Restaurant Demand Loads

[Leo1]

Article 220.88 refers to table 220.88 - Optional Method - Permitted Load Calculations for Service and Feeder Conductors for New restaurants. Does this demand for service and feeder conductors apply to multiple small restaurants, e.g., at a food court in a mall with multiple restaurants that collectively could have a total connected load equal to larger than a single large restaurant?

 

[Smart $]

While the title of 220.88 refers to restaurants (i.e. plural), the first sentence uses the singular form of the word in referring you to Table 220.88. IMO, this means the demand factoring only applies to an individual restaurant, and not the combined connected load of multiple restaurants.

I'm interesting in hearing others' opinions...

 

[david luchini]

While the title of 220.88 refers to restaurants (i.e. plural), the first sentence uses the singular form of the word in referring you to Table 220.88. IMO, this means the demand factoring only applies to an individual restaurant, and not the combined connected load of multiple restaurants.

I'm interesting in hearing others' opinions...

I concur.

 

[steve66]

I don't think the demand would be any higher for several items in separate restaurants than it would be for the same items in a single restaurant.

So I doubt the intent was to limit the calculation to a single restaurant, when multiple restaurants are supplied by the same feeder, even though you could interpret the text that way.

If we say this only applies to a single restaurant, I think its going to be very difficult to draw the line between what is a single restaurant, and what are multiple restaurants. For example, I don't see how a food court is really any different than a cafeteria that has multiple food stations. And what about a food court with different restaurants where everyone pays at the same cash register. Is that a single restaurant, or multiple restaurants?

I say if its all fed from a single feeder, I'd either call it a single restaurant, or I'd say 220.40 allows it to be treated as a single restaurant. But I'd also see if the AHJ concurs before going too far down the road.

 

[Leo1]

Thank you for the feedback. I agree both interpretations are reasonable.........thus the reason for posting the question. Also agree closure resides with the AHJ.