Track lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wortmanmechanical

Member
I just installed 2 runs of 64 ft track lighting in a retail space. I was rejected by an inspector citing that there was too much track per the wattage per NEC 220. I sized the number of heads from the wattage of each bulb and do not exceed 16 amps per circuit. Does anyone know if the inspector is correct? thanks for your help
 
220.43 (B) says for every 2 ft of track you must figure 150 VA, not by the wattage of track fixtures.

Edit: For feeders ...
 
Last edited:
wortmanmechanical said:
I just installed 2 runs of 64 ft track lighting in a retail space. I was rejected by an inspector citing that there was too much track per the wattage per NEC 220. I sized the number of heads from the wattage of each bulb and do not exceed 16 amps per circuit. Does anyone know if the inspector is correct? thanks for your help
Click to expand...
Yep - I believe it was added in 99 or 02.... But IMO the inspector is misinterpeting it. But may also be well within his right to do so..... I see a lot of over loaded track....
220.12(B) Track Lighting. For track lighting in other than dwelling units or guest rooms of hotels or motels, an additional load of 150 volt-amperes shall be included for every 600 mm (2 ft) of lighting track or fraction thereof. Where multicircuit track is installed, the load shall be considered to be divided equally between the track circuits.
Click to expand...

Commentary:(from 410.101B)
Section 220.12(B) addresses track lighting loads.
The volt-ampere (VA) load for 2 ft of track is 150 volt-amperes because a value of 150 VA is more consistent with standard lamp values for 2 ft of track. It should be understood that 220.12(B) is not intended to limit the number of feet of track on a single branch circuit nor is it intended to limit the number of fixtures on an individual track. Rather, 220.12(B) is intended to be used for load calculations of feeders and services.
Example
Suppose a lighting plan shows 62.5 linear ft of single circuit lighting track for a small department store featuring clothing. Because the actual track luminaires are owner supplied, neither the quantity of track luminaires nor the lamp size is specified. What is the minimum calculated load associated with the lighting track that must be added to the service or feeder supplying this store?
Solution
According to 220.12(B), the minimum calculated load to be added to the service or feeder supplying this track light installation is determined as follows:
The minimum load that must be added to the service or feeder is 4800 VA.
It is important to note that the branch circuits supplying this installation are covered in 410.101(B). For the lighting track branch-circuit load, the maximum load on the track cannot exceed the rating of the branch circuit supplying the track. Also, the track must be supplied by a branch circuit having a rating not exceeding the rating of the track. The track length does not enter into the branch-circuit calculation.
Click to expand...

IMO limiting or spreading load on track is not a bad idea - but not a code violation.

410.151B in the '08 NEC has an FPN stating it does not limit track length...
 
Last edited:
in every jurisdiction I work in they have that requirement (whether its a misread or not I don't know), and they will turn you down for having more than 20' on a 20 amp. (I think they figure that whatever good intentions you have, sooner or later someone is going to just start adding heads. and they are probably right)
 
This brings back the argument of the number of receptacles on a circuit. Is it a requirement for installation or caluculation purposes. That arguement went on forever.

I can have an eight foot track and overload it so the concept of 150 watts for 2 foot of track is , IMO, for calculations. Oh well...
 
I have seen some heinous abuses of track lighting that make 20' per circuit justifiable. Some are fires waiting to happen, some will self destruct before they do so - some will not.
 
While I agree with the concept of 150va this is another example of the code being a design manual-- It pretends not to be. I think the NEC should not pretend that it isn't a design manual.
 
e57 said:
I have seen some heinous abuses of track lighting that make 20' per circuit justifiable. Some are fires waiting to happen, some will self destruct before they do so - some will not.
Click to expand...


But if the circuit is properly sized and protected by the proper sized OCPD then what's the problem? You could easily overload 20' too.
 
infinity said:
But if the circuit is properly sized and protected by the proper sized OCPD then what's the problem? You could easily overload 20' too.
Click to expand...

For instance: years ago I did a showroom with 20a serving 40' of track per circuit with so many heads per. A few months down the line - we get a call that one had caught FIRE, and that some were tripping circuits.... I go there and find an additional 100+ heads added here and there. Most were pulling near 20A a few plus, but had not tripped the CH bolt-on breakers.

Leason; do not count on the OCP to do the job of protecting the customer from themselves.
 
e57 said:
Leason; do not count on the OCP to do the job of protecting the customer from themselves.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good but the code doesn't support the desire to make this a requirement. Maybe a proposal is in order for 2011.
 
infinity said:
That's all well and good but the code doesn't support the desire to make this a requirement. Maybe a proposal is in order for 2011.
Click to expand...

One of the few I might support - especially on knock off brand poorly made track.... :roll:
 
I agree cheap track is a problem. Stay away from the Home Depot products we have had many svc calls to a store that used cheap track. Most of the time the connectors burn out. On this job we are using Ruud Lighting track.
 
iwire said:
E, we have to count on the OCP, if we don't the only answer is not using electricity.
Click to expand...

Is that like shorting a circuit to turn it off like a shunt?

I might say we could count on many OCP devices if they were made to trip both at their rated levels (Exactly) and quickly. As you probably know the average 20a breaker will hold over 20a for some time. 20-25 - a slow trip time, and 25-50 slightly faster, 50-100 faster still, 10kA hopefully real fast. But I'm sure we have both seen breakers hold ~23A indefinitely until something else acted as a fuse.

Maybe track should have fuses at each feed and thermals at each connector and coupling?

Track and recepts are one of those things we have no control over what the end user puts on them - so yes - I think it is a wise idea to limit length and amount of outlets with at least a common sense approach.

Is it in the code - no.... Should it be - IMO yes Are there MANY inspectors like in the OP looking to do so by surupticiously pointing to other codes - yep..... And I don't blame them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top