Dwelling unit lighting loads

[Rockyd]

I'll take my crow fried please.

 

[ryan_618]

I'll take my crow fried please.

Sometimes you have to. Been there, done that.

 

[iwire]

We all have tasted crow.....and I am sure I will again....maybe even in this thread.

 

[roger]

I think to be correct, 220.14 J allows as many Lighting OUTLETS as you want, not fixtures.

Known connected loads such as fixtures or luminaires are not mentioned in 220.14 J.

Roger

 

[ryan_618]

But isn't a luminaire connected to a lighting outlet?

 

[celtic]

I think to be correct, 220.14 J allows as many Lighting OUTLETS as you want, not fixtures.


I think 220.14 is saying:

...the outlets specified in (J)(1), (J)(2), and (J)(3) are included in the general lighting load calculations of 220.12.

No additional load calculations shall be required for such outlets.

100 says:

Lighting Outlet.
An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

Which says to ME...the math is DONE.

EDIT: Fixing quotes

 

[roger]

But isn't a luminaire connected to a lighting outlet?

Ryan, yes, but the lighting outlet doesn't have to have a luminaire connected to it.

When luminaires are installed (such as twenty 100 watt recessed fixtures) a load is known per the fixtures rating and must be figured per 220.14(D).

Roger

 

[celtic]

Roger...
how many rooms in a home require lighing outlets?
how many rooms can use a switched recpt. to meet that requirement?

 

[roger]

Roger...
how many rooms in a home require lighing outlets?
how many rooms can use a switched recpt. to meet that requirement?

Celtic, read my posts closely, I'm talking about "known lighting loads". Then go back to all the earlier posts where the talk is about "fixtures" and this is what my posts were commenting on.

If we are just talking about "General Lighting Loads" you won't have to do any more math.

But if we are talking about fixtures or luminaires, we are no longer talking about "General Lighting Loads" but rather 220.14(D) and you'll have to do math again.

Roger

 

[celtic]

Roger,
I completely understand that...BUT (where I was headed) I think we are talking minimums.
Everyroom could be loaded with recessed cans and out comes the pencil and giant eraser

 

[sandsnow]

What about 210.23?

In no case shall the load exceed the branch circuit ampere rating. (and it goes on from there)

The first sentence seems to say it all to me.

I think this is where Rodger was going. If you connect 2400 watts of light (permanently installed luminaires) to a 15 amp circuit, you have just violated 210.23.

Article 220 doesn't really seem to address the actual loading of a branch circuit (except for 220-19 Note 4). The title 'branch circuit calculations" seems to me to be a little misleading. In 220 we calculating the branch circuit loads that in turn will be totaled to size the service or feeder.

 

[celtic]

What about 210.23?

In no case shall the load exceed the branch circuit ampere rating. (and it goes on from there)

Only if you know the load...in the case of Roger and his KNOWN lighting plan.

For GENERAL lighting/recpts...how can you exceed what is is UNKNOWN?

 

[sandsnow]

Only if you know the load...in the case of Roger and his KNOWN lighting plan.

For GENERAL lighting/recpts...how can you exceed what is is UNKNOWN?

I agree.

Realistically, how often is it truly unknown? When we build tracts, the luminaires are chosen well in advance by the builder. Granted some luminaires are at owner option or owner provided or future, so it would be unknown.

So an outlet with no luminaire can sit there and not be a violation. Until you install a luminaire that puts you over the limit. And whammo, you have a violation of 210.23.

I think Ryan is possibly looking for a deficiency in the Code that needs to be addessed.

 

[charlie b]

What about 210.23?

I?m with Larry on this one. 210.23 is the article that answers Ryan?s original question.

I think that it?s a common mistake to read a word or phrase in one article, and to automatically presume that its meaning within this article is the same as the meaning of the same, or similar words, in another article. I did not state that very clearly, so let me explain.

Look closely at the words in the first sentence of 210.23. You will encounter the word ?load.? What comes to mind when you see that word used in the context of ?do not exceed?? I?ll tell you what comes to mind. ?Calculated load?: that is what comes to mind. You automatically presume that the ?load? that you are not allowed to exceed is the ?calculated load? for that circuit, the load that you calculated in accordance with article 220. That is an error in interpretation; that is the ?common mistake? to which I alluded earlier.

Please note that the first sentence of 210.23 does not say, ?In no case shall the load on a branch circuit, as calculated in accordance with article 220, exceed the branch-circuit ampere rating.? Why should we think that that is its intended meaning?

What then is the intended meaning of that sentence? Simply put, don?t overload a circuit. If you put 1000 luminaries on a 15 amp circuit, dwelling unit or otherwise, you will have overloaded the circuit. Case closed.

 

[celtic]

I think Ryan is possibly looking for a deficiency in the Code that needs to be addessed.

As much as I hate doing the math, I am in complete agreement.

 

[celtic]

Case closed.

On the contrary, case OPEN.
Until a VA is established for resi. outlets, it's wide open.

 

[Rockyd]

90.4 Should have some latitude here. In addition, lots of states, counties, cities, have their own addendums.

Just can't legislate common sense....there's always some exception to some item...

 

[charlie b]

On the contrary, case OPEN. Until a VA is established for resi. outlets, it's wide open.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Ryan's original question had to do with whether a code article exists that would prohibit putting any number of lights on a residential circuit. I submit that 210.23 does, in fact, prohibit putting an unlimited number of lights on a residential circuit. That is the "case" that I have declared "closed."

Now if you want to discuss a limit, a maximum number of luminaries, or perhaps a maximum number of receptacle outlets, then I would agree that that question remains open.

 

[celtic]

Gotcha Charlie...thanks for clarification.

 

[iwire]

90.4 Should have some latitude here. ..

You will get pelted with rocks if you try to exercise 90.4 here.

90.4 does not allow an inspector to require more than the NEC requires.