Tapping in to range for microwave receptacle outlet.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sea Nile said:
I get it now, current is constant in a circuit. So if 40 amps are going through the breaker on one leg, then 40 amps are also going through the other leg. I just had to think about it logically for a second. Did you remember to put cover sheet on the TPS report?
Click to expand...
wasnt the cb you were referring to a "piggy back" type? or a true 2P cb?
 
david luchini said:
210.23(C)
Click to expand...
If both receptacles supply cooking appliances fixed in place (say an electric range and a built-in microwave), there is certainly no 210.23(C) violation.

For clarity I made a rough diagram of the configuration, below. Of course, we can change the outlets and OCPD sizes as required to come up with similar examples that would side step any limitations of the type listed in 210.23.

In the diagram below, with respect to the 5-15 receptacle, conductor segment (A) is a feeder, (B) is not in the circuit, and (C) is a branch circuit. With respect to the 14-50 receptacle, (A) and (B) are branch circuits, and (C) is not in the circuit.

Cheers, Wayne

ExampleFeederBranchCircuit.jpg
 
david luchini said:
Great...so you have a branch circuit (A) supplying a panelboard...which violates 210.23(C).
Click to expand...
210.23 says "A branch circuit supplying two or more outlets or receptacles shall supply only the loads specified according to its size as specified in 210.23(A) through (D)." In that context, "loads" means "utilization equipment," and a panelboard is not utilization equipment. So 210.23 does not prohibit it.

But as I commented, it is easy to sidestep any 210.23 type restrictions to give an example with a single conductor segment being both a branch circuit and a feeder. The simplest example might be to make (A) and (B) 20A segments protected at 20A in the upper panel, and (C) a 15A segment protected at 15A in the MLO panel, with both receptacles 5-15.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
210.23 says "A branch circuit supplying two or more outlets or receptacles shall supply only the loads specified according to its size as specified in 210.23(A) through (D)." In that context, "loads" means "utilization equipment," and a panelboard is not utilization equipment. So 210.23 does not prohibit it.
Click to expand...
You said A is a branch circuit, and A is supplying two or more outlets. Therefore, A is not permitted to supply the panelboard, per 210.23(C).
 
david luchini said:
You said A is a branch circuit, and A is supplying two or more outlets. Therefore, A is not permitted to supply the panelboard, per 210.23(C).
Click to expand...
A panelboard is not utilization equipment. While it supplies load, it is not a load itself. So as a non-load, 210.23 does not prohibit it being on the branch circuit.

Rather than trying to pick apart this one example, why don't you address the much broader category of examples I have referenced, in which a conductor is simultaneously a branch circuit and a feeder? Can you show me any general prohibition on the practice? E.g. if we change 50A to 60A, and change the 14-50 to a piece of hardwired utilization equipment that does not require an individual branch circuit and is fine for use on a 60A circuit?

Cheers, Wayne
 
Last edited:
I am working on a house where they ran #6 aluminum to the range on a 40 amp breaker and then tapped into the #6 Al to run a #10 Al to a 15 amp receptacle for the MW oven. I am removing the tap and replacing with a home run using #12 Cu. and a 20 amp receptacle.
Also, the Dryer is wired with #10 Al on a 25 amp breaker which I think was code legal. This 1725 sf house is worth 2.6 million.
 
I knew inflation was bad, but 2.6 million for a 1,725 square foot house? What makes it so expensive?
 
tortuga said:
Oh man we got a "can a branch circuit also be a feeder?" thread!
Click to expand...
I don't understand how this is controversial at all. Unless the NEC adds a rules of the form "the wiring between an outlet and the final overcurrent device for that outlet shall not supply any branch circuit overcurrent devices," that arrangement is permitted. Which per the definitions creates a wiring segment which is both a branch circuit and a feeder.

The idea of a nice, mutually exclusive division of conductors among the categories of branch circuit, feeder, etc is apparently strong enough for people to read into the definitions something that isn't there.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top