Is ULC-S629 Inclusive of UL-103HT?

[builderbob]

If a chimney is specified as ULC-S629 listed (Canada requirements), but says nothing about being UL-103HT listed (US requirements), do the US building codes recognize it anyway as being UL-103HT compliant?

I understand the Canada ULC-S629 actually sets a higher standard than the US's UL-103HT. I understand the ULC-S629 requires withstanding three, 30 minutes burns at 2100 degrees.

The US's UL-103HT only requires the chimney withstand three, 10 minute burns at 2100 degrees.

So, if a product is "listed" as ULC-S629 compliant, but is silent as to UL-103HT, is it approved for US installation anyway? Does US building codes recognize ULC-S629 as inclusive of UL-103HT?

Or will US inspectors demand to see the chimney company say in writing "UL-103HT" compliant? And ignore the writing that says "ULC-S629" compliant.

builderbob

 

[BrotherBart]

Which specific chimney product are we talking about here?

 

[builderbob]

The question really derives independently of any brand. I was hoping for an answer directed at how the two countries Underwriter Labs standards mesh, and how the two countries building codes (if not the same) handle one UL or ULC standard which may be higher, and inclusive, of the other UL or ULC standard.

For discussion sake consider Simpson DuraPlus HT. Would US building officials ok it?

builderbob

 

[builderbob]

Should complete the thought-------would US building officials ok Simpson DuraPlus HT (which is listed to ULC S629, but not specifically to UL 103HT) as satisfying a fireplace which requires chimney listed to UL-103HT.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

DANG!! thats a great question , i'll get the answer within a few days from contact at simpson , i need to call her anyway. will post here when i speak to her and get answer

 

[BrotherBart]

DANG!! thats a great question , i'll get the answer within a few days from contact at simpson , i need to call her anyway. will post here when i speak to her and get answer

While your at it. Call Bob. Keyword baffle.

 

[elkimmeg]

Personally I will accept the Canadian standard particularly when it is a higher standard the in USA. Both are tested by UL UL uses thecanadian standards to Canada and the USA For USA.

I have no problem acepting the Canadian standard IF your inspector is not versed in the Canadian standard then educate him that their tollarances exceed ours.. After that is established, I see no reason to degrade the listing to USA standards. There should be no, penalty for exceeding code

 

[builderbob]

Thanks guys for the info, and the offers to ask a chimney maker person.

So, this situation then is something of a lottery on which particular inspector I might get, how well versed he/she is on Canadian ULC 629 as compared to UL-103HT, and maybe how willing to be educated.

I was hoping there was already some kind of defacto overarching agreements in the "building codes" officialdom that when one set of standards exceeds (and includes) another "stated" set, the "stated" set is automatically considered satisfied. Maybe something of an "equivalency chart" showing Canadian and US.

Of course, I could always just go with the US listed chimney--probably cheaper anyway--but still sufficiently "good". But maybe not the "best" available.

I wonder, is there some website where details of ULC-629 requirements, or UL-103HT are listed?

builderbob

 

[begreen]

Google is your friend.

 

[builderbob]

Indeed Google is powerful. My Google of ULC S629 brought up 166 pages of hits, about a dozen to a page.

The most promising on cursory glance was www.ulc.ca/industry, where I found this about ULC S 629:

"CAN/ULC-S629-M87
Amendments 1-4" Standard for 650°C Factory-Built Chimneys "Covers requirements for Factory-Built Chimney assemblies which do not require field fabrication. They are for use
with gas, liquid and solid fuel-fired residential appliances and building heating equipment, where the flue-gas
temperatures normally do not exceed 650 degrees C." 91.060.40 $115.00

Apparently, as a profit-making org, the ULC sells their publications of standards.

Maybe I'll just count on going with the lesser standard US approved chimney for whatever fireplace I end up with.

builderbob

 

[Kenny1]

Indeed Google is powerful. My Google of ULC S629 brought up 166 pages of hits, about a dozen to a page.

The most promising on cursory glance was www.ulc.ca/industry, where I found this about ULC S 629:

"CAN/ULC-S629-M87
Amendments 1-4" Standard for 650°C Factory-Built Chimneys "Covers requirements for Factory-Built Chimney assemblies which do not require field fabrication. They are for use
with gas, liquid and solid fuel-fired residential appliances and building heating equipment, where the flue-gas
temperatures normally do not exceed 650 degrees C." 91.060.40 $115.00

Apparently, as a profit-making org, the ULC sells their publications of standards.

Maybe I'll just count on going with the lesser standard US approved chimney for whatever fireplace I end up with.

builderbob

Hi Bob:

Don't most standards orgs charge for their standards (with discounts for members)?

I can't think of a standards org that offers all their standards on line for free. (Well, maybe EBU, but I don't think you are interested in radio and tv service in europe are you?)

This, of course, does not include government institutions.


Cheers

 

[webbie]

I think you can assume (in general) that any chimney which you purchase from a major manufacturer in the USA meets the specs for this country...or beats them.

Might sound like a simplistic answer, but we do have to take certain things for granted. Companies like Simpson are large public entities and there is no benefit to them to have problems with local inspectors. In my 20+ years of retailing, I never had an inking of a problem related to the specific UL number or test. Inspectors pretty much have to assume some stuff...certainly they may look at the manual or literature to be sure it is a known manufacturer and that some seals are present, but it is asking too much of them to look at the pipe itself and then cross reference the standards, etc.

My advice - make certain it is HT and, as before, generic class A usually beats an inexpensive two wall pre-fab type pipe.

 

[Metal]

If a company wants to sell a UL Listed Chimney System in the US, they get it tested by UL. If they want to sell it in Canada, they must test it to ULC. They are not interchangeable. In other words, ULC does not equal UL in the US. If a product does pass both standards and the company wants to sell (as UL or ULC Listed) in both countries, they will need both UL and ULC bugs on their product.

 

[BrotherBart]

The operative question here becomes, is somebody offering you Dura Plus HTC here in the U.S? I bet not. And I also bet that Simpson ain't selling it in the U.S. or condoning that and if that is the case then the point is moot.

These chimney questions get funny sometimes when you realize that the single wall black pipe, elbows et. al. used for most stove to chimney connections are not tested by or listed by anybody.

 

[Metal]

There is nothing to test on single wall. The double wall is only tested because it is reduced clearance to combustibles. If you had a double wall product and said it could only be used at 18" CTC, it would not need to be tested/listed either.

 

[BrotherBart]

There is nothing to test on single wall. The double wall is only tested because it is reduced clearance to combustibles. If you had a double wall product and said it could only be used at 18" CTC, it would not need to be tested/listed either.

Then why does UL 1777 require testing liners for vertical support, loading, strength, sweep, abrasion, torsion, flexibility and rain? And why does UL 103 HT require the pipe to undergo three ten minute high temp firings? That wall isn't going to get any hotter on test two and three than it did on test one. :coolgrin:

 

[stoveguy2esw]

There is nothing to test on single wall. The double wall is only tested because it is reduced clearance to combustibles. If you had a double wall product and said it could only be used at 18" CTC, it would not need to be tested/listed either.

Then why does UL 1777 require testing liners for vertical support, loading, strength, sweep, abrasion, torsion, flexibility and rain? And why does UL 103 HT require the pipe to undergo three ten minute high temp firings? That wall isn't going to get any hotter on test two and three than it did on test one. :coolgrin:

the 3 test segments are likely to expose possible expansion/contraction stresses in the pipe , in other words , they get it hot , then cool it then heat it again etc... this will "work" the metal through expansion and contraction to ensure it can withstand it without opening a seam or somthing.

its a guess but it might be a good guess, i dunno for sure.

 

[builderbob]

I think you can assume (in general) that any chimney which you purchase from a major manufacturer in the USA meets the specs for this country...or beats them.

Might sound like a simplistic answer, but we do have to take certain things for granted. Companies like Simpson are large public entities and there is no benefit to them to have problems with local inspectors. In my 20+ years of retailing, I never had an inking of a problem related to the specific UL number or test.

I wasn't worried about chimney sold in US not actually meeting US (and UL) standards.

What I was getting at was what if a person *wanted* a product they knew met a *higher standard*. The Canada standard (ULC629) is higher than the US. The Canada they do three 30 minute burns at 2100 degrees, the US they do three qo minuted burns at 2100 degrees.

Being a consumer going to put in behind closed walls a chimney "permanently", I just thought, if there is a product available that meets a higher standard, might be worth going for the highest standard out there.

So I became aware some chimney is tested to the higher Canada standards. I have found out Excel chimney meets both UL103 for US and ULC 629 for Canada. To me that would give Excel an advantage over a chimney tested only to US Ul103.

Maybe in real world it doesn't really make a difference. But being a know-nothing newbie, all I've got to go on are the existing standards heirarchies.

In short, to me UL629 (three 30 minute burns) says "better" than US UL103 (three 10 minute burns). I guess I am saying---"standards must mean something".

builderbob----by the way, I just noticed another member named Builder Bob who joined some months before me. I will start thinking of a new moniker (shorter for less typing) to avoid confusion

 

[BrotherBart]

Think of it this way Bob. If the Dura Vent hasn't been tested to Canadian standards then it hasn't failed to pass them. ;-)

 

[builderbob]

Think of it this way Bob. If the Dura Vent hasn't been tested to Canadian standards then it hasn't failed to pass them. ;-)

A positive thinker!! I like that. Reframe the way one looks at the problem, and it looks a lot better!

Now I'd wager that frame of mind has probably got you out of a lot of tight scrapes in your life.

builderbob (soon to be "BTB"----Bob the builder, Bob the bumbler, Bob the whatever)

 

[BrotherBart]

Think of it this way Bob. If the Dura Vent hasn't been tested to Canadian standards then it hasn't failed to pass them. ;-)

A positive thinker!! I like that. Reframe the way one looks at the problem, and it looks a lot better!

Now I'd wager that frame of mind has probably got you out of a lot of tight scrapes in your life.

builderbob (soon to be "BTB"----Bob the builder, Bob the bumbler, Bob the whatever)

I used to have to sell projects and my annual budget to a county Board of Supervisors and School Board. A little early in life training in preparing jury arguments came in real handy.

BB Matlock (who keeps a shined pair of tap shoes on hand at all times)

 

[builderbob]

Think of it this way Bob. If the Dura Vent hasn't been tested to Canadian standards then it hasn't failed to pass them. ;-)

A positive thinker!! I like that. Reframe the way one looks at the problem, and it looks a lot better!

Now I'd wager that frame of mind has probably got you out of a lot of tight scrapes in your life.

builderbob (soon to be "BTB"----Bob the builder, Bob the bumbler, Bob the whatever)

OK. I have officially rechristened myself as "BTB". I am no longer "builderbob" (not to be confused with upstanding member Builder Bob who is still Builder Bob).

BTB is short for Bob the builder, or Bob the bumbler, take your pick (or fill in the last B with whatever fits). It's a lot faster to type, and it eliminates the confusion of my unintentional trespass on the Builder Bob's good name. The last thing I want to do is tarnish his good reputation.


Now, back to chimneys. Actually, the one Duravent model was tested to Canadian standards, but not to the lower US standards. So, positive thinking is now out the window on this one.

So, as a US resident, I cannot use this model. It seems I know for sure it can withstand three 30 minute burns at 2100 degrees. But, lacking the US UL103HT listing, I do not know for sure that it can withstand three 10 minute 2100 degree burns.


BTB

 

[stoveguy2esw]

BTB

i have sent a request to the tech support at simpson for a direct answer to your question , alas i got tied up all day today with a video shoot for a new product and never set foot in my office so i didnt get to call but i e mailed one of their engineers with a request for an answer to your question , as soon as i get a reply i will post it for you.

mike

 

[Gooserider]

Indeed Google is powerful. My Google of ULC S629 brought up 166 pages of hits, about a dozen to a page.

The most promising on cursory glance was www.ulc.ca/industry, where I found this about ULC S 629:

"CAN/ULC-S629-M87
Amendments 1-4" Standard for 650°C Factory-Built Chimneys "Covers requirements for Factory-Built Chimney assemblies which do not require field fabrication. They are for use
with gas, liquid and solid fuel-fired residential appliances and building heating equipment, where the flue-gas
temperatures normally do not exceed 650 degrees C." 91.060.40 $115.00

Apparently, as a profit-making org, the ULC sells their publications of standards.

Maybe I'll just count on going with the lesser standard US approved chimney for whatever fireplace I end up with.

builderbob

Hi Bob:

Don't most standards orgs charge for their standards (with discounts for members)?

I can't think of a standards org that offers all their standards on line for free. (Well, maybe EBU, but I don't think you are interested in radio and tv service in europe are you?)

This, of course, does not include government institutions.


Cheers

Actually Kenny, most if not all Open Source standards (such as ODF) ARE downloadable for free, along with working source code implementations, etc...

Almost as available are the W3C and IETF internet standards... Many other non-proprietary computer software related, and some hardware related standards are also available either in the original, or possibly reverse-engineered versions. Mostly what's locked up in the computer world is either proprietary or anti-freedom related stuff like DRM.

Gooserider

 

[builderbob]

[quote author="Kenny" date="1184170068
Hi Bob:

Don't most standards orgs charge for their standards (with discounts for members)?

I can't think of a standards org that offers all their standards on line for free. (Well, maybe EBU, but I don't think you are interested in radio and tv service in europe are you?)

This, of course, does not include government institutions.


Cheers

Actually Kenny, most if not all Open Source standards (such as ODF) ARE downloadable for free, along with working source code implementations, etc...

Almost as available are the W3C and IETF internet standards... Many other non-proprietary computer software related, and some hardware related standards are also available either in the original, or possibly reverse-engineered versions. Mostly what's locked up in the computer world is either proprietary or anti-freedom related stuff like DRM.

Gooserider[/quote]

EBU, W3C, IETF, DRM, ODF-----my head is starting to spin. I forgot what my question was almost.

BTB