220.18 maximum load

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strathead said:
Using that logic there is no obligation to account for actual light fixture load on a residential circuit either. I respectfully disagree with Mike Holt on this issue.
Click to expand...

How do you make the leap to there is no obligation to account for actual light fixture load on a residential circuit? There is section 210.14(D).
 
david luchini said:
How do you make the leap to there is no obligation to account for actual light fixture load on a residential circuit? There is section 210.14(D).
Click to expand...

Because as you guys point out, 220.14(J) states no other calculations are needed. If that negates 200.18 for general purpose receptacles, it also eliminates the requirement for general lighting. If not, then why are you making the distinction
 
Strathead said:
Because as you guys point out, 220.14(J) states no other calculations are needed. If that negates 200.18 for general purpose receptacles, it also eliminates the requirement for general lighting. If not, then why are you making the distinction
Click to expand...

In a dwelling unit;

Putting (20) 100W luminaires on a 15A, 120V circuit is a violation of 220.14(D).

Putting (20) duplex receptacle outlets on a 15A, 120V circuit is a violation of no Code section.
 
david luchini said:
In a dwelling unit;Putting (20) 100W luminaires on a 15A, 120V circuit is a violation of 220.14(D).
Click to expand...
I think perhaps not. Here again, you are mixing east and west, I mean you are mixing 210 and 220. Start at the first sentence of 220.14. It only talks about the minimum number we have to assign, when we are adding up loads. 220 is all about counting, not designing. The design of circuits rests within 210, so you can't use 220 as the reason that a circuit is, or is not, overloaded.

There is a connection between the last sentence in 210.11(A) and the first sentence of 220.18. But that connection seems to me to be circular reasoning. Mom says "go ask your father." Dad says "go ask your mother." I wish it were a bit more clear a connection. In fact, I think it would be better if 210.11(A) said, "In no case shall the load on any circuit, as calculated in article 220, exceed the rating of the branch circuit." But it doesn't say that, not quite.

 
charlie b said:
I think perhaps not. Here again, you are mixing east and west, I mean you are mixing 210 and 220. Start at the first sentence of 220.14. It only talks about the minimum number we have to assign, when we are adding up loads. 220 is all about counting, not designing. The design of circuits rests within 210, so you can't use 220 as the reason that a circuit is, or is not, overloaded.

There is a connection between the last sentence in 210.11(A) and the first sentence of 220.18. But that connection seems to me to be circular reasoning. Mom says "go ask your father." Dad says "go ask your mother." I wish it were a bit more clear a connection. In fact, I think it would be better if 210.11(A) said, "In no case shall the load on any circuit, as calculated in article 220, exceed the rating of the branch circuit." But it doesn't say that, not quite.

Click to expand...

Using 180va for general purpose duplex receptacles. also in that.
 
Charlie, I do not see it as circular, it seems specific:

In no case shall the load on any circuit exceed the maximum specified by 220.18.

The load specified by 220.18 for resi receptacles is zero. It is included in the 3VA per sq.ft, as you already know.
 
jumper said:
Charlie, I do not see it as circular, it seems specific:

In no case shall the load on any circuit exceed the maximum specified by 220.18.

The load specified by 220.18 for resi receptacles is zero. It is included in the 3VA per sq.ft, as you already know.
Click to expand...

Then so is a resi can light or chandelier, for that matter.
 
jumper said:
The load specified by 220.18 for resi receptacles is zero.
Click to expand...
That is not in 220.18. It's in 220.14(J). All 220.18 does is say the load shall not exceed the rating of the branch circuit, and that rating is defined in 210.3. I call that circular.

 
charlie b said:
All 220.18 does is say the load shall not exceed the rating of the branch circuit
Click to expand...
And since 220.14(J) does not give a value to a receptacle it can't exceed the rating of any branch circuit regardless of quantity.

Roger

 
roger said:
And since 220.14(J) does not give a value to a receptacle it can't exceed the rating of any branch circuit regardless of quantity.

Roger

[/FONT][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Again, or a can light or chandelier if you are going down that road, they are part of the 3va also as part of general lighting. I notice that this keeps on being avoided.
 
Strathead said:
Again, or a can light or chandelier if you are going down that road, they are part of the 3va also as part of general lighting. I notice that this keeps on being avoided.
Click to expand...
Not avoided at all and it has been mentioned a number of times in this thread. If you have a known load (fixtures in this case) take it into consideration and add receptacles only until you feel uncomfortable. There is still nothing prohibiting it.

Roger
 
I call them convenience outlets, like said previously, to keep down extension cords. One homeowner, because she changes rooms layout often, wanted a receptacle on every stud. GC talked her out of that!
 
jumper said:
Sure he can.

If Dave's room is a 20'x20' bedroom in a dwelling unit, what is the minimum calculated lighting and receptacle load?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with 210.11(B)? You can contend that since a receptacle has no load, there is no consideration of them when "balancing" the circuits, but that makes 210.11 (B) meaningless when that is your position. If the code is intended the way many of you and Mike Holt are interpreting it then here is another scenario to point out the error of it. And this is utilizing 210.11(B) and 220.14(J) and table:

A track house 1300 square feet, has one bathroom, requires 2 circuits. The electrician puts the bathroom light on the 20A bathroom circuit as allowed. All other lighting in the house is on switched receptacles other than the kitchen. The Kitchen has four can lights. Since the position here is the can lights have an assigned load, but none of the receptacles do, I guess, in order to comply with 21.11(B) I MUST put two of the can lights on on one circuit and the other two on the other. That would be the only way to distribute the loads evenly since they are the only loads.
 
General lighting load includes everything except for fixed appliances.

You still must have a minimum of 2 SABC's, a laundry circuit (unless not required like multifamily with other laundry facilities), and a 20 amp bathroom circuit. But there is no additional load calculation for the bathroom it just needs to be on the 20 amp circuit, you could put 1000 receptacles on it plus lighting and are code compliant. The bathroom load is included in the general lighting @ 3VA/SF. You could also run 10 circuits to the bathroom and the load calculation is still 3 VA/SF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top