It's hard to believe,but most of us do not live in 14,000 sq. ft. McMansions, or own ever possible new toy. A recent thread on "overwiring" has me wondering how much overwiring is the result of code requirements.
For example, my house is 1000 sq. ft, and was originally wired (1957) with but six circuits. Try as I may, I can't see a way to rewire without at least 20 circuits- and not all of them are due to changes in our lifestyle.
The kitchen is a good place to start. Even if a kitchen is only large enough to require but one receptacle - and I've seen some huge counters that only require one - code wants two circuits. Plus an additional one for the range hood, and one for the dishwasher / disposal. If the gas range happens to have an igniter, there's plenty of debate as to where you can get the power for that.
The dining room is almost required, by default, required to have its' own AFCI / GFCI circuit.
The furnace needs its' own circuit, even if all there is is an igniter and a little fan, and it's in the same closet as the water heater and laundry equipment.
With the washer requiring its' own circuit, by default we need to bring in a third for the (gas) water heater igniter.
The bathroom gets its' own circuit.
Outside receptacles become an issue, as they're often not allowed to be tied into nearby circuits.
The alarm system gets its' own, either as a requirement, or as a carryover from the 'interconnection' requirement for the smoke alarms.
One result of the 'incremental' adoption of AFCI requirements was to encourage bedrooms to be on separate circuits.
Codes are requiring residential sprinkler systems - which means another dedicated circuit.
Sure, our lifestyle has had an effect. For example, clothes dryers were rare in 1957, but are now assumed - thus, two more circuits. Refrigerators are larger, encouraging a separate circuit. Air conditioning is the norm now- two more circuits (at least).
Now we want phone / internet / CATV in every room, which adds another entire network of wires. The above-mentioned alarm system adds its' web, reaching every window and door.
Reno:
The question also is, wiring for convenience, or what some refer to as 'code compliant'.
My pet peeve is the four bath, one powder room with the GFI in the powder room, all on a 20 amp. If I had four baths, each would have a 20 amp! Convenience for me (and a H/O) to not have to run to the GFI, or the CB! Heck 2 people with blow dryers at the same time trip the CB.
To be continued....
Plus an additional one for the range hood,
Outside receptacles become an issue, as they're often not allowed to be tied into nearby circuits.
I thought the range hood could still go on the lighting circuit (unless it is a microwave hood you are referring to).
What circuits can they not be tied into besides the dedicated bath, kitchen & laundry?
We specialize in re-wires, most are small houses and yes with all the requirements we are putting in way more as well. The 100 amp panel is getting to be obsolete simply for lack of breaker space.
After the new Canadian code changes, it turns out I've over-wired a lot of things. Someone made money on it.
If the gas range happens to have an igniter, there's plenty of debate as to where you can get the power for that.
What debate? 210.52(B)(2) says
Exception No. 2: Receptacles installed to provide power for supplemental equipment and lighting on gas-fired ranges, ovens, or counter-mounted cooking units.
I also agree that a range hood (light and fan) can be on a general lighting circuit.
The dining room receptacles need to be on a 20a AFCI circuit
but if it is not a counter top they do not need to be GFCI.
New refrigerators use less current than those old ones. The fridge can go on one of the SA circuits.
210.52(B)(1)
(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
The "laundry" circuit can serve a gas dryer along with the washer.
Try as I may, I just don't get this:
"The kitchen is a good place to start. Even if a kitchen is only large enough to require but one receptacle - and I've seen some huge counters that only require one - code wants two circuits."
How can a counter be "huge" and only require "one"??
Try as I may, I just don't get this:
"The kitchen is a good place to start. Even if a kitchen is only large enough to require but one receptacle - and I've seen some huge counters that only require one - code wants two circuits."
How can a counter be "huge" and only require "one"??
Penninsula? Island?
All sink and drop in cook top?
You still have the dining room, breakfast nook and pantry (if they exist) to serve from the SA circuits so 2 is still not unreasonable.
I still agree that we have added quite a number of new required circuits that did not exist in the 50s. That is really not a bad thing IMHO. We have a lot more things that plug in.
Greg:
I was hoping Reno would embelish on 'huge' a little bit.
Sorry for the delay ... I'm a bit 'internet access impaired' these days.
I don't want to get too far off on tangents, but ...
This site, and Holt's, have had extensive debates over whether a range igniter is allowed to be on an SABC, or tied into the micro / hood circuit. The volume of posts alone makes the case for there being 'plenty of room for debate.'
The hood / micro circuit requirement has plenty of qualifications to it; for this thread, it's enough to note that the result is often another circuit.
I've posted pics here of a kitchen with 14-ft. of counter and only one required receptacle. The trick was to have the upper cabinets come all the way down to the counter top, have built-in appliance garages, etc. The end result was only a small area next to the sink where there was ANY "wall space." The same kitchen also had an island you could land a helicopter on - with code (again) requiring but one receptacle. I often wonder if the entire kitchen design industry is deliberately trying to confound the code.
Adding receptacles to lighting circuits becomes a problem with the 'energy' codes.
Now, I have the opinion that we save the "law" for absolute necessities, and not for when something is "not a bad thing." The latter is, IMO, an abuse of authority.
Reno:
OK, I got it now. I have not come across a kitchen with a setup like you describe.
Adding receptacles to lighting circuits becomes a problem with the 'energy' codes.
Reno: Please elaborate on this subject.
Plan review can include calculations of the lighting load - including assumptions for any receptacles on the lighting circuits. Too many loads, and you don't get your gold star.
OK, sure, you can wrangle with the city over this, but that can be tough when you're bound to the DOE program. Net effect: lighting is segregated.
Another complication creeps in when the lighting circuit has some manner of automatic control. Interrupt the power to the range igniter for even a moment, and the homeowner is likely to have to crawl behind the range and reset the gas valve.
Murphy's law- or paving the road to Hell with good intentions.
Austria and Germany seem to have the most limited code coverage in this regard - dedicated circuit for every known load exceeding 1500 W (e.g. small under-sink water heaters, built-in microwaves,...), 30 mA ground fault protection and fuse/breaker not exceeding 16 A for any circuits serving general-purpose receptacles (although it's really not recommended to skip on the GFP) and that's about it. If the EC does a really thorough load calculation, each receptacle counts as an assumed 200 W load, which limits a 16 A circuit to 18. On the other hand, if there are many receptacles in a small space, e.g. to serve computer or TV equipment, this does not necessarily make sense.
Other European countries are considerably more restrictive, such as Belgium, where the number of receptacles per circuit is limited to 6.
I have seen those kitchens where the uppers actually sit on the lower cabinets. Then there is no wall space and there is no "practical counter space." So therefore no place to install a receptacle.
What if the counter is 22" or so, plenty to use but still no wall space.
What if the counter is 22" or so, plenty to use but still no wall space.
tombstone?
BigB, the question is not whether it is possible to place a receptacle - the point is that such design elements remove the requirement for receptacles .... or prohibit you from 'counting' the receptacles you do instal.
For example, an 'appliance garage' might very well have a receptacle in it. You are not,however, allowed to consider it as one of the 'counter' receptacles. Yet, the positioning of the garage might very well eliminate wall space - removing the requirement for there to be any receptacle.
Greg has a point about wall spacing. My previous home had a kitchen 'counter' area that was broken up into numerous sections that were too small for the receptacle requirement to kick in. Imagine - eight feet of 'counter,' and no receptacles required. Now THERE would be a real challenge to provide the two required SABC's, without exceeding 'minimum' code.
This is the kind of thing that should be caught in plan review. I might joke a bit about how they have found a loophole where they don't need any counter receptacles per 210.52(C)(1) <somewhere> but I want to be there when you explain that to the customer. We would come to an accommodation of some sort that would at least meet the spirit of 210.52. Maybe receptacles in fillers between the face frames or something. That is what kitchen designers are for.