Outlets Per Breaker

[hurk27]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Actually George The statement "dedicated" is kind of a loose term we use as a way of describing a single circuit that only supply's certain items. It could serve one single receptacle outlet. or several that just feed a group of certain appliances. To not be a dedicated circuit would be more like the circuits that feed GP receptacles or receptacles and lights.
We dedicate one circuit per GFCI in the kitchen even though the GFCI also feeds a couple other receptacles but to us it is still a dedicated circuit.
We also have a dedicated circuit that feeds the laundry receptacle which is a duplex so the dryer can be plugged in.
But as far as the refrigerator goes having a 15 amp duplex on a 20 amp circuit behind it is not a NEC issue as the refrigerator is not required to be on a single receptacle. If you had a disposal that pulled more than the 50% allowed by 210.23(A)(2) then I could see your point, but a refrigerator is not a fixed in place appliance and does not have a 20 amp cord on it, and does not pull more than 80% of the circuit as required in 210.23(A)(1) Maybe a Subzero might?

Here is my view:
The NEC only requires a single receptacle to have the rating of the circuit.
Where two or more receptacles are suppled by a 20 amp circuit it is allowed to use a 15 amp rated receptacle.
A duplex is two receptacles as per the definition in the NEC.
A refrigerator is not a fixed in place appliance so it only needs to be less than the 80% of the circuit feeding it.
So a refrigerator is not required to be on a dedicated circuit, thus not requiring a single receptacle.

There clear as mud!

 

[infinity]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Here is my view:
The NEC only requires a single receptacle to have the rating of the circuit.
Where two or more receptacles are suppled by a 20 amp circuit it is allowed to use a 15 amp rated receptacle.
A duplex is two receptacles as per the definition in the NEC.
A refrigerator is not a fixed in place appliance so it only needs to be less than the 80% of the circuit feeding it.
So a refrigerator is not required to be on a dedicated circuit, thus not requiring a single receptacle

Hurk,

I couldn't have summed it up better.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Originally posted by hurk27:
Here is my view:
The NEC only requires a single receptacle to have the rating of the circuit.
Where two or more receptacles are suppled by a 20 amp circuit it is allowed to use a 15 amp rated receptacle.
A duplex is two receptacles as per the definition in the NEC.
A refrigerator is not a fixed in place appliance so it only needs to be less than the 80% of the circuit feeding it.
So a refrigerator is not required to be on a dedicated circuit, thus not requiring a single receptacle.

There clear as mud!

Okay, push 210.23 and 210.21 aside for a moment. Just look at 210.52(B):

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

Exception No. 2: The receptacle outlet for refrigeration equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from an individual branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater.

Fellas, (B)(1) is requiring the fridge to be on an SA circuit. You're permitted to violate this rule to put the fridge on an individual branch circuit.

</font>

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you attempt to apply to the requirement, an SA circuit can only serve the areas described in (B)(1), of which "behind the fridge" didn't make the list.</font>
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you attempt to apply for the exception, it's not an indivdual branch circuit if another receptacle exists on it, another piece of utilization equipment can be connected to the circuit. Your "individual circuit" vanished. You'd be violating the exception.</font>

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey, I didn't write it.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

George
Where does it say an SA circuit can not supply a receptacle behind the fridge? 210.52(B)(5) only says " Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place"
Can't be counted in the required wall space receptacles.
210.52(B)(1) clearly states: "shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
This in no way say's that the receptacle can not be behind the fridge.
To go one further 210.52(B)(2) exception 2 allows the gas range or cook top to be on a SA circuit. How would you plug in a cook top if the receptacle wasn't under the counter where the cook top cord is found?

Exception No. 2: Receptacles installed to provide power for supplemental equipment and lighting on gas-fired ranges, ovens, or counter-mounted cooking units .

But I do now have to agree that if the fridge is fed from an individual branch circuit then it would have to be a single receptacle which would require it to be rated 20 amps if on a 20 amp circuit.

Be cause of this definition in article 100:

Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.

But the moment another receptacle is added it becomes a SA circuit which would still be code compliant.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

George,
I was almost going to agree with you.

But, 210.52(B)(1)Exception #2 states 'The receptacle outlet ...'

Which by definition is 'An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed'

And by definition, a Branch Circut, Individual (as you stated) is one 'that supplies only one utilization equipment'.
A duplex on a dedicated circut behind the fridge, is supplying only 1 utilization equipment, it just gives the installer a design choice of which one to plug the fridge into.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Originally posted by hurk27:
210.52(B)(1) clearly states: "shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
This in no way say's that the receptacle can not be behind the fridge.

The required fridge receptacle can be anywhere within 6' of it. The other receptacle in a duplex is causing the issue. Here's my thinking why...

To go one further 210.52(B)(2) exception 2 allows the gas range or cook top to be on a SA circuit. How would you plug in a cook top if the receptacle wasn't under the counter where the cook top cord is found?

Exception No. 2: Receptacles installed to provide power for supplemental equipment and lighting on gas-fired ranges, ovens, or counter-mounted cooking units .

See: If it were legal to have a receptacle hidden behind a clock or a range, we wouldn't need an exception to allow their existence. We have an exception to permit these concealed receptacles.

Todd wrote:
A duplex on a dedicated circut behind the fridge, is supplying only 1 utilization equipment, it just gives the installer a design choice of which one to plug the fridge into.

But there are two receptacles. There's already been a post saying it's a handy extra recep to have. Heck, I've used it.

I hate to any anything along the lines of "the second you plug something in you're violating (B)(2)."

 

[kturner]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

A duplex receptacle is not the same as two outlets. There is only one outlet behind the fridge, it just happens to have a duplex device mounted in it. 210.52 addresses required outlets as opposed to devices.

 

[iwire]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Originally posted by kturner:
A duplex receptacle is not the same as two outlets. There is only one outlet behind the fridge, it just happens to have a duplex device mounted in it. 210.52 addresses required outlets as opposed to devices.

But it is the same as two receptacle outlets which is what 210.52 addresses.

Take a look at 210.52 it does not simply say outlets it says receptacle outlets.

 

[kturner]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Receptacle Outlet.An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.

This would be a single receptacle outlet with a duplex device installed.

 

[physis]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Todd brought up "receptacle outlet".

I had to look into it because I hadn't really thought much about "receptacle", "outlet" and "receptacle outlet".

This is interesting because the way we usually think about these things is that they are all the same thing. You know what I mean. If you're not thinking in NEC mode (or even if you are) these terms are almost synonymns.

I had to go back and reread code sections to make sure I haven't subconciously confused the three descretely different concepts.

Obviously they're not the same thing. And it's pretty clear what the three things are for and what they mean.

So after making sure I understand things correctly, I go back and reread 210.52(B)(1). Why are they talking about serving "receptacle outlets"? Can we leave those "outlets" unpopulated? No "receptacles"

You really need a flow chart to understand CMP 2.
I know why they chose that term. Does anyone else?

 

[brian john]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

After the number of pages over this post I just had to chime in.

An inspector once told me put 20 outlets on one circuit and one outlet on another, won't matter the homeowner will overload the single outlet with a spider of extension cords.

 

[physis]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

An inspector once told me put 20 outlets on one circuit and one outlet on another, won't matter the homeowner will overload the single outlet with a spider of extension cords.

Boy is he an optimist.

I think the reality is that one guy out 300 might do that.

Therefor, the only sane thing to do is build everything to accomodate that idiot.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

So, Sam and Bob, am I twisted?

 

[physis]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Let me tell you something completely meaningless George. I spent the entire weekend learning quantum field theory.

I also spent several hours trying to be objective about each sucsessive image released by NASA and their Mars exploration craft regarding Cydonia since 1976 being just about completely unbelievable.

Yep. You are definately twisted!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Wow, just when I thought my life couldn't get any more boring...who knew?

 

[physis]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

You gotta work to be twisted son, it ain't free, but if you're just crazy enough ---WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR--- you might get to see just a tiny bit over the edge.

Edit: And believe me, I know this is gonna be hard to accept, but it wasn't as much fun as going to the bar on Friday. But the bar was't so spectacular either.

[ May 11, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[physis]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Since I brought it up,

I've found this site to be very , very useful for sciences, math, physics, technology and related things.

I think it's been improved recently, only because I don't remember it being as well set up as it is now.

All the topics are interlinked from whichever other page and you can bounce around looking at things as superficially or in depth as you like. Pretty darn in depth too for just some web site.

I'm not selling this or anything but it's one of the things I've always thought the internet should be used for and almost gave up hope on.

I encourage everyone to check it out. Select a topic, bounce around some. It's gotta be better than reading my posts.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

I love ooming to this site,always a new idea,thought link that actually does expand my knowledge etc.some of us take it all to seriously but in the long run there is alot of info that we can use in our day to day.Keep up the insanity guys it helps me get through those hum drum days that I wanna go postal

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Ok so if we use a single device then it has to be rated for the ampacity of the circuit(that we all agree)
Now if we install a duplex on this same individual/dedicated circuit,we are now allowed to install a 15 amp receptacle since there are two points of utilization and since the NEC doesn`t address them being on the same yoke unless on a MWBC that breaks both ungrounded conductors at same time.That`s a whole other issue
But if it is a duplex we meet the 2 or more requirement and it is a code compliant install

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Outlets Per Breaker

Originally posted by kturner:
210.52 addresses required outlets as opposed to devices.

This is going to sound silly, so brace yourself. If 210.52 merely called for required "receptacles", then we could theroetically argue that we don't need to supply the required receptacles with power.

By using the term "receptacle outlets", the use of the term "outlet" nips such a silly arguement in the bud.

I still contend that the fridge can't be on a duplex, any takers?