Donor Stove fails inspection due to top clearance to ceiling.

[elkimmeg]

Bab Reallyu I never emcountered a situation requiring 54 " this instasllation had a brick surface and haeath setup that was to be a walk in the park setup at no point was there any question of clearances Mose manufactures do not even list a clearance requirement above the stove but NFPA 211 36" is used We looked at the rear front and sides and knew we were ok. We did measure them and had plenty of room Once we set the stove there really was no reason to look at the ceiling I mean we had 52".
Just like all members here I'm a home owner and will turn this intoa learning experience The Haardibacker board only cost $11 and I have the screws and pipe here to make the spacers,

Im going to level up the stove mark the cornors on the ceiling and use a 54" stick to determine the correct size. Only part of the stove violates the clearance due to step top design. What kills me with the blower, it blow air over the top the hot air will never reach any dangereous concentrations at the ceiling. I also doubt it would ever go 90 degrees over ambient temps.

I realized this inspector only know and inspects by manufactures specs. As part of the specs was to be NFPA 211 compliant which it is Infact 16" beyond compliance to NFPA211.
Myself I would have passed the installation, knowing I have the international mechanical codes and NFPA 211 to fall back on,requiring only 36"

As for reading the pamphlet it was in the stove when I purchased it I did read it but failed to check the ceiling height. This stove can not be installed on a raised hearth in a normal 7/6" ceiling
This home had a finished ceiling height of 7'2" I did not measure the ceiling height or I would have bough the Englander instead. They do not list a ceiling height as most stove do not

I checked and rechecked Century and Dutchwest steeel stoves some models have a 56" ceiling requirement Had the stove been the leg kit model and not the pedestal model it would have passed IT is still a great deal purchased for $288 and replacement may have saved that familly an ugly incident.

OH! live and learn

 

[babalu87]

I guess when I go with a fancy big hearth down the road I will have to pay attention to the height. I can only go another 7" in height unless I hang a piece of board on the ceiling........ I dont know if I want to do that. A total of 10" is about as high as I could have my stove sitting, that is about the height I was thinking for a cobblestone hearth and base.

This is an enlightening thread to say the least, do you think the codes need updating?

 

[wg_bent]

I Sure would have liked a picture of Elk's face It woulda looked somethig like this: :gulp:

 

[Todd]

Whew! I never thought of looking at that clearance before. Mine is 30", so I'm safe. Looks like a wide range of ceiling clearances depending on different stoves.

What about those 18" stove pipe clearances? Seems like there is more chance of a fire from thin stove pipe than a stove top that is twice as far away?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

ok , here's the poop on the clearance in the manual v/s nfpa211; the code is used as acceptable standard when listed specifications are not present (ie. as elk stated, the englander height above the unit clearance) this in the case of an ESW unit would be recognised. but in the case of the CFM unit , the manufacturer specified additional clearance distance, this supercedes nfpa211. now had the book given a tighter clearance than nfpa211 it would have meant that the unit was cleared for that close a tolerance when it was safety tested at omni or intertek or wherever it was tested at. this is the gray area. the inspector can choose to work with the manufacturers clearance, or revert to the nfpa211, and his descision is final as he is signing off on it. these days the clearance to walls is where the code and mfg specs usually butt heads as some units are safety tested to tighter clearances than in the past, so 30 inch or 36 inch clearances are not necessary, but some inspectors still insist on those clearances. bottom line in elks case is that the manufacturer specifies a larger clearance and that has to be taken over the closer nfpa211 listed clearance

personally , i know the testing procedure and have seen these tests performed in our lab and i am suprised that they need that much clearance for that unit. and to elk, bro, i'd probably missed that one too, if they had shown it in the line diagram it might have been easier to catch, maybe CFM needs to add that to their manual in the line drawing so its not so easy to miss.

 

[Harley]

Well, I wasn't going to make a comment before, because I kind of thought I knew where this was going from Elk's first post on the topic.

I'll be the first to admit, that since I wasn't bumping my head on the ceiling, that the last thing I would have considered was the ceiling height and distance there. I know we took measurements on the hearth, front and back (side was a no-brainer), to make sure it was within the required spec's. There were 4 sets of eyes going through the assembly/installation manual, and NONE of us caught that. However it ends up being resolved, I do believe it was a very safe installation as is ( and certainly a hell of a lot safer than what was there before )

And I just want to point out, again... I have to give Elk a lot of credit for posting this in the first place - he could have just fixed the problem and get it passed by the local BI, and say nothing else about it.

 

[BrotherBart]

Yeah, once again CFM needs their chain yanked. First is why do they need greater clearance from the top of a 3/16" plate stove than others and second is what is the deal with them and those clearance sheets that are seperate from their manuals?

Inquiring minds want to know. At least one does.

 

[GVA]

I would agree Harley.
The stove that was there was throwing heat in every direction X'cept where it should have been.
I'm sure if they tweaked the installation manual a bit it would have been fine..... It may have been written for a stove without a blower.... I know fine print and a possible oversight by the manufacture and the installer (oops was that us)................... As I recall the blower being included was a bonus, we all know that the heat was or will be pulled of the stove top, maybe the certs were done without the blower option......... who knows?
As far as Elk..................
Wasn't there a post not to long ago about someone who was honest?????????????????? You've stepped up the bar Elk for the rest of us when we post...... You are by far the most honest one here,,,,,,

 

[Harley]

Wasn't there a post not to long ago about someone who was honest?????????????????? You've stepped up the bar Elk for the rest of us when we post...... You are by far the most honest one here,,,,,,

Agreed, GVA... and just going to be honest here too... and going OT quite a bit.... can you PLEASE change your avitar back to the old one? The new one is really giving me a headache (or maybe its the tax deadline... not sure which).

 

[webbie]

I would never have thought 36" to be a top clearance - common sense would say it should be more if dealing with most single wall top plates - simply because it is a large surface and heat rises. Heat radiation is a function of the SIZE of the area facing the combustible object, and that is why pipe might get hotter, yet the clearance is less- some have noticed that larger pipes (8") often need to have more than the 18" clearance. Also, a round surface does not fit the profile of having a large flat surface radiating in one direction.

A note about NFPA - no matter what references were made in the manual, if the actual label/listed clearances are greater, you MUST use the listed/labeled ones. NFPA would not apply if it was less.....especially if it is 36" (would someone look and tell me if it really shows 36" TOP in NFPA).

 

[keyman512us]

Aaagghh..It figures
..."Murphy" just had to "rear his ugly head and get his two cents in on the job".!...lol You are a good man Elk for being honest and forthcoming to share the results with us. (I'm still shaking my head that there was something for the inspector to "call us on"). It figures something like this clearance issue would come up. I'm glad to see the electrical industry isn't the only "trade" to engineer in "a safety factor times 4.3245"...lol I would love to see the test documentation/ engineering evaluation that determined 54" as minimum clearance. A modern "sheetrock" ceiling on strapping...makes you wonder if the test standard was designed around "horse hair slats" and plaster. ...At any rate...what the inspector wants...the inspector gets. I sure hope he ain't gonna nail ya' with a "re-inspection fee"..????

 

[elkimmeg]

First NFPA is 36" as indicated in a chart which Does not cut and past on the web site

BB I agree that' CFM should do something about the unreasonable clearance

Warren You had my first reaction right. Pissed a bit to say the least.


Saturday the owner and I will install the hardibacker board and get this issue over with fortunately he is a reasonable d guy.

I'm going to turn this experience into a learning one. I think it was a wakeup call making me to strive to be a better inspector

I would hate to be like this one, very limited in knowledge and un willing to listen or explore and inflexiable.

I want to look at existing situation and make value judgements.

I did give him one parting shot as I was leaving. I told him almost all stoves claim to be tested to NFPA 211 standards and this one does.

How the hell have you been inspecting stoves the past 5 years and the first time you read NFPA 211, is when I provide my copy where is yours?

I now understand why would not consider NFPA 211 code is because you never ventured into it? I was going to unlease a lot more but capped it

 

[CountryGal]

I have my Striker on a raised hearth and their clearances only mention 'alcove' installation, no ceiling clearances are given at all for a corner install.

ETA: Looks to me like an 'alcove' install would trap the heat more than a corner install. Would I be correct?

 

[babalu87]

I would never have thought 36" to be a top clearance - .....................................................................A note about NFPA - no matter what references were made in the manual, if the actual label/listed clearances are greater, you MUST use the listed/labeled ones. NFPA would not apply if it was less.....especially if it is 36" (would someone look and tell me if it really shows 36" TOP in NFPA).

Massachusetts building code:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/dps/BuildingCode/780036P10.pdf

As luck would have it PAGE 13 (last page)

 

[Gooserider]

Have to admit there is something incredibly amusing about the notion of Elk, the resident code guru, failing an inspection.... However I can sympathize and am glad you were able to work out a solution to what seems like a rather unusual requirement....

Makes me wonder what will happen if / when I ever try to do something in our living room - It's safe, or could be made so, but it is a setup that isn't in ANY of the books that I've seen... It sort of tries to have bits of a corner, flat wall, and fireplace setup all at the same time. :gulp: I don't know which set of clearances to use! At least I have overhead clearance, and I think its fairly non-combustible :coolsmile:

Gooserider

 

[webbie]

Once again, so it might be more clear - NFPA does not come into play except when a particular clearance is unspecified. Most lines of code in NFPA expressly say something like "exception, when stove is tested and listed to ....blah blah, then these apply".

Throwing a line about NFPA in the manual or literature means nothing.....yes, the testing lab sees the manual, but they surely are not going to disallow it for mentioning NFPA, nor are they going to dig into the reference.

Maybe a little window into the testing process may help. Most test situations fall into either:

1. The manufacturer maintains an approved lab on premises and tests the stove to determine the specs. The test is then witnessed by a representative from the test lab and the results are listed on the label.
2. The stove is sent to the test lab and the test is often witnessed by someone from the manufacturer.....or, there is a bit of back and forth between the two.

Example: You send your stove in with a default clearance of 48" from the top to ceiling. The testing lab places it into an enclosure using this clearance, and it fails the test. They make a phone call to the stove co. engineer and tell them the situation. The stove co. then decides, often with some help from the test lab engineer, how to solve the problem.

My guess is that CFM has their own lab - but it may or may not be an "approved" lab, so it may just be used for preliminary tests. Either way, they must have found that the stove failed the 48" or whatever, and therefore had to go to 52".

So, again, to be clear - this particular stove SHOULD NOT have been approved with less than the 52" - the other inspector is 100% correct in every way. That does not mean that I or Elk would not have approved it - but in terms of ALL legalities we would have been wrong to do so! As Elk has mentioned before, he rarely uses a tape measure to check every inch. In terms of stoves - legalities aside - there is a large factor of safety. In other words, a black painted box that they use in a test lab along with a full time red hot fire is virtually impossible to happen in a normal situation. Then again, we have those nuts who burn particle board!

 

[elkimmeg]

Have to admit there is something incredibly amusing about the notion of Elk, the resident code guru, failing an inspection.... However I can sympathize and am glad you were able to work out a solution to what seems like a rather unusual requirement....

Makes me wonder what will happen if / when I ever try to do something in our living room - It's safe, or could be made so, but it is a setup that isn't in ANY of the books that I've seen... It sort of tries to have bits of a corner, flat wall, and fireplace setup all at the same time. :gulp: I don't know which set of clearances to use! At least I have overhead clearance, and I think its fairly non-combustible :coolsmile:

Gooserider

Goose if I remember correctly you have plenty of space to set another stove your only issue is rear exit.. I did not see or note anything that caught my eye of having a problem with replacement. Granted that was a while back.

 

[Gooserider]

Have to admit there is something incredibly amusing about the notion of Elk, the resident code guru, failing an inspection.... However I can sympathize and am glad you were able to work out a solution to what seems like a rather unusual requirement....

Makes me wonder what will happen if / when I ever try to do something in our living room - It's safe, or could be made so, but it is a setup that isn't in ANY of the books that I've seen... It sort of tries to have bits of a corner, flat wall, and fireplace setup all at the same time. :gulp: I don't know which set of clearances to use! At least I have overhead clearance, and I think its fairly non-combustible :coolsmile:

Gooserider

Goose if I remember correctly you have plenty of space to set another stove your only issue is rear exit.. I did not see or note anything that caught my eye of having a problem with replacement. Granted that was a while back.

Glad to hear that :exclaim: but at the same time, I look in the manuals, and I see setups for flat walls, and corners, but not corners with a wall across them so that it's not real clear if it's a corner install or a wall, plus having the partial round chimney sticking out into the space getting closer to the stove - do I measure from the flat wall behind where the liner comes down, or from the front of the curved chimney? (granted the chimney part is all non-combustible, but...) At least looking at the bright side, I certainly have the overhead for anything that would fit in the space!

I certainly will have to do something with the front of the hearth if the new stove has a front load door, but that looks like it would be solvable without major issues. More of a possible concern is that I'm not certain what is UNDER the bricks of the current hearth - Given that there is a smokedragon sitting on it now that was (presumably) approved when the P.O. installed it, how much would I need to do to find out what the current hearth is rated at if the new stove is one with a high hearth R-value requirement?

Gooserider

 

[TMonter]

Aren't some of the century stoves mobile home approved? Maybe it has something to do with the type of building being installed in.

 

[elkimmeg]

This was cut and pasted in another post but it belongs here

“Experienced building official screws his neighbor by installing stove in dangerous situation”....and you probably would not have liked it if someone said this about you

First of all we removed a stove w that was a dangereous situation In no way did we place the owners in any danger. In fact the stove has never been fired till this situation gets resolved

It will be resolved today. I could have kept it to myself and just taken care of it, but thought it was worth educating the forum members learning from my mistakes.

a 2" difference in 54 " is not really that life threatening. After today when I install a 66% reduction enclosure he will be more than safe. Plus we installed is safe acccording to NFPA 211 Clearancess

 

[webbie]

I agree and agreed before that there was no danger even if fired. Don't take my comment out of context - I'll have to call you a politician soon!

The point is that we should not chastise you NOR anyone else who posts here about installation situations - at least until ALL the facts are in.

Wow, snowing like crazy here - see my weather post (soon)...

 

[elkimmeg]

I had to disconnect the connector pipe and cut a hole around the ceiling adapter boot
Picture one is the hardibacker board with the hole cut and the one-inch copper pipe spacers in place to provide for the one-inch air space
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n10/elkimmeg/?action=view&current=IM006529.jpg

The next picture is for Corie the stove with the first fire. If one looks close enough I used 3 Bio Bricks for the first break in fire. And I soon cleaned up the newspaper and any combustibles near the stove.

http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n10/elkimmeg/?action=view&current=IM006530.jpg

Picture 3 shows the over all view of the finished product where NFPA 211 reduced clearance ceiling shield fire going and the connector pipe re configuration.

http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n10/elkimmeg/?action=view&current=IM006531.jpg

 

[restorer]

Nice job Elk. Looks like a good solution t me. Can the hardi-backer be plaster coated to match the ceiling, or what can be done to finish it off?

 

[Gooserider]

I agree and agreed before that there was no danger even if fired. Don't take my comment out of context - I'll have to call you a politician soon!

The point is that we should not chastise you NOR anyone else who posts here about installation situations - at least until ALL the facts are in.

Wow, snowing like crazy here - see my weather post (soon)...

I agree Craig, I don't think anyone here is "chastising" Elk for failing this inspection - it was not a grossly unsafe installation, probably would have been no danger if fired, and all that. I know my comment about being amused was not intended that way. However there is something that pushes the humour button when a "pro" gets "bitten" by his own specialty that isn't present when a non-pro has the same problem...

Elk, nice job on the heat shield, but I noticed in the construction photo that one edge didn't appear to have the spacer hardware that you had down the center and on the other edge. I didn't see screwheads on that edge in the final install photo either - is there a reason for this, or were the spacers dealt with some other way?

Gooserider

 

[DriftWood]

Looks great and the Stove is on!! Good job!!