Recent avid reader, first time poster.
I moved to new house last year, midcentury-ish colonial (if thats a thing) in NJ, built 1950. It has a nice looking but small fireplace. I had it inspected last winter and they pretty much said nope, you can't use this without rebuilding it. Problems found were chimney lining issues, wood forms left underneath the firebox hearth (under 12" brick/masonry), and floor joists built into masonry of the hearth extension, which also likely run underneath the face brick of the fireplace.
I think i can remove the forms via the outdoor cleanout door, but the joists are going nowhere. as of the two that are in there, one spans a supporting length. The other (closest to firebox) I see no reason it should have been there in the first place.
The closest joist to the firebox is about 6" off the opening. The extension is concrete, which contains the joists, with a layer of brick on top (assuming ~2" thick). The brick sits flush with the hardwood floor. Firebox opening is 27"h x 34"w in the front.
I thought I could maybe install a Jotul F100 fully into the firebox (only thing I've found that would fit) since it has only non-combustible floor clearance requirement, no R-value. But when the installer saw the joists he said he wouldn't do it. The stove would also be a pretty tight fit. I know I wouldn't get a ton of heat out of it, I just want to have something (anything) without having to completely rebuild the chimney.
So my question is. Why is this not ok given the floor requirement? Would heat from the side of the stove conduct down through the side brick and into the lower bricks, thereby heating the wood?
I've mostly resigned myself to the fact that I have a solely decorative fireplace that I can only burn candles in but part of me just keeps thinking... really? Plus the fact that I have the opportunity to purchase a secondhand unused F100 from someone.
I moved to new house last year, midcentury-ish colonial (if thats a thing) in NJ, built 1950. It has a nice looking but small fireplace. I had it inspected last winter and they pretty much said nope, you can't use this without rebuilding it. Problems found were chimney lining issues, wood forms left underneath the firebox hearth (under 12" brick/masonry), and floor joists built into masonry of the hearth extension, which also likely run underneath the face brick of the fireplace.
I think i can remove the forms via the outdoor cleanout door, but the joists are going nowhere. as of the two that are in there, one spans a supporting length. The other (closest to firebox) I see no reason it should have been there in the first place.
The closest joist to the firebox is about 6" off the opening. The extension is concrete, which contains the joists, with a layer of brick on top (assuming ~2" thick). The brick sits flush with the hardwood floor. Firebox opening is 27"h x 34"w in the front.
I thought I could maybe install a Jotul F100 fully into the firebox (only thing I've found that would fit) since it has only non-combustible floor clearance requirement, no R-value. But when the installer saw the joists he said he wouldn't do it. The stove would also be a pretty tight fit. I know I wouldn't get a ton of heat out of it, I just want to have something (anything) without having to completely rebuild the chimney.
So my question is. Why is this not ok given the floor requirement? Would heat from the side of the stove conduct down through the side brick and into the lower bricks, thereby heating the wood?
I've mostly resigned myself to the fact that I have a solely decorative fireplace that I can only burn candles in but part of me just keeps thinking... really? Plus the fact that I have the opportunity to purchase a secondhand unused F100 from someone.
Last edited: