ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 228 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 13 14
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
Receptacles and the lack of control what the user will plug in explains 240.4(D)


Greg Fretwell
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
Greg, I think that makes perfect sense too, but 210.21[B],[2] seems to refer to the load on the actual receptacles themselves, not the branch circuit.

I think that 210.21[B],[2] and Table 210.21[B],[2] should be rewritten so that they coincide with the requirements for branch circuit ratings.

JMHO

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
It is always hard to reconcile what someone will plug into a receptacle with a code article, especially as long as cube taps exist. Just a quick peek around at this time of year confirms that. wink


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,335
S
Member
Many folks are not aware of recept ratings are rated based on non-continious loads. This is why when a single receptacle is on a dedicated circuit, the amperage rating has to match the breaker. A common problem in colder climates is the misuse of portable space heaters. Too many times a 1500 Watt heater is pluged into a 15 amp receptacle. These heaters are not design or built to run continously (3 hours or more). Yet may times like under houses, they run 24/7 when it is cold out. At 15 amps, that recept and plug are rated at 1800 Watts. However as a continious load, their rating is only 1440 Watts. I have seen and replaced outlets that melted like marshmellows because of this.

To the average home owner, if the plug fits the outlet, they think there is going to be no problem. (If it doesn't fit, some will make it fit. smile ) Too many possibilities are out there that can be used on GP recepts. This is why there are several limitiations on recepts and their circuits. If a recept is installed for the a specific application, just like everything else, it has to be sized accordingly.

That is why I do not use off brand recepts and dicourage the use of residential grade receptacles. Cheap is not always the best way to go. Even in a competitve market. I get my all my critical electical parts though reputable vendors, not the local hardware store. If you have been in the trade long enough, you know who the homeowner will blame for an electrical fire that results from improper use.


"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
WOW, we have really strayed from the OP’s topic with this. grin It’s good to have guys here interested enough to turn it inside out though.
I guess this could go around and around depending on the persons point of view and how they interpret the NEC.

I would agree about the rating of receptacles except that when you have more than one single receptacle, such as a duplex, which counts as two receptacles, 210.21[B],[3] allows the use of 15A receptacles on a 20A circuit with a maximum cord and plug connected load of 16A, as per Table 210[B,[2]
That would exceed the 15A receptacles 80%, 12A rating even when used as a single receptacle as per 210.21[B],[1] and is also above the 100% maximum rating of the receptacle itself, which appears to be what 210.21[B],[2] is supposed to prevent and is apparently it’s whole reason for being. This in itself would indicate that receptacles must be designed for use at 100% of their rated capacity.
The 80% limitation in Table 210.21[B],[2] is on the receptacles themselves, not the branch circuit. It doesn’t differentiate between continuous or non-continuous use. It only allows you to use the receptacle to the maximum cord and plug connected rating of Table 210.21[B],[2] with no exception except for receptacles for arc welders, and electric discharge lighting.
The guys on Mike Holt’s site determined that listed receptacles are rated for 100% of their capacity.
That would bring us around full circle.
Since receptacles are rated for 100% of their capacity, there should be no hazard in allowing them to be used at 100% of their rating for non-continuous loads and 80% for continuous. Others have also made the determination that the 90 degree C rated 15A and 20A branch circuit conductors we use are already rated for 125% for continuous loads per 310.16, being 25A for #12, and 25A and for #14. They are protected at 80% of the max conductor rating at 60 degree C, that being 20A for #12 and 15A for #14 with 40 Degree C rated circuit breakers rated for use at 100% of their capacity.

Anyway, I still think it’s time to modify Table 210.21[B][2].


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
After re-reading my last post, I can see that I probably should of have phrased this a little differently. The point I was struggling to make was that by allowing 15A receptacles on a 20A circuit, you couldn’t possibly expect to have any control over whether the user will connect a 12A or 16A load. Even beyond that, I just don’t see the need for the 80% limitation for a receptacle that is only being used for non-continuous cord and plug connected loads
I need to condense my thoughts into one paragraph or less from now on!! tired

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Originally Posted by KJay
The point I was struggling to make was that by allowing 15A receptacles on a 20A circuit, you couldn’t possibly expect to have any control over whether the user will connect a 12A or 16A load.


What makes this no 'real big deal' is the fact that if you take apart a 15 and 20 amp duplex of the same grade and maker you will find the internal parts are interchangeable.

The only difference between the same grade and make of 15 & 20 amp duplex receptacles is the plastic face plate.

Keep in mind UL requires 15 amp duplex's to be able to handle 20 amp feed thru.

The fact the NEC even tries to control the load that may be plugged into a receptacle is just plain ridiculous.


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
If the powers that be really want to improve something it would be to tighten up the standard for receptacles a bit so it would get closer to the spec grade. I fear it will end up going the other way as manufacturers try to hit a price point with the TP receptacle. The actual contact part might be made cheaper than the 43c ones we have now ... if that is possible.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,382
Likes: 7
Member
FYI Gentlemen:

A full line of TR devices is available from P&S
total of 24 items....and single recept's.

Found all of it at P&S website yesterday....


John
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
Here in NJ we haven't adopted the 2008 NEC yet. It is coming up for adoption I think in April. I am telling all the EC's here in NJ to flood the state website and demand that the state strikes the tamper proof receptacles from our code. It looks like the manufactures are just trying to push their products down our throats again. It think it is very wrong, and don't think or aging seniors will be able to deal with the new tamper proof plugs. (What if you have a 2 prong radio? Will it open some of the tamper proof types of receptacles?) I will now get off my soap box.

Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 13 14

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5