More than one GFI on the same circuit

[Frank Bombardiere]

Is it alright to have more than one GFCI outlet on the same circuit. I had one today with four GFCI outlets on the same kitchen countertop circuit. If not, why. Thanks

[chris mcintyre]

Is it alright to have more than one GFCI outlet on the same circuit. I had one today with four GFCI outlets on the same kitchen countertop circuit. If not, why. Thanks

If they were all on the same circuit it is a waste of money and reeks of DIY'er, which would make me question the all of the kitchen wiring.

[Frank Bombardiere]

I agree. I just wanted to know if it is a problem or just dumb.

[Gunnar Alquist]

Not dumb. Might be preference. If you have separate GFCIs, then when one trips, the clock on the toaster oven, the coffee maker, the blender and the knife sharpener don't all start blinking.

[Matt Fellman]

It also depends on how they're wired.... does the first control the other three? the third the remaining two and so on? Or, does each stand alone? If there is redundant protection I agree it wreaks of DIY stuff... If they are each on their own it's possibly as Gunnar says.

When you wire GFIs (at least all I've seen) you pigtail off the lower screws to not protect downstream and off the upper screws to provide protection downstream from a given outlet.

[Frank Bombardiere]

It was redundant. I just did not know if it was against code or if it would cause any problems. I have not ever seen them done this way and could not think of any harm it would do.

[Jerry Peck]

Is it alright to have more than one GFCI outlet on the same circuit. I had one today with four GFCI outlets on the same kitchen countertop circuit. If not, why. Thanks


If they were all on the same circuit it is a waste of money and reeks of DIY'er, which would make me question the all of the kitchen wiring.


Chris,

You are quite incorrect as stated.

My house as 3 kitchen circuits and EACH AND EVERY receptacle for the kitchen countertop IS a GFCI receptacle.

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with doing that, and it certainly does not reek of a DIY'er, it states *SOMEONE LIKES CONVENIENCE*.

If seeing that many GFCIs in a kitchen throws you for a loop and you think what you posted, you are placing yourself in suspect territory for lack of sufficient knowledge about electrical, wiring, GFCI protection, and CONVENIENCE. :rolleyes: :p

[Bill Kriegh]

What was the size of the breaker this Quad GFCI setup was attached to. I assume a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Each GFCI protecting its outlets with 15 or 20 amp limits and the totality of the Quad GFCI circuit being protected to the 30 or 40 amp rating of the wire it is servicing. Another question is if the electrician (or DIYtrician) used or did not use the pass through side of the GFCI or took care of it externally (may have had to based on pass through limits of the GFCI's). The 4 GFCI's are in effect a panel distributed over the kitchen being serviced by the 30 or 40 amp (the main breaker for the Quad GFCI circuit service panel).

Say WHAT?

[Matt Fellman]

There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with doing that, and it certainly does not reek of a DIY'er, it states *SOMEONE LIKES CONVENIENCE*.


JP... did you see that they are redundant? Still nothing wrong I suppose but it's not anything I've ever seen a sparky do.

[Michael Thomas]

Some AHJs (Evanston, IL for example) REQUIRE separate GFCI's on kitchen outlet circuits - in Evanston a GFCI can protect other outlets in the same box, but each box requires a dedicated GFCI.

[Jerry Peck]

JP... did you see that they are redundant?


They are not redundant.

Allow me to explain again: You have a 20 amp circuit running from the breaker to the kitchen receptacles (only addressing one circuit here as they are all the same way). You now install a non-GFCI protected receptacle at each location where you want a receptacle (as long as the spacing meets minimum code spacing), and EACH receptacle can have a 20 amp appliance plugged in (as long as you do not plug in a 20 amp rated appliance to each at the same time, in fact, more than one such appliance and the breaker should trip).

Okay, now you remove EACH receptacle and replace it with a GFCI receptacle. Got it?

Okay, now show me where the redundancy is.

The convenience is that the reset is located at each receptacle, there is no redundancy. Does that meet code? Yep, because code only requires each receptacle to be GFCI protected, the code does not require each receptacle to be separately and independently GFCI protected.

Again, code is minimum and there is no reason not to go above minimum.

Least I leave in a different thought direction: Show me where the redundancy is.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
Have you had your coffee yet?
That is not your best explanation.
If I may.
Pigtail each GFCI to the bottom connectors so that the GFCI receptacles down from it are not protected by the upstream GFCI's.
You can probably do a better job at describing it than I do.

[Jerry Peck]

That is not your best explanation.
If I may.
Pigtail each GFCI to the bottom connectors so that the GFCI receptacles down from it are not protected by the upstream GFCI's.


What needs to be explained? Was a presumption made that the GFCIs were installed all as feed-through?

If so, there was nothing stated which indicated that presumption.

I explained it as I did as that way one would visualize the standard receptacle installation (which is not feed-through) and then simply replace each receptacle with a GFCI receptacle (likewise also not wired as feed-through).

See? There was a reason for stating it as I did.

Now, if one presumes that every GFCI is wired feed-through, then one should not go around making those presumptions, should they? :D

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
In Frank's 2nd post he said "It was redundant. ".
I understood that to mean they (GFCI's) were feed through, not pigtailed.

"the standard receptacle installation (which is not feed-through) and then simply replace each receptacle with a GFCI receptacle (likewise also not wired as feed-through)."

You've seen many more than me, however, what I have seen is that almost all standard receptacles are feed through, as are many if not most GFCI receptacles.

[chris mcintyre]

My house as 3 kitchen circuits and EACH AND EVERY receptacle for the kitchen countertop IS a GFCI receptacle.


I think it would be safe to say that unless it is required, (as in Michael Thomas' post above) this is the exception to the rule.



There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with doing that,


Never said it was wrong.



You've seen many more than me, however, what I have seen is that almost all standard receptacles are feed through, as are many if not most GFCI receptacles.


I agree with Rick about this, my DIY comment comes from personal experience as a builder/remodeler. Most homeowners know that GFCI's are required in the kitchen, so I get calls, questions and comments like:

"I thought GFCI's were required for my kitchen, but your electrician only installed 2."

"My toaster is not working". I ask did you check the GFCI. "It's not a GFCI, it is just a regular receptacle."

"When we bought the house I had to install the GFCI's myself, because for some reason the electrician only installed a couple."

I would be very surprised if you and others here have not had answer similar questions many times as well. I still think the odds are much higher that this was done by lack of understanding than by design. JMHO:)

[Jim Port]

What was the size of the breaker this Quad GFCI setup was attached to. I assume a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Each GFCI protecting its outlets with 15 or 20 amp limits and the totality of the Quad GFCI circuit being protected to the 30 or 40 amp rating of the wire it is servicing. Another question is if the electrician (or DIYtrician) used or did not use the pass through side of the GFCI or took care of it externally (may have had to based on pass through limits of the GFCI's). The 4 GFCI's are in effect a panel distributed over the kitchen being serviced by the 30 or 40 amp (the main breaker for the Quad GFCI circuit service panel).

Are you even aware that general purpose circuits in a house are limited to a 20 amp maximum?

[Frank Bombardiere]

What made me question it was the fact that with redundant GFCI outlets, someone could key in on the GFCI outlet that is dead and not realize that there is another one upstream that is actually the controlling outlet and tripped out. I have seen this with exterior outlets being GFCI and tripping a different one in the garage behind some cabinets etc.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry
In Frank's 2nd post he said "It was redundant. ".
I understood that to mean they (GFCI's) were feed through, not pigtailed.

That was Frank's 3rd post ... but who's counting ;) ...

Frank did not give enough information for me to clearly think they were "redundant", as in nothing that I read (I may have missed it) said that when he tested the GFCI here a GFCI upstream tripped off - that would be "redundant", however, if each GFCI tripped off and nothing tripped off upstream ... I would not "assume" that they were wired feed-through. They "might be" but they "might not be" wired as feed-through to the next GFCI.


"the standard receptacle installation (which is not feed-through) and then simply replace each receptacle with a GFCI receptacle (likewise also not wired as feed-through)."

You've seen many more than me, however, what I have seen is that almost all standard receptacles are feed through, as are many if not most GFCI receptacles.

The standard receptacle is not "feed through", it simply has two separate terminals on the same terminal strip, nothing "feeds through" the receptacle, it simply goes from terminal to terminal via the terminal strip.

A GFCI wired as feed-through has the current going through the sensing coil, i.e., "feeding through" the receptacle circuitry (the coil).

[Jerry Peck]

What made me question it was the fact that with redundant GFCI outlets, someone could key in on the GFCI outlet that is dead and not realize that there is another one upstream that is actually the controlling outlet and tripped out. I have seen this with exterior outlets being GFCI and tripping a different one in the garage behind some cabinets etc.

Did that in fact happen when you tested them, or could they actually not have been wired feed-through?

It is not at all uncommon to wire GFCI as by-pass and not feed-through when more than "the minimum" number of GFCIs are installed.

[Rick Cantrell]

"That was Frank's 3rd post ... but who's counting ;) ..."

Sorry, 3 it is.

[Robert Mechling]

I am dealing with another home inspector who doesn't understand the NEC code on GFCI placement. It seems that electrical is the weak link in a lot of home inspectors knowledge. When a contractor builds a home in California, they typically put one GFCI receptacle at the begining of a protected circuit. They then run the romex to the bathrooms where conventional receptacles are placed. And in the kitchen, one GFCI will protect the others within 6 feet of sinks. If you need one in each position for conveniance, then you must have a problem. They shouldn't be tripping that often. For an inspector to REQUIRE a GFCI at each position is wrong and they should have their license revoked. If they get this wrong, what else are they getting wrong? And you should have posts reviewed before allowing home owners to read that their kitchen receptacles should have a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Oh, the humanity...

[John Kogel]

Robert this is an old thread, is there a particular post that you're responding to?

Welcome to the Forum. :)I believe he is referring to post #6, James Risely, where are you? :D

Robert the electrician, please post a correction if you feel it is needed. Click the 'quote' button on the post you object to, then type in your correction.
This site is not moderated with home owners in mind, although they are free to read and participate.
The vast majority of HI's here know very well how a GFCI circuit should be wired, IMO.

[Jim Port]

I am dealing with another home inspector who doesn't understand the NEC code on GFCI placement. It seems that electrical is the weak link in a lot of home inspectors knowledge. When a contractor builds a home in California, they typically put one GFCI receptacle at the begining of a protected circuit. They then run the romex to the bathrooms where conventional receptacles are placed. And in the kitchen, one GFCI will protect the others within 6 feet of sinks. If you need one in each position for conveniance, then you must have a problem. They shouldn't be tripping that often. For an inspector to REQUIRE a GFCI at each position is wrong and they should have their license revoked. If they get this wrong, what else are they getting wrong? And you should have posts reviewed before allowing home owners to read that their kitchen receptacles should have a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Oh, the humanity...

All the receptacles serving the countertop require GFI protection, not just the ones within 6' of the sink.

[Jerry Peck]

If you need one in each position for conveniance, then you must have a problem.

That's the kind of thinking which makes you sound arrogant and less than capable of doing a good job for your client.

EVERY receptacle in my house which requires GFCI protection IS A GFCI RECEPTACLE ... for CONVENIENCE.

Have I ever had one trip? Nope.

According to you, though, the reason I want a GFCI receptacle at EACH GFCI protected receptacle location is because they must be tripping and therefore there is a problem ...

... You are so far off base that you must have no concept as to what "convenience" means. Having a GFCI receptacle at each GFCI protected receptacle is "convenient" because ... IF IT EVER TRIPS ... *I* will know EXACTLY which receptacle tripped and what caused it to trip ... AND ... *I* can stand there and press the reset button and continue doing what I was doing ... except that it if trips again then I probably am holding a bad tool which either needs to be repaired or thrown away and be replaced.


For an inspector to REQUIRE a GFCI at each position is wrong and they should have their license revoked.

So, let's see ... BECAUSE YOU apparently do not understand the meaning of "CONVENIENCE" you should have your license revoked?

Makes sense to me.


If they get this wrong, what else are they getting wrong? And you should have posts reviewed before allowing home owners to read that their kitchen receptacles should have a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Oh, the humanity...

Definitely sounds like YOU NEED YOUR LICENSE REVOKED for not being able to understand what goes on and why ... (sigh) :rolleyes:

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I am dealing with another home inspector who doesn't understand the NEC code on GFCI placement. It seems that electrical is the weak link in a lot of home inspectors knowledge. When a contractor builds a home in California, they typically put one GFCI receptacle at the begining of a protected circuit. They then run the romex to the bathrooms where conventional receptacles are placed. And in the kitchen, one GFCI will protect the others within 6 feet of sinks. If you need one in each position for conveniance, then you must have a problem. They shouldn't be tripping that often. For an inspector to REQUIRE a GFCI at each position is wrong and they should have their license revoked. If they get this wrong, what else are they getting wrong? And you should have posts reviewed before allowing home owners to read that their kitchen receptacles should have a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Oh, the humanity...

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of an individual branch circuit, one which is dedicated (no other outlets) to ONE bathroom OR dedicated to ONLY bathroom (plural) receptacle outlets!

What you describe is NOT legal in California!

The California Electrical Code IS and has been NEC based. Your characterization of a six foot rule for sinks does not apply to kitchen countertops - they are more specifically prescribed (and again require dedicted small appliance branch circuitS (a minimum of two) supplying same.

Home Inspectors are NOT licensed in California. Not so for contractors or electricians. Hmmm. Who are you, who indicate your profile location as "California".

The other poster who made those claims about 30 amp breakers was immediately rebuked.

System installed GFCI devices be them circuit breakers, combination GFCI/switches, deadfront GFCIs or GFCI receptacles are supposed to be TESTED and RESET monthly, not ignored until they trip (if ever). GFCI cord-sets, and equipped appliances/tools are supposed to be tested before each use.

Older GFCI receptacles produced under earlier editions of both the standards and the NEC editions they were based on, actually stipulated that when being used on two-wire systems to replace receptacles those earlier gfci receptacles could NOT be wired to protect line side - in fact the NEC specified this for several cycles (in the early days of GFCI protection in homes, IIRC post first bathroom requirement to early kitchen countertop requirements - when replacement receptacles were mandated to be upgraded to gfci protection - if I'm recalling correctly - early and mid 80s). HUD & FHA had some of their own requirements that superceeded California mis-mashed inconsistant requirements as well.

Furthermore, it depends on the route/path of the branch circuit, not all of which are can be presumed to be dedicated neutral (ever hear of a MWBC?) Still pretty common for greater SF long after romex used elsewhere and home run dedicated neutral every circuit).

Not all circuits in all homes for that matter are wired in a single loop line side from the first receptacle! Heck, walls of glass doors & windows, many a "mid century modern" home wired power from the panel to the center of the room ceiling above and dropped down the various sections to supply a wall receptacle!

[Rick Cantrell]

I suspect that Robert M ( post #22) may be a home seller.
I think he is questioning a home inspectors comments about GFCIs in his house.

[Jerry Peck]

Wow, don't think that the new guy will be coming back. :rolleyes:

His choice - if he comes here attacking people (people who are or are not here) then he needs to have a tough skin and be able to take what he gives out.

he may have been a seller or he may have been an inspector ticked off at another inspector - either way, he needs to be able to take what he gives ... no free pass for someone coming here mad at someone else.

[Erik Pendleton]

Old thread but -

If you have a MWBC supplying multiple countertop receptacles in an existing kitchen that doesn't have GFCI protection, wouldn't you need to place a GFCI at each receptacle if you can't split the neutrals (armored cable behind tile work for example).

Or am I missing something?

[Brad Richter]

[QUOTE=James Risley;129663]What was the size of the breaker this Quad GFCI setup was attached to. I assume a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Each GFCI protecting its outlets with 15 or 20 amp limits and the totality of the Quad GFCI circuit being protected to the 30 or 40 amp rating of the wire it is servicing. Another question is if the electrician (or DIYtrician) used or did not use the pass through side of the GFCI or took care of it externally (may have had to based on pass through limits of the GFCI's). The 4 GFCI's are in effect a panel distributed over the kitchen being serviced by the 30 or 40 amp (the main breaker for the Quad GFCI circuit .

[Erik Pendleton]

[QUOTE=James Risley;129663]What was the size of the breaker this Quad GFCI setup was attached to. I assume a 30 or 40 amp breaker. Each GFCI protecting its outlets with 15 or 20 amp limits and the totality of the Quad GFCI circuit being protected to the 30 or 40 amp rating of the wire it is servicing. Another question is if the electrician (or DIYtrician) used or did not use the pass through side of the GFCI or took care of it externally (may have had to based on pass through limits of the GFCI's). The 4 GFCI's are in effect a panel distributed over the kitchen being serviced by the 30 or 40 amp (the main breaker for the Quad GFCI circuit .


Something is borked with your comment......

[Rick Cantrell]

Old thread but -

If you have a MWBC supplying multiple countertop receptacles in an existing kitchen that doesn't have GFCI protection, wouldn't you need to place a GFCI at each receptacle if you can't split the neutrals (armored cable behind tile work for example).

Or am I missing something?

Not a problem
Install a GFCI on the first receptacle outlet of each branch of the WMBC

[Brad Richter]

[QUOTE=Brad Richter;232453]


Something is borked with your comment......
Sorry. Noticed too late the thread is a year old.

[Rick Cantrell]

Not a problem
Install a GFCI on the first receptacle outlet of each branch of the WMBC

In addition to what I said above there are other options.
Many times the outlet box is too small to install a GFCI in it, especially if this is an older house.
If this is the case, you might install a 120/240 GFCI breaker in the panel.
Note however you may not be able to find a 120/240 GFCI for all panels, again, especially for older panels.

If you cannot install a GFCI in the outlet boxes, and cannot find the right GFCI breaker for your panel, there is still another option.
Install remote GFCI circuit protectors (1 GFCI for each circuit) near the panel (above or below). Connect the wires of the circuit you want protected to the GFCI, and wire the GFCI to the panel.
A GFCI circuit protector does not have the plug in receptacles, it just has the test and reset buttons.
Added in edit
I just remembered that the question was about GFCI protection on a MWBC.
The last option will not work on a MWBC.

[Erik Pendleton]

Not a problem
Install a GFCI on the first receptacle outlet of each branch of the WMBC

Doesn't work. GFCI trips immediately. Only works with individual GFCIs in each receptacle.

Like attached example.

29460

In my instance, the outlets in the countertop are all on one hot, but share the neutral with another circuit, but the only way it functions is as per attached above.

[Rick Cantrell]

Doesn't work. GFCI trips immediately. Only works with individual GFCIs in each receptacle.

Like attached example.

29460

In my instance, the outlets in the countertop are all on one hot, but share the neutral with another circuit, but the only way it functions is as per attached above.


Good diagram,
but the way you asked the question it seemed like you wanted to know if it could be done without using a GFCI at each outlet.
It can.

[Erik Pendleton]

Good diagram,
but the way you asked the question it seemed like you wanted to know if it could be done without using a GFCI at each outlet.
It can.



Yes, I wanted to know, because I think the only way to do it is to split the neutral so the GFCI doesn't see any downstream shared neutral. Which would be great, and I would do that, but I can't pull more wire through the armored cable, and I am not looking to pull down the tile to pull out the armor and put in some nm wire.

But just putting a GFCI on the first receptacle and running the others from it's load side doesn't work. If I wire as normal GFCI, it trips immeadiately. If I wire just the hot from the load and pigtail the neutral through, then plugging anything downstream trips the GFCI.

[Jim Luttrall]

Old thread but -

If you have a MWBC supplying multiple countertop receptacles in an existing kitchen that doesn't have GFCI protection, wouldn't you need to place a GFCI at each receptacle if you can't split the neutrals (armored cable behind tile work for example).

Or am I missing something?

Yes, unless you can find a breaker for the panel made for the purpose. Easiest route is as you have in the diagram.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, I wanted to know, because I think the only way to do it is to split the neutral so the GFCI doesn't see any downstream shared neutral. Which would be great, and I would do that, but I can't pull more wire through the armored cable, and I am not looking to pull down the tile to pull out the armor and put in some nm wire.

But just putting a GFCI on the first receptacle and running the others from it's load side doesn't work. If I wire as normal GFCI, it trips immeadiately. If I wire just the hot from the load and pigtail the neutral through, then plugging anything downstream trips the GFCI.

Don't run through the GFCI to the downstream outlets, pigtail both hot and neutral off of the conductors and let them pass through to the next box without any GFCI protection. The GFCI should not "see" any current except what is passing through the outlet from a cord plugged into the outlet.

[Erik Pendleton]

Yes, unless you can find a breaker for the panel made for the purpose. Easiest route is as you have in the diagram.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't run through the GFCI to the downstream outlets, pigtail both hot and neutral off of the conductors and let them pass through to the next box without any GFCI protection. The GFCI should not "see" any current except what is passing through the outlet from a cord plugged into the outlet.

Yeah, that seems to be the only way it will work, and is the way I have them. Others seem to believe there is another way- and that multiple GFCIs on the circuit is a hack job.

[Rick Cantrell]

I'm not a graphic artist
This is what I think you can do.

[Erik Pendleton]

I'm not a graphic artist
This is what I think you can do.

No neutral on receptacle 3?

[Vern Heiler]

No neutral on receptacle 3?
While I don't see anything wrong with having a GFCI receptacle at each of the outlets there is no reason you couldn't protect all of them with a single GFCI at the beginning of the string. I'm sure one of the wires hidden in the walls was not what you thought it was. The two wires supplying the protected receptacles have to be dedicated to only that purpose.

The one thing you do need to make sure of is that the MWBC is correctly wired across both legs (phases) of the 240 and is on a double pole circuit breaker.

(Jim missed drawing one neutral wire to #3)

[Rick Cantrell]

No neutral on receptacle 3?

So I did.

MWBC with 1 GFCI on each hot and 2 additional GFCI protected outlets.
Once the neutral is in place I see no reason why this would not work.
Do you?

But, personally, I prefer the way you have it, 4 GFCIs.

[Rick Cantrell]

(Jim missed drawing one neutral wire to #3)

You mean Rick
I'm the good looking funny one, Jim is, well... the other guy.:D

[Vern Heiler]

You mean Rick
I'm the good looking funny one, Jim is, well... the other guy.:D
I don't know why I keep doing that:o....Sorry. (must be some of that Golden Years thing)

[Vern Heiler]

So I did.

MWBC with 1 GFCI on each hot and 2 additional GFCI protected outlets.
Once the neutral is in place I see no reason why this would not work.
Do you?

But, personally, I prefer the way you have it, 4 GFCIs.
I agree, 4 individual GFCI's is more convenient. If the wiring is correct the MWBC sees the entire load on a GFCI as one device no matter how many receptacles are on the load side of the GFCI.

[Rick Cantrell]

I don't know why I keep doing that:o....Sorry. (must be some of that Golden Years thing)

No problem
I've been called worse
By better people than you

Somehow that doesn't sound right:D

[Erik Pendleton]

While I don't see anything wrong with having a GFCI receptacle at each of the outlets there is no reason you couldn't protect all of them with a single GFCI at the beginning of the string. I'm sure one of the wires hidden in the walls was not what you thought it was. The two wires supplying the protected receptacles have to be dedicated to only that purpose.

The one thing you do need to make sure of is that the MWBC is correctly wired across both legs (phases) of the 240 and is on a double pole circuit breaker.

(Jim missed drawing one neutral wire to #3)

Here is the way it is wired. It is working in this configuration. I tired both wiring the first gfci as normal, and with passing the hot off the load while passing the neutral without going through the load on the GFCI.

29468


Neither of those worked.

[Rick Cantrell]

Here is the way it is wired. It is working in this configuration. I tired both wiring the first gfci as normal, and with passing the hot off the load while passing the neutral without going through the load on the GFCI.

29468


Neither of those worked.

Should work
Which one(s) are tripping
When do they trip
Just a thought
Could have voltage leaking from bad insulation

[Vern Heiler]

Here is the way it is wired. It is working in this configuration. I tired both wiring the first gfci as normal, and with passing the hot off the load while passing the neutral without going through the load on the GFCI.

29468


Neither of those worked.
When you wired the first GFCI as "normal", most likely the neutral wire was not dedicated to the load side of the GFCI as you thought. Maybe went to the frig as well?

[Erik Pendleton]

When you wired the first GFCI as "normal", most likely the neutral wire was not dedicated to the load side of the GFCI as you thought. Maybe went to the frig as well?

It definately was going to the fridge. I have no other option for it not to go to the fridge as they share a neutral.

This is why I believe it can't be done. My understanding (which could very well be wrong - but seems to be correct based on having tried everything else) is that the GFCI can work on a shared neutral, but the neutral on the load side has to be isolated. So if it was a new wiring setup, I could run the shared neutral to the GFCI box, split it and run a separate neutral to all the receptacles on the GFCI ciruit, and and a separate neutral to the other cirucit (which could also have a GFCI or not). But it isn't a situation that allows for a new wire.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Here is the way it is wired. It is working in this configuration. I tired both wiring the first gfci as normal, and with passing the hot off the load while passing the neutral without going through the load on the GFCI.

29468


Neither of those worked.

#7 is wrong, you must pig tail it (series parallel) not thru-wire to #8. You are not allowed to wire through (daisy-chain/series, thru-wire) the strap of the device for circuit continuty through that (non-GFCI duplex) receptacle EVER on a MWBC, removal of the device (receptacle - disconnecting the strap/yoke) itself must not break continuity for either the circuit neutral or the ungrounded conductor.

What was prohibited in pre mid-80s vintage GFCI receptacles (not allowed to protect an ungrounded receptacle load side of GFCI receptacle) for 2-wire (no ground) and MWBC 3-wire (no ground) convenience outlet circuits was later limitedly permitted (only if outlet devices are pigtailed not wired 'feed through' the strap/yoke i.e. pig-tailed) until changes in the standards and therefore the devices partially prevented 2002 and now don't allow post 2005 (lock-outs, reverse wiring or interupted neutral, internal test/logic circuit, or upon installation/first energization).

In general, this is not a DIY site, but specifically the technical forum areas are for HI discussions and NOT DIY discussions.

There is a "Questions from HomeOwners, Home Buyers, and DIY'ers forum area, I suggest you use it, and keep your questions on a particular subject on a single topic (instead of multiple postings, including hijacking old forum discussions).

Hire a qualified (electrician), seems obvious you don't know what you are doing. Visualize the circuit leg being wired through a dead-front GFCI.

BTW what is the rating for the refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer - watts, hP, amps? =/> 7.5A or 10A? (I'm guessing yes.)

[Erik Pendleton]

#7 is wrong, you must pig tail it (series parallel) not thru-wire to #8. You are not allowed to wire through (daisy-chain/series, thru-wire) the strap of the device for circuit continuty through that (non-GFCI duplex) receptacle EVER on a MWBC, removal of the device (receptacle - disconnecting the strap/yoke) itself must not break continuity for either the circuit neutral or the ungrounded conductor.

What was prohibited in pre mid-80s vintage GFCI receptacles (not allowed to protect an ungrounded receptacle load side of GFCI receptacle) for 2-wire (no ground) and MWBC 3-wire (no ground) convenience outlet circuits was later limitedly permitted (only if outlet devices are pigtailed not wired 'feed through' the strap/yoke i.e. pig-tailed) until changes in the standards and therefore the devices partially prevented 2002 and now don't allow post 2005 (lock-outs, reverse wiring or interupted neutral, internal test/logic circuit, or upon installation/first energization).

In general, this is not a DIY site, but specifically the technical forum areas are for HI discussions and NOT DIY discussions.

There is a "Questions from HomeOwners, Home Buyers, and DIY'ers forum area, I suggest you use it, and keep your questions on a particular subject on a single topic (instead of multiple postings, including hijacking old forum discussions).

Hire a qualified (electrician), seems obvious you don't know what you are doing. Visualize the circuit leg being wired through a dead-front GFCI.

BTW what is the rating for the refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer - watts, hP, amps? =/> 7.5A or 10A? (I'm guessing yes.)

Interesting. I will have to check if that outlet is pigtailed or not. It has been too long since this was done.

Regarding toubleshooting- I was just perusing this site as I just had my main breaker box replaced by a reputable and licensed electrician. They put in 20 amp breakers in a bunch of slots that had 15 amps in the box they replaced. I think they screwed up so I was looking for information on ampacity and various derating guidance.

At this point I am certain the 15 amps is more appropriate (1960s 12 awg TW armored wire going through the attic on the circuits in question), although I do question much of the info given on this site as authoritative regarding the subject with respect to derating wire for temp and bundling when the bundle and high ambient temp are remote from each other. Particularly when several electricians give counter information that makes more sense.

I happened to see this thread on GFCIs so I read it. I thought some of the info given here is incorrect, in that I don't believe you can have a GFCI protect receptacles on a load with a shared neutral and I stated as such.

There was no troubleshooting going on, instead, an attempt correct what I thought was bad info - or learn what the secret is (see my first post in the thread). Others are claiming something that I don't believe is correct so I have just been following through with the discussion. This was done 3 or 4 years ago and I researched it thoroughly at that time and spent a whole day trying the various configurations as recommended on this thread.

If you don't think such discussions are of value to HIs, that is your right. I would also point out if not for the posts I made in the last several days, there would have been NO activity on this board since 10/2. Can't see a lack of discussion being more useful than this one.

[Erik Pendleton]

So I did.

MWBC with 1 GFCI on each hot and 2 additional GFCI protected outlets.
Once the neutral is in place I see no reason why this would not work.
Do you?

But, personally, I prefer the way you have it, 4 GFCIs.


Well, looking again at your diagram, I would have no problem with setting up GFCIs with that setup, because you are not sharing the neutral downstream of the GFCI2. But if you had another outlet on GFCI1 (as is the case in my example) it won't work.

- - - Updated - - -


Should work
Which one(s) are tripping
When do they trip
Just a thought
Could have voltage leaking from bad insulation

Yes, it works in this configuration. But this results in circuit1 having 4 GFCI outlets (which I believe is the only way to solve the issue short of tearing out the wall.

[Jim Port]

The neutral just needs to be spliced between 4 and 5 where the the hots diverge. After #5 you would not be be in a MWBC configuration. It is exactly like a standard single pole circuit.

This is easier to see if drawn in a T shape where the power is the vertical leg. Imagine one hot going left and the other to the right. The only neutral splice is where the neutral splits left and right.

If GFI protection were not required and standard duplexes were used, the receptacle in the middle cannot act as the splice for the neutral. This would need to be a pigtail.

The latest code cycles would also require either 2 handle tied single pole breakers or a 2 pole breaker as a common means of disconnect for the two hots. Earlier editions only called for this if the two hots landed on the same yoke.

[Erik Pendleton]

The neutral just needs to be spliced between 4 and 5 where the the hots diverge. After #5 you would not be be in a MWBC configuration. It is exactly like a standard single pole circuit.

This is easier to see if drawn in a T shape where the power is the vertical leg. Imagine one hot going left and the other to the right. The only neutral splice is where the neutral splits left and right.

But, as I mentioned, there are installations, such as mine, where you can not split (splice) the neutral. The wires are in armored cable behind a tile wall. I agree, if you split the neutrals, all would be peachy.




The latest code cycles would also require either 2 handle tied single pole breakers or a 2 pole breaker as a common means of disconnect for the two hots. Earlier editions only called for this if the two hots landed on the same yoke.

Good point, and yeah, they are tied in my new panel.

[Rick Cantrell]

On existing installations, and especially with MWBC, you have limited options for what you can do.
In my opinion, one GFCI at each outlet is better.
Pick one and go with it.

[Robert Rolleston]

I have seen many high end homes built with a bunch of GFCI's on a circuit and it was something the homeowners wanted.. And to my knowledge there is no where in the NEC that prohibits it whether they are pigtailed or not.

[Mbrooke]

Is it alright to have more than one GFCI outlet on the same circuit. I had one today with four GFCI outlets on the same kitchen countertop circuit. If not, why. Thanks


Its fine. A kitchen though needs to have at least 2 20amp branch circuits serving the counter top and nothing else. Ok in some cases the dining room and fridge if its in the USA. But, how many counter top outlets are on there and whether each one is GFCI or 1 GFCI disconnects all is up to the installer. Nothing in the code dictates design. However if all those GFCIs are wired in series it defeats the purpose of having separate GFCIs. However, nothing in the NEC can stop one from having redundant GFCI protection.

[Mbrooke]

T
Again, code is minimum and there is no reason not to go above minimum.




O_O :confused: Often people have good reason for going above the code. You dont have too, but some have that preference.