Definition of the word "dedicated"

Status
Not open for further replies.

rsoto

Member
I'm looking for an NEC interpretation of the word "dedicated". Although the word appears in the text in a number of instances, there is no formal NEC definition of the word.

I am involved in the design of an building that requires connections to multiple elevators in a common hoistway, with a common elevator machine room. Therefore, I was researching Article 620 of NEC 2008. 620.22 (A) refers to branch circuit(s) required for car lights, receptacles, etc., & reads that "A separate branch circuit shall supply the car lights, ..." 620.22(B) refers to air conditioning & heating source branch circuits, but it reads "A dedicated branch circuit shall supply the air conditioning ..."

My presumption is, that although a separate branch circuit is required for the car lights, receptacles, etc., the line side of a number of fused disconnect switches could be fed from a single branch circuit, out of a remote panelboard, then each of the elevator cars could be served with their own separate branch circuit, from each of the separate disconnect switches.

However, for the air conditioning and heating source circuit, the word "dedicated" is confusing, because there doesn't appear to be a formal interpretation, or definition for "dedicated" in the NEC. In the case of paragraph 620.22 (B) does the word "dedicated" prohibit one from supplying a number of fused disconnect switches from a single branch circuit in a remote panelboard? Understanding full well, that each elevator car air conditioning & heating load must be served from a separate fused disconnect switch, the question is - "does the word dedicated require a dedicated branch circuit from a remote panelboard to serve each elevator car air conditioning/heating disconnect switch, or can a single branch circuit from a remote panelboard serve a number of individual disconnect switches used for elevator car air conditioning/heating loads?"
 
I might get some disagreement on this one, but I think your answer lies within a definition that does appear in Article 100: the definition of "branch circuit." You don't start the "branch circuit," until you hit the "final overcurrent device." If there is a breaker in a remote panel, and if it serves a set of fused disconnect switches, then the "final" overcurrent device is the fuse. Thus, the conductors from the breaker to the set of fused disconnects is a "feeder," and not a branch circuit. I conclude that you can do what you are describing.

I don't think I will get any disagreement on this one, but welcome to the forum.
 
From Article 100, "Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the proper application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms . . ."

From Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, "adjective, given over to a particular purpose <a dedicated process control computer>"

The final interpretation would be between you and the AHJ. :)
 
charlie b said:

I don't think I will get any disagreement on this one, but welcome to the forum.


I agree as long as they are fused disconnects and the feeder that supplies them is sized properly goes without saying. The problem you could run into is what the writer of the spec's expected as far as the location of the final overcurrent device. As an extreme example I could wire a computer room that spec'd dedicated circuits to each computer with a single feeder for all computers with a fused disconnect at each workstation. This may meet the spec but obviously would not be approved in most places.
 
Last edited:
individual branch / dedicated circuit

individual branch / dedicated circuit

I am running into the "dedicated" circuit a lot! It seems this has become a very common request in design/ plans! Kind of like an "individual" circuit! I think everyone that really request this is often times saying it, just to be saying it!:confused: :confused: Pretty soon everything will be on a "dedicated" circuit!!:grin:
 
I don't think I will get any disagreement on this one, but welcome to the forum.

You nailed it as far as I am concerned.

What It's Hot is discussing is the assumption that a dedicated circuit is CLEANER for computer operation.
 
I all ways thought of dedicated circuits, as circuits where the conductors were never shared between circuits or devises after the last over current device.
 
I all ways thought of dedicated circuits, as circuits where the conductors were never shared between circuits or devises after the last over current device.

So, in your opinion, can a dedicated circuit share a neutral?
 
The reason I am asking is , back in 1983, I worked briefly for a large contractor building a small office building and I had to call the head guy to ask that question. After some discussion, they (in my opinion) made a guess and said that dedicated meant the ungrounded conductor only.

I have not seen it addressed since.
 
Definition of the word "dedicated"

I gather from the responses, that there is no formal interpretation of the word "dedicated", as far as the NEC goes. The words "branch circuit" are defined, and a "separate branch circuit" would be defined as a branch circuit that serves no other load, but I still don't understand what is meant by a "dedicated" branch circuit. Do the words "dedicated branch circuit" mean that a) the branch circuit must be a separate branch circuit, & b) the feeder serving the separate branch circuit protective device can serve no other branch circuit protective devices?

Can anyone please clarify this for me?
 
rsoto said:
Do the words "dedicated branch circuit" mean that . . . b) the feeder serving the separate branch circuit protective device can serve no other branch circuit protective devices?
If this were the case, then you might as well insist that the service conductors to the building can provide power to no other feeders, and that the local utility can serve no other buildings. That is, of course, nonsense. Nothing that happens upstream of the final overcurrent device is governed by any rule that speaks of branch circuits.
 
IMO the two on the left are "Individual" branch circuits - the two on the right, are not....
Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.

dedcirc.jpg

IMO this wording of "Individual Branch Circuit" is the closest you'll come to defining a 'dedicated circuit' within the code. And does not preclude one from using a "Multi-Wire Branch Circuit".

However, since this is a question of spec's, not the code per-se - I suggest an RFI....:cool:
 
e57 said:
IMO the two on the left are "Individual" branch circuits - the two on the right, are not....

dedcirc.jpg

IMO this wording of "Individual Branch Circuit" is the closest you'll come to defining a 'dedicated circuit' within the code. And does not preclude one from using a "Multi-Wire Branch Circuit".

However, since this is a question of spec's, not the code per-se - I suggest an RFI....:cool:

They look like models of molecules Not brach circuits.:D :D
 
If a multiwire branch circuit can be considered a single circuit then why can't a dedicated circuit be a multiwire circuit? Food for thought.
 
ivsenroute said:
If a multiwire branch circuit can be considered a single circuit then why can't a dedicated circuit be a multiwire circuit? Food for thought.

Before the '08 NEC, I would consider 2 or 3 circuits from a MWBC as individual circuits, but, with the handle tie requirement in the '08, I'm not sure it would count now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top