1 members (ale348),
302
guests, and
14
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
I find it interesting the predominant reply is "If we ever find a situation where we need to violate code for a safe and practical design, that just means the code is wrong and we need to change it." That's a forum full of engineers for ya! [This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 02-11-2007).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
This rule is very poorly written. Even though it uses the word "main" there is nothing that says that the conductors question must carry the main or any other portion of the load. This is because the term "main power feeder" is defined in the section and the definition says nothing about the load. For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the feeder(s) between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards(s). The wording of the section does match the intent of the rule. In my opinion all feeders are installed between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard(s). There is nothing that says that there can't be another feeder or OCPD between the main and the panel. I would agree that it can only be used for panels that actually serve the dwelling unit. I know that few agree with me on this, but in my opinion, that is what the words actually say. As I said, I know that this is not the intent of the CMP. Don
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
I read this as applying to "dwellings" in the same way that IRC applies to shops and garages, as opposed to IBC-type commercial buildings which are subject to more stringent codes. As such, small outbuildings like sheds, garages and workshops detached from one or two-family homes are still considered "dwellings" for the sake of code compliance and 210.15(B)(6) would apply.
[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 02-13-2007).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
Member
|
Don, Not sure what your position is after reading your post. Can feeders go to the 'shop' or not? Seems like you say yes and no all at the same time.
SteveFehr, a 'shop', 'detached garage', 'shed' etc. is definitely not a dwelling in any actual or intended code I have ever read. Also, I felt there was a balance in the eng. forum on using the code. I do agree that some engineers on that thread are presumptuous and arrogant.
There is no architect or engineer of any field who can submit something less than the intent of the code and pass (if the AHJ catches it) based on the way the laws are written and interpreted where I come from.
Any town can adopt any code they want and if it way above or below engineering standards (whatever those may be) the AHJ can do whatever they wish. But that's where I come from. Laws could be different in different places and both opinions could be right.
Tom, see what you started!! My opinion is no as well. But, I also think a dwelling unit panel that subsequently feeds a 'shop' should not be allowed to follow the section either as the feeders are not feeding just a dwelling (which I believe is the intent of the section.) I may be wrong, but the substantiation for this section came from data supplied from utility billing showing that dwelling loads rarely ever reach the ampacity level of the wiring, therefore the allowance for the reduction in the size of the wire. I highly doubt, the data included buildings with down-stream 'shops'.
Can we define 'shop' please?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923 Likes: 32
Member
|
You can parse the language all you want but at the end of the day you are still stuck with "... that serve as the main power feeder to a dwelling unit." A feeder to a detached garage is not the "main power feeder to a dwelling unit" unless that garage complies with article 100 "Dwelling Unit". One or more rooms for the use of one or more persons as a housekeeping unit with space for eating, living, and sleeping, and permanent provisions for cooking and sanitation.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
Member
|
"Living"
A shop is no different than a sewing room or rumpus room or pool room or any other hobby space. If this was a detached practice room for a band, would anyone have a problem with considering it dwelling space? Adding some receptacles so that a tool bench and some tools doesn't change that it's still residential and falls under residential rules vice commercial rules.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Steve it would be interesting to get you out of your present employment situation and get you working under the typical AHJ / NEC enforcement situation. I think your head would be spinning, in no shape or form would I ever expect an AHJ to call a detached garage a dwelling unit.
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
|
Most of our Municipal Codes out here specifically prohibit living in a garage or shop. If you want to remodel an existing garage for use as living space, you must also build a new garage. It used to be a pretty popular thing to convert the garage to a rumpus room, apartment,etc. (of course sans permits)
Through the years, there have been occasional Code Enforcement sweeps that targeted these bootleg "dwellings".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923 Likes: 32
Member
|
If you want to cal your shop a dwelling unit, fine. Where is the bathroom, kitchen and laundry with required 20a circuits? Which part are you calling the sleeping quarters and where is your AFCI?
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
Posts: 28
Joined: February 2011
|
|
|
|