles, you're certainly permitted to install a handle tie or 2p breaker. This may well become a code rule in the future.

 

[jumper]

my own thought is that this needs the handles of the breakers tied, for safety reasons... but it is not against code to have more than one circuit in a box supplying outlets as long as they do not share yokes, in the 2011 or the 2017 codes, and not tie the breakers. I dont like it but it is legal..lol... now, if you split the plugs, so upper part is one circuit and lower part is second circuit, think that needs breakers tied even if not an MWBC... but main section of tying the breakers has to do with the MWBC systems...

At least if I am reading these code books right...yayyy got a copy of the 2017 for my birthday...lol...

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.

 

[MAC702]

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.

 

[Craigv]

Because the typical two-gang receptacle installation permits one receptacle to be removed at a time, and one duplex receptacle must be removed in its entirety.

If you're using two cover-mounted receptacles, you're certainly permitted to install a handle tie or 2p breaker. This may well become a code rule in the future.

If I break the tabs and wire a single Edison receptacle with two circuits and mount it in a 1g box, 210.7 requires a means of simultaneous disconnect on those circuits. To service either circuit or the receptacle, I must remove the receptacle, exposing both circuits.

If I wire a quad receptacle with two circuits and mount it in a 2g box, 210.7 does not apply because the quad receptacle is cover-mounted and has no "yoke or mounting strap". I still must remove the receptacle to service either it or either circuit.

This is appears to be an oversight in the particulars of NEC nomenclature. Neither scenario is more or less dangerous, but one requires the precaution of simultaneous disconnect simply because the equipment has a yoke or mounting strap.

 

[infinity]

If I break the tabs and wire a single Edison receptacle with two circuits and mount it in a 1g box, 210.7 requires a means of simultaneous disconnect on those circuits. To service either circuit or the receptacle, I must remove the receptacle, exposing both circuits.

If I wire a quad receptacle with two circuits and mount it in a 2g box, 210.7 does not apply because the quad receptacle is cover-mounted and has no "yoke or mounting strap". I still must remove the receptacle to service either it or either circuit.

This is appears to be an oversight in the particulars of NEC nomenclature. Neither scenario is more or less dangerous, but one requires the precaution of simultaneous disconnect simply because the equipment has a yoke or mounting strap.

A quad receptacle does not need to be surface mounted, it can be two duplex's in a standard 2 gang recessed box. You could remove one de-energized duplex while the other is still energized. If the two circuits are on one receptacle then de-energizing only one leaves half the receptacle energized. I don't see those two scenarios as the same.

 

[Craigv]

A quad receptacle does not need to be surface mounted, it can be two duplex's in a standard 2 gang recessed box. You could remove one de-energized duplex while the other is still energized. If the two circuits are on one receptacle then de-energizing only one leaves half the receptacle energized. I don't see those two scenarios as the same.

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.

 

[jumper]

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.

My brain is fuzzy. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[infinity]

My brain is fuzzy. Can you explain what you mean?

I was thinking the same thing, Craig's quad receptacle must be different than the two duplex's I mentioned in my post. Maybe he's referring to one of these?

 

[Craigv]

I was thinking the same thing, Craig's quad receptacle must be different than the two duplex's I mentioned in my post. Maybe he's referring to one of these?

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.

 

[MAC702]

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.

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/

 

[jumper]

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/

It can be split wired with 2 different circuits or just one. It has an A and a B side.