15A/ 20A circuit load question

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
The 180 VA rule does not apply to dwelling units. Brant mentioned "bedrooms" and "rest of the house" in the quote you used.
Click to expand...

I thought the exception to the 180 VA rule is only for outlets connected to general lighting or small-appliance branch circuits in dwelling units. This is quoting from the 2005 Handbook, Exhibit 220.4
 
Mr. Bill said:
I thought the exception to the 180 VA rule is only for outlets connected to general lighting or small-appliance branch circuits in dwelling units. This is quoting from the 2005 Handbook, Exhibit 220.4
Click to expand...
You have to read the text accomanying Exhibit 220.4:
In Exhibit 220.4, the maximum number of outlets permitted on 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits is 10 and 13 outlets, respectively
This restriction does not apply to outlets connected to general lighting or small-appliance branch circuits in dwelling units.
Click to expand...
 
celtic said:
You have to read the text accomanying Exhibit 220.4:
Click to expand...

I did. And that's what I quoted as the exception. I just don't see how outlets in bedrooms, office rooms, living rooms, and family rooms are considered general lighting or small appliance circuits. We know that non-lighting loads will be connected to these outlets. Like computers and TV's. Now 20 years ago these were probably mostly lighting loads.

I admit that residential is not in my experience and that the majority opinion disagrees with me. I'm just trying to learn.
 
Mr. Bill said:
I admit that residential is not in my experience and that the majority opinion disagrees with me. I'm just trying to learn.
Click to expand...

No harm in wanting to learn.

Have you read the code in regards to Exhibit 220.4?

220.14(I)
 
Mr. Bill said:
I just don't see how outlets in bedrooms, office rooms, living rooms, and family rooms are considered general lighting . . . circuits. We know that non-lighting loads will be connected to these outlets. Like computers and TV's. Now 20 years ago these were probably mostly lighting loads.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I invariably wire lighting and receptacle outlets separately, and usually 20a on the receptacles.

Of course, on the other hand, for a single bedroom addition, for example, a single circuit will suffice.
 
LarryFine said:
Which is exactly why I invariably wire lighting and receptacle outlets separately, and usually 20a on the receptacles.
Click to expand...


For clarification, what you do is by CHOICE rather than by CODE, correct?
 
Can't you use this as a rule of thumb? Just a curious apprentice.

220.3(B)(9)

20v x 120v = 2400v

2400v/180va = 13.3v = 13 receptacles per branch circuit

15v x 120v = 1800v

1800v/180va = 10v = 10 receptacles per branch circuit
 
celtic said:
For clarification, what you do is by CHOICE rather than by CODE, correct?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

When I design and wire, I prefer to keep both actual and perceived performance of the electrical system in mind, as well as required minimums. Turning on the TV causing the lights to blink, not being able to vacuum with all of the lights one, etc., looks like an under-designed system.
 
celtic said:
No harm in wanting to learn.

Have you read the code in regards to Exhibit 220.4?

220.14(I)
Click to expand...

Yeah, several times since reading this thread. I get the impression that a 1200 sf house only requires 2 circuits for all of the lights and general purpose receptacles. 1200sf * 3VA/sf = 3600VA / 120V = (2) 15A circuits. But this seems crazy to me. How does a house, with expected loads on these receptacles, able to have more receptacles per circuit (near infinite) than a storage building which has receptacles scattered around for convenience, with no expected loads.

So then I begin to question the definition of what a general-use receptacle outlet is. Maybe general-use is only meant for areas like hallways with infrequent use. Are outlets located behind furniture (enertainment centers, computer desks, and dressers) not general-use because there are specific loads connected to them for prolonged periods?
 
i don't know why people have the impression that every recep in a house is going to be loaded down. think about what you're actually using in your own home. we use 3 receps in my living room. one for the tv, one for the computer in a corner, and one for a lamp. bedroom, one for an alarm clock, one for a lamp, and one for a tv. these aren't mini-factories. the loads are going to be minimal. in a 1200 sq. ft. house i would typically have one circuit for all gen. receps, two lighting circuits, and two bedroom circuits + sabc's. that gen. purpose recep circuit will have maybe 13-15 receps @ 1200 sq. ft.
 
brantmacga said:
i don't know why people have the impression that every recep in a house is going to be loaded down.
Click to expand...

I don't. But neither is the storage building I used as an example and that one is required to assume 180VA load per receptacle. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume outlets in a bedroom, office rm, and living room will average 1.5A each. Some are used and some are not.
 
I'm with Larry, the NEC is a minimum, and too often performance is overlooked.

I think the NEC should go back to where lights and receps have to be on separate circuits. Ahh, the good old days!

I don't understand why people seem to be so against requiring to have a little beef in the electrical system of a home. It's all passed through costs. If the code requires more so what, the cost goes up and the HO pays a little more.

Take a $400,000 home. Say the electrical cost goes up $3000 because of some additional wiring and more space in the panel. Thats a 0.75% change in the cost of the house. If they can't afford a $403,000 house, then they certainly couldn't afford the $400,000 either.
 
kingpb said:
I don't understand why people seem to be so against requiring to have a little beef in the electrical system of a home. It's all passed through costs. If the code requires more so what, the cost goes up and the HO pays a little more.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it at all ... IF ... the customer is willing to pay for, some certainly are and great for them. :)

But the customer building a house for as cheap as possible should not expect more then code minimum.

If only have money for a Kia you only get a Kia.
 
iwire said:
I have no problem with it at all ... IF ... the customer is willing to pay for, some certainly are and great for them. :)

But the customer building a house for as cheap as possible should not expect more then code minimum.

If only have money for a Kia you only get a Kia.
Click to expand...
And from the people I know that own Kia's, they are very satisfied with them and say that it's all they need.

Roger
 
Roger, That is a good point, they feel good because they have their money to spend on things they want. I do not think the majority of home owners want (or need) a 'high performance' electrical system, all the want is one that works and does not kill them.

But again, if I was being paid for it I would run 10/2 dedicated IG circuits to every receptacle and lighting outlet in the home. :cool:
 
iwire said:
Roger, That is a good point, they feel good because they have their money to spend on things they want. I do not think the majority of home owners want (or need) a 'high performance' electrical system, all the want is one that works and does not kill them.
Click to expand...

True, but a majority of non-residential buildings are the same way. The owners want buildings as cheap as possible and only designed to a Code minimum. Every arguement for residential buildings can be applied to non-residential buildings. It seems the NEC says there's a difference between residential and non-residential buildings regarding general receptacle loads, I just don't understand why. Would buildings be less safe if the exception for general receptacle loads was extended to non-residential buildings? Would a quality electrical system in a residence be more safe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top