House wiring in Florida.

[Stephen Silva]

I've always wondered why don't builders wire all the circuits from one room to one breaker instead of multiple rooms on a breaker in florida?

[Jim Port]

While not specific to Florida, often times the load does not warrant the expense of running extra circuits. Builders are cost conscious.

[Jerry Peck]

Also, if all the circuits for a single room were on one breaker, when the breaker tripped for any reason you would lose power to everything in that room.

By having some receptacles on one circuit, come on another circuit, and the light on a different circuit, you would still have power to some outlets (receptacle or lights) in that room. Makes for good wiring practices and safety too.

[Roland Miller]

I've always wondered why don't builders wire all the circuits from one room to one breaker instead of multiple rooms on a breaker in florida?

I don't know about Florida but the NEC says you can put 800 square feet of dwelling unit on a single 20 amp breaker so a 2400 square foot house would only have 3-20 amp breakers for general lighting loads (lights and receptacles) plus the other required circuits. Most electricians put more circuits in most houses than are required by code...anyway. 600 square feet if using 15 amp breakers. Makes sense with the AFCI requirement.

[Jim Port]

The 600 and 800 square foot is used to determine the minimum number of circuits. The NEC does not limit those circuits to just serving a specified square footage. For example a lightly loaded lighting circuit could cover the entire second floor of a house that covered 1000 square foot and still be in compliance.

Here is what the NEC says;

210.11 Branch Circuits Required. Branch circuits for
lighting and for appliances, including motor-operated appliances,
shall be provided to supply the loads calculated in
accordance with 220.10. In addition, branch circuits shall
be provided for specific loads not covered by 220.10 where
required elsewhere in this Code and for dwelling unit loads
as specified in 210.11(C).
(A) Number of Branch Circuits. The minimum number
of branch circuits shall be determined from the total calculated
load and the size or rating of the circuits used. In all
installations, the number of circuits shall be sufficient to
supply the load served. In no case shall the load on any
circuit exceed the maximum specified by 220.18.
(B) Load Evenly Proportioned Among Branch Circuits.
Where the load is calculated on the basis of volt-amperes
per square meter or per square foot, the wiring system up to
and including the branch-circuit panelboard(s) shall be provided
to serve not less than the calculated load. This load
shall be evenly proportioned among multioutlet branch circuits
within the panelboard(s). Branch-circuit overcurrent
devices and circuits shall be required to be installed only to
serve the connected load.

[Roland Miller]

"For example a lightly loaded lighting circuit could cover the entire second floor of a house that covered 1000 square foot and still be in compliance( NO)." This would not meet the minimum requirement of 3 VA/sqft, as well as, a uniform distribution of load on branch circuits.... and therefore would be noncompliant with the NEC. It would be difficult to determine at rough-in though.

[Jim Port]

Since lighting loads are calculated on the maximum size of the bulbs or the actual load of the fixtures there is a very good chance that the circuit could cover more than the 600 or 800 foot. The NEC does not limit this the way you think it does. A typical dwelling will have smoke alarms all over the McMansion all served from one circuit. Surely you cannot be saying this is against the code simply based on the circuit being used over 3000 square foot of house.

If someone was to run a separate receptacle circuit from the lighting the load would not be uniformly distributed due to the heavier loads on the receptacles. Are you saying that practice is a code violation? That uniform distribution would also work against someone that segregated a circuit just to one room vs one that serves several rooms. I do not think that is what the NEC intends nor can I find any rules to back that up.

[Mike Kleisch]

Isn’t this one of those fun parts of the code where good design trumps code minimum? You could have a 2,400 SF home and put in three 20 amp circuit breakers and use one breaker to power all but two lights and the other two breakers too power those two lights. Code compliant? Yes. Bad design? You bet! But, there is no code violation as I met the minimum general lighting load requirement, and I limit the load of the one breaker to say (20) 100 amp lights.

Doesn’t the uniform distribution of load on the branch circuits apply to the panel, as in, you don’t want all the 20 amp breakers on the same phase and all 15 amps on the other???

[Jerry Peck]

Isn’t this one of those fun parts of the code where good design trumps code minimum?

Mike,

"Good design" ALWAYS exceeds "code minimum", i.e., "code minimum" is not intended to be remotely close to "good design", "code minimum" is simply the "most unsafe one is legally allowed to construct to".

The NEC, in 90.2 (as I recall) states that following that code will result in an installation which is "essentially free of hazards", but is not necessarily 'efficient', 'convenient', or 'adequate' for its intended use. That means that all those electrical contractors who complain about having to do all the things they do "to meet the NEC Code" are complaining about having to meet a code which itself states it is a bare bones minimum and may not be adequate, efficient, or convenient and ... only 'essentially free of hazards'.

[Roland Miller]

Since lighting loads are calculated on the maximum size of the bulbs or the actual load of the fixtures --Not true according to the NEC there is a very good chance that the circuit could cover more than the 600 or 800 foot. The NEC does not limit this the way you think it does.--Really? I mean REALLY! A typical dwelling will have smoke alarms all over the McMansion all served from one circuit. Surely you cannot be saying this is against the code simply based on the circuit being used over 3000 square foot of house.--This is not a general lighting load and does not apply to my statement about general lighting loads.Remember--Apples and Apples?

If someone was to run a separate receptacle circuit from the lighting the load would not be uniformly distributed due to the heavier loads on the receptacles You can't predict the amount of loading on receptacles only divide them up evenly according the NEC Are you saying that practice is a code violation?? What is the question? That uniform distribution would also work against someone But it is a code requirement that segregated a circuit just to one room vs one that serves several rooms. I do not think that is what the NEC intends nor can I find any rules to back that up.

Read 210.11 (B) Load Evenly Proportioned Among Branch Circuits. Where the load is calculated on the basis of volt-amperes per square meter or per square foot, the wiring system up to and including the branch-circuit panelboard(s) shall be provided to serve not less than the calculated load One circuit to cover 1000sq ft violates this. This load shall be evenly proportioned among multioutlet branch circuits within the panelboard(s).I would think there would be a violation here also, assuming there are more multioutlets on this one circuit compared to the others. Branch-circuit overcurrent devices and circuits shall be required to be installed only to serve the connected load.

[Jim Port]

That's funny Roland. I guess you glossed over this part of 220.14 when you were teaching your students?

(D) Luminaires. An outlet supplying luminaire(s) shall be
calculated based on the maximum volt-ampere rating of the
equipment and lamps for which the luminaire(s) is rated.

Here is your "modified" quote of my post.


Since lighting loads are calculated on the maximum size of the bulbs or the actual load of the fixtures --Not true according to the NEC


Seems you like disagree with what the CMP actually wrote and I clearly stated. If the fixture can accept a 150 watt bulb but someone installs a 12 w LED, the load is still calculated at 150 watts.

The number of receptacles has absolutely nothing to due with the load on a circuit. I could use one of the minimum code circuits to serve one area in the house like a home office with high expected loads that only covered 120 square foot. The other required circuits could cover up to 800 square foot using your interpretation and only power a clock radio and a 100 watt bulb.

[jack davenport]

Hmmmm ----I seem to remember reading this same exact "Debate" a few months back, didn't I ?Don't seem to recall that it was ever settled either- Imagine That :)

[Roland Miller]

That's funny Roland. I guess you glossed over this part of 220.14 when you were teaching your students?

(D) Luminaires. An outlet supplying luminaire(s) shall be
calculated based on the maximum volt-ampere rating of the
equipment and lamps for which the luminaire(s) is rated.

Here is your "modified" quote of my post.



Seems you like disagree with what the CMP actually wrote and I clearly stated. If the fixture can accept a 150 watt bulb but someone installs a 12 w LED, the load is still calculated at 150 watts.

The number of receptacles has absolutely nothing to due with the load on a circuit. I could use one of the minimum code circuits to serve one area in the house like a home office with high expected loads that only covered 120 square foot. The other required circuits could cover up to 800 square foot using your interpretation and only power a clock radio and a 100 watt bulb.

For dwelling units, which we are talking about 220.14 (J) applies. So I am correct with what I stated. You just need to read all the way through 220.14 to see you error..

"The number of receptacles has absolutely nothing to due with the load on a circuit.in dwelling occupancies I would agree I could use one of the minimum code circuits to serve one area in the house like a home office with high expected loads that only covered 120 square foot. The other required circuits could cover up to 800 square foot using your interpretation and only power a clock radio and a 100 watt bulb. Do you actually believe this? Amazing!"

I see you put-downs/insults have began. I was hoping you would move past this but you haven't...

[Jim Port]

While I may be allowed to figure the lighting load towards the service at 3 va per square foot, I still must size the branch circuit for the lighting based on the maximum load of the bulb or fixture. All J says is that I do not have to add any additional allowance for the required receptacle or lighting beyond the 3 va. I could have 2000 watt of light in every habitable room and still calculate the load at 3 va.

[Jim Port]

I see you put-downs/insults have began. I was hoping you would move past this but you haven't...



Sorry that your ego is so fragile that you cannot have a discourse with someone that has a different opinion. I said it before that I will refute incorrect information posted here. I did not resort to insults or derogatory terms during the last debate when you could not add 12.5 and 12.5 and get 25 amps or refuse to admit your error, nor will it happen this time.

[Roland Miller]

Sorry that your ego is so fragile that you cannot have a discourse with someone that has a different opinion. I said it before that I will refute incorrect information posted here. I did not resort to insults or derogatory terms during the last debate when you could not add 12.5 and 12.5 and get 25 amps or refuse to admit your error, nor will it happen this time.

Not fragile here. I simply called your BS---BS. Maybe Myers will find a place for you on Mike's forum since you seem to think you know the NEC... Give him a call. I value a different opinion when it is based on fact not BS..smoke and mirrors..redirects..and sometimes outright untruths..and throw in your inadequate attempts at put downs and insults..bad math...on and on...My, not a very good resume ..!!

[John Kogel]

I was inspecting a bathroom the other day and there was a standard receptacle beside the sink. When I tested it for a GFCI, the lights went out. Seems lights and wall outlet are on the same circuit. The hassle was, I couldn't finish that room properly until the lights were back on. At bathroom #2, there were no lights, so downstairs I go to bathroom #3, where I found, by flashlight, the GFCI. That is stupid wiring, IMO.

With all the circuits you have on AFCI now, having a light on another circuit is just good sense.

[Jim Port]

Calling a direct quote from the NEC BS, now that is rich. I should have expected as much given the lack of understanding shown in your last debacle. Since you obviously are not open to learning, please put me on your ignore list.



And as far as "inadequate attempts at putdowns" you might want to review the forum rules that prohibit that tone of post that I will quote below.


Not fragile here. I simply called your BS---BS. Maybe Myers will find a place for you on Mike's forum since you seem to think you know the NEC... Give him a call. I value a different opinion when it is based on fact not BS..smoke and mirrors..redirects..and sometimes outright untruths..and throw in your inadequate attempts at put downs and insults..bad math...on and on...My, not a very good resume ..!!

Bad math? At least I can get the correct answer to 12.5 + 12.5 and not get 12.5

BTW, who is this Myers that you are talking about?

[Jerry Peck]

I was inspecting a bathroom the other day and there was a standard receptacle beside the sink. When I tested it for a GFCI, the lights went out. Seems lights and wall outlet are on the same circuit. The hassle was, I couldn't finish that room properly until the lights were back on. At bathroom #2, there were no lights, so downstairs I go to bathroom #3, where I found, by flashlight, the GFCI. That is stupid wiring, IMO.

"That is stupid wiring, IMO."

That is also against code ... depending on when the house was constructed and what edition of the code was in effect at that time.

To clarify: The lights and receptacles ARE allowed to be on the same circuit, but ... NOT WITH receptacle outlets or lights in another bathroom. I.e., wire all the bathroom receptacles on a 20 circuit and then wire the lights on a different circuit, or, wire one entire bathroom on one circuit with nothing else on that circuit.

I've often thought it foolish to wire all the bathroom receptacles on one 20 amp circuit, then have 2-3-4 bathrooms with hair dryers all going at the same time ... er ... trying to be used at the same time but for some reason the breaker keeps tripping ... hmmm ... wonder why? Just another pet peeve of mine.

[Roland Miller]

Calling a direct quote from the NEC BS, now that is rich. I should have expected as much given the lack of understanding shown in your last debacle. Since you obviously are not open to learning, please put me on your ignore list.Again, one of your redirects or lack of reading skills. BTW-I was referencing your misinterpretation of the NEC not the NEC.



And as far as "inadequate attempts at putdowns" I am sorry you feel that way about your putdowns. Maybe you should quit. you might want to review the forum rules that prohibit that tone of post that I will quote belowI thought I could blindly follow the example you set. NO?



Bad math? At least I can get the correct answer to 12.5 + 12.5 and not get 12.5 Not my math or did you forget?

BTW, who is this Myers that you are talking about? Meier, Robert

You are on my ignorant list. What more do you want? You can't follow a simple argument from beginning to end so please don't respond to my posts again. Your additional BS is not wanted or needed. And I will try not to follow your example since it is in violation of the forum rules. Thanks for pointing that out....

[Jim Port]

I should have expected the I'm rubber and you're glue retort.

[Roland Miller]

29680
I should have expected the I'm rubber and you're glue retort.

[jack davenport]

29680 Welcome to elementary school children !

[Roland Miller]

Welcome to elementary school children !

I had actually not ever heard this expression before..thought it was pretty funny the Port knew it..:confused: I had to google it. Port really digs in when he is wrong.

And I see you have nothing valuable to add..

[Jim Port]

Maybe the time in elementary school will have time for a math lesson instead of childish insults.

[jack davenport]

I had actually not ever heard this expression before..thought it was pretty funny the Port knew it..:confused: I had to google it. Port really digs in when he is wrong.

And I see you have nothing valuable to add..

about as much as you do

[Roland Miller]

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Jim Port http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/37918-house-wiring-florida.html#post234397)
Since lighting loads are calculated on the maximum size of the bulbs or the actual load of the fixtures --Not true according to the NEC there is a very good chance that the circuit could cover more than the 600 or 800 foot. The NECdoes not limit this the way you think it does.--Really? I mean REALLY! A typical dwelling will have smoke alarms all over the McMansion all served from one circuit. Surely you cannot be saying this is against the code simply based on the circuit being used over 3000 square foot of house.--This is not a general lighting load and does not apply to my statement about general lighting loads.Remember--Apples and Apples?

If someone was to run a separate receptacle circuit from the lighting the load would not be uniformly distributed due to the heavier loads on the receptacles You can't predict the amount of loading on receptacles only divide them up evenly according the NEC Are you saying that practice is a code violation?? What is the question? That uniform distribution would also work against someone But it is a code requirement that segregated a circuit just to one room vs one that serves several rooms. I do not think that is what the NEC intends nor can I find any rules to back that up.



Read 210.11 (B) Load Evenly Proportioned Among Branch Circuits. Where the load is calculated on the basis of volt-amperes per square meter or per square foot, the wiring system up to and including the branch-circuit panelboard(s) shall be provided to serve not less than the calculated load One circuit to cover 1000sq ft violates this. This load shall be evenly proportioned among multioutlet branch circuits within the panelboard(s).I would think there would be a violation here also, assuming there are more multioutlets on this one circuit compared to the others. Branch-circuit overcurrent devices and circuits shall be required to be installed only to serve the connected load.

[Corn Walker]

That is also against code ... depending on when the house was constructed and what edition of the code was in effect at that time.

To clarify: The lights and receptacles ARE allowed to be on the same circuit, but ... NOT WITH receptacle outlets or lights in another bathroom. I.e., wire all the bathroom receptacles on a 20 circuit and then wire the lights on a different circuit, or, wire one entire bathroom on one circuit with nothing else on that circuit.

I've had two different AHJs call me out on this, and each time I decided not to fight it. One wouldn't even let me supply the luminary serving the basin from the branch circuit serving the basin receptacle with the switch in the 2 gang box containing the receptacle. I hold out hope that one day they'll get the memo, but I'm not willing to make enemies to be the one supplying it. Sometimes AHJs can make life a lot less convenient for you.

[Jerry Peck]

I've had two different AHJs call me out on this, and each time I decided not to fight it. One wouldn't even let me supply the luminary serving the basin from the branch circuit serving the basin receptacle with the switch in the 2 gang box containing the receptacle. I hold out hope that one day they'll get the memo, but I'm not willing to make enemies to be the one supplying it. Sometimes AHJs can make life a lot less convenient for you.

Did that circuit supply any outlet in any other space or room - bathroom or otherwise does not matter, if that circuit supplied 'any' outlet in 'any' other space, area, or room then they would be correct ... not sure that I clarified that clearly in my previous post.

If the bathroom receptacle circuit goes to 'any' other "outlet" other than the 20 amp bathroom receptacle outlet(s) then that rule kicks in. This includes any 'lighting outlet', any 'bathroom exhaust fan outlet' ... 'any' other "outlet".

[Corn Walker]

Did that circuit supply any outlet in any other space or room

Nope. The result in one was that the bathroom has two dedicated circuits - one to the required basin receptacle and the other to the shower light, exhaust fan, and vanity lights (with AFCI breaker).

In the another - which had a washer/dryer alcove within the bathroom - I had already run three separate circuits: one 30A 240V for the dryer, one 20A 120V for the washer and light above the alcove, and one dedicated 20A 120V for the basin receptacle, shower light, exhaust fan, and vanity light. The AHJ wanted a separate circuit dedicated for the basin receptacle so he got one. Of course that meant a new GFCI breaker for exhaust fan/shower light circuit since they were no longer being fed off the load side of the GFCI receptacle. But hey, what's another $75 in materials just because the AHJ doesn't understand the code?

[jack davenport]

Nope. The result in one was that the bathroom has two dedicated circuits - one to the required basin receptacle and the other to the shower light, exhaust fan, and vanity lights (with AFCI breaker).

In the another - which had a washer/dryer alcove within the bathroom - I had already run three separate circuits: one 30A 240V for the dryer, one 20A 120V for the washer and light above the alcove, and one dedicated 20A 120V for the basin receptacle, shower light, exhaust fan, and vanity light. The AHJ wanted a separate circuit dedicated for the basin receptacle so he got one. Of course that meant a new GFCI breaker for exhaust fan/shower light circuit since they were no longer being fed off the load side of the GFCI receptacle. But hey, what's another $75 in materials just because the AHJ doesn't understand the code?

Do you know why some AHJ's do those things ? The answer is real simple..........

YOU ALLOW IT !!

I'm not trying to irritate you , but as long as people just roll over and take it, these inspectors will continue to make things up.
You complain about it but do nothing about it - this is part of the problem

[Corn Walker]

Do you know why some AHJ's do those things ? The answer is real simple..........

YOU ALLOW IT !!

I'm not trying to irritate you , but as long as people just roll over and take it, these inspectors will continue to make things up.
You complain about it but do nothing about it - this is part of the problem

My feeling about it can best be summed up as "meh." If I have time to kill I might show him the code where it is allowed. If it was something big/expensive, or actually compromised safety, I'd definitely point it out to him.

It also matters who the inspector is. One of the guys here was a royal a**hole on a power trip. You did whatever you could to spend as little time with him as possible. Complaints to the town went nowhere. (It took a sexual harassment complaint from a homeowner to finally get rid of him.)

A lot of times you're just trying to pick your battles and make it through the day without too much stress. If you're a sparky you could tell the homeowner, "you can pay me $75 to spend my time explaining to the inspector why it's not necessary or you can pay me $75 to just do what he wants." I'm not going to worry too much about which choice people make.

[Jerry Peck]

It also matters who the inspector is. One of the guys here was a royal a**hole on a power trip. You did whatever you could to spend as little time with him as possible.

I agree.

Some of the inspectors I have worked with, and still know, are that type. The contractors 'just do what they want' to get rid of them.

I tell the contractors I work with that if they think I am wrong 'let's look it up and see what the code says' - usually I prevail, but sometimes I agree that they were right. I have one now where the plan calls for "or safing insulation" as an option to installing 1/2" gypsum board every 10 feet horizontally in double stud walls for fireblocking (most of the walls are double stud walls). In explaining why they are not allowed to use fiberglass insulation there (melts at about 1000 degrees f instead of 2000 degrees f for safing insulation) they went looking for safing insulation.

Upon finding that it costs twice as much, they came back and said the code does not address "temperature" - I agreed and said that they would install any safing insulation they can find, they can check with the architect on what the architect will accept as he specified its use, but I doubt that they will find any "fiberglass insulation" which has been tested to meet the requirements for "safing insulation".

I't not my call as to 'what' they use, only that they use 'what was specified'. If the architect changes it (I doubt he will) then I will go with the change specified by the architect.

What I am not doing is saying 'do it because *I* say so', instead I am saying do it because the *architect* says so' ... ;)

[Roland Miller]

Wrestling with a pig in the mud is a lot like arguing with an inspector. After a while you realize they both enjoy it. And they both will win in the end. I see Jack still hasn't made a valuable contribution to this thread..:confused:

[Jim Port]

Jack is correct. Inspectors are not infallible and when they are wrong they should be called on it to provide the article they believe was violated. Contractors should not just rollover to someone's whims or ego.

[Roland Miller]

Jack is correct. Inspectors are not infallible and when they are wrong they should be called on it to provide the article they believe was violated. Contractors should not just rollover to someone's whims or ego.

Lots of Building Officials will not allow their inspectors to quote code sections. This seems to be reserved for the bureaucracy the BO and local government created. And then if you don't like it you can take it to the board of appeals. No matter whether you are right or not you loose time, money, and often cannot finish a job. OBTW--most board of appeals are made up of local contractors...funny huh? It certainly is poor advice to give someone to challenge the inspector, because you will loose every time. Some on this thread are armchair experts..

[Jim Port]

Must be how you approach them. I have had a couple inspectors reverse their decisions after I pointed out my case.

[jack davenport]

NEVER MIND

[Jim Port]

I wonder why a building official would say an inspector could not cite the code violated. If you don't know what was supposedly wrong how do you know what to fix?

[Jerry Peck]

Lots of Building Officials will not allow their inspectors to quote code sections.

WOW! That is what inspectors are there for ... and they are 'not allowed' to provide the code section they are disapproving the work for? Unbelievable ... (okay, I can believe it happens, but it happening is "unbelievable").

In Florida, code inspectors are REQUIRED to provide a code reference for EVERY item which is not approved. *I* provide a code section for every item which I do not approve, not only did I do it before it was required, but the state now requires it (and, yes, I know some code inspectors in Florida who do not do it, one of the Building Officials I worked for did not do it ... then it cam back to haunt him because, as the contractors said, 'he just wrote up whatever he wanted to' - sure, he could have gone back and provided a code section after-the-fact, but by then it was too late). I know, because he would not allow me to provide code sections ... until not doing so back fired on him - and me because I was not allowed to provide them either - I immediately went back to providing code sections even though he kept telling me not to, it came back to haunt him again, but not me because I was providing code sections. Sometimes it is not the inspectors, as you pointed out, it is the building officials - there are fewer and fewer code inspectors and building officials in Florida who do not provide code sections because: 1) state statute requires it; 2) not doing so can make life difficult because contractors can accuse the inspector/building official of 'just writing up whatever they want to' - neither will have positive results for the person involved.


No matter whether you are right or not you loose time, money, and often cannot finish a job. OBTW--most board of appeals are made up of local contractors...funny huh? It certainly is poor advice to give someone to challenge the inspector, because you will loose every time. Some on this thread are armchair experts..

I agree with some of what you said above and disagree with other parts of it. The contractor needs to know when to ask the inspector to 'show me the code' and when not to ask (note that I said "ask", not 'demand') as the end result could be the contractor 'winning that one battle but losing the war' on the rest of the house - unfortunately, I know some code inspectors who do take it out of the contractor for asking the inspector to provide the code which does not allow what was not being approved.

There are also contractors who will insist that they are allowed to do something a certain way because they have been doing it that way 'for 30 years" (it is always "30 years"), when the inspector says to the contractor 'okay, let's look it up' the contractor blows up (because "they know people who can make the inspector's life miserable" and they will play that card as much as they can get away with it).

Works both ways - the percentage of bad inspectors probably equals the percentage of bad contractors. However, being as there are more contractors, the same percentage results in more bad contractors in sheer numbers. ;)