Branch Circuit Loads (Nonconcurrent)

Status
Not open for further replies.

32Laterlaus

Member
Location
Arizona
Occupation
Electrical Designer
I am designing electrical for some IT equipment. There is a single receptacle feeding a server rack, the server rack has a bunch of equipment, but IT is saying only half will run at a time.

Do I have to design the branch load for the full capacity or can I go off what IT is saying and cut the load in half? Is this designated anywhere in the NEC?
 
What IT says now and what they eventually need to do are two different things! Plan for the whole rack!
 
What IT says now and what they eventually need to do are two different things! Plan for the whole rack!
Is that code required thought? This is at a very large facility, they know what they want, I just need to know if code allows that.

220.60 Noncoincident Loads is the closest I could find but that seems to be for feeders and service only, not branch circuits.
 
It's not code--- but I work in IT, and Things Change! That's IT's motto, by the way! Give them a couple of years, and they'll rip out what's in there now, and fill it with other Stuff.
 
Is that code required thought? This is at a very large facility, they know what they want, I just need to know if code allows that.

220.60 Noncoincident Loads is the closest I could find but that seems to be for feeders and service only, not branch circuits.
Get proof that your loads cannot be simultaneously run! If you can find interlocks on these loads, then you are allowed by code. If all the IT can say is that only administrative controls are in place on powering up these loads, then I guess it does not comply with the wordings "it is unlikely" as found in 220.60.
 
As I recall, the non-coincident load wording only appears in Art 220 for load calculations.
There is no Code provision to take that into account on branch circuits feeding receptacles for utilizationn equipment..
 
Get proof that your loads cannot be simultaneously run! If you can find interlocks on these loads, then you are allowed by code. If all the IT can say is that only administrative controls are in place on powering up these loads, then I guess it does not comply with the wordings "it is unlikely" as found in 220.60.

But is there actual wording that allows this, even if unlikely or even interlocked? As stated, 220.60 is for feeders and service.
 
IT loads are a pain. If you use the nameplate value on each server (or its power supply watt rating), you will have way more capacity than needed. Server racks usually have a PDU with a given power plug. I'll pick which PDU type I want based on certain things. If an L6-20 PDU doesn't have enough juice, I may ask for two of them. Or maybe an L6-30. The contents of that server rack will most likely change often, so even if you have an accurate load, it will be different in 6 months.

When our server rooms are inspected, the server racks are never there. All the inspector is looking at is the branch circuit to make sure all parts are correct, and not the load. Even if he saw the server rack, I doubt he could come up with a load easily as half the nameplates may be obscured, and nameplates aren't a realistic measure for most server installs.

One thing to watch is servers with redundant power supplies. If it has two 700W power supplies, and the computer is maxxed out, each supply will draw 350W. If one supply dies, the other one will provide the full 700W until the dead one is replaced. So this could be where the "half" comes from, as a computer with two 700W supplies won't draw more than 700W. The point of redundant supplies though is to have two separate branch circuits so circuit 1 powers supply #1 on each machine and circuit 2 powers supply #2 on each machine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top