Stove pipe through the floor

[michoujordan76]

Hi all, I have a Jotul Castine in one section of my house and I'd like to install a smaller stove in the other. I know you can't pass through a combustible floor without proper shields and a rated chimney flue. In my situation the pipe could go up through the second floor in alcove off of a hallway. Is it acceptable to cut an opening in the floor with sufficient clearance and use regular stove pipe? I would use double wall to cut down on clearances. This photo is sort of what I am getting at...

 

[begreen]

I don't think so unless the opening was quite large. The "hole" in the picture looks to be an opening of about 10' x 4', making the second floor area more like a loft. That may have needed special permission from the inspector. Normally one needs to use chimney pipe as soon as it passes through the floor and the chimney is chased as it passes through the 2nd floor.

(FWIW the railing in the picture would never pass inspection here. A child could easily crawl right through it. Makes me wonder if it was inspected at all.)

 

[djkeev]

Begreen, photo is not of OP's home, just a "for example" photo.


I would be confidant that if pipe clearances are met that it wouldnt be an issue. But you don't want a scalding hot pipe in a closet plus you need air flow around the hot pipe.

However, it's your home, fire is a heinious thing to have happen. If in doubt ..... DON'T.....
Spend the coin $$ required to do it properly and safely.

Dave

 

[begreen]

Begreen, photo is not of OP's home, just a "for example" photo.

Yes, that was clearly stated and understood. It probably could be done, but the pipe must be chased as it passes through the second floor and a firestop is required as it passes though each floor, so the reason/gain for not putting a ceiling support in is lost.

 

[Kyoufu]

The short answer is no, in Canada you cannot. B365 6.4.5 states a flue pipe shall not pass through a floor, ceiling, ... or any concealed space.

No way around that.

Double wall flue pipe is not certified for this, so it cannot either.

This is in addition to fire code violations, and the probable violation of the maximum height of allowable flue pipe.

 

[georgepds]

Yes, that was clearly stated and understood. It probably could be done, but the pipe must be chased as it passes through the second floor and a firestop is required as it passes though each floor, so the reason/gain for not putting a ceiling support in is lost.

Re chased... not my experience in Massachusetts. I use class a double wall without chase from first floor to the roof. The local building inspector approved it

 

[Highbeam]

Re chased... not my experience in Massachusetts. I use class a double wall without chase from first floor to the roof. The local building inspector approved it

The short answer is no, in Canada you cannot. B365 6.4.5 states a flue pipe shall not pass through a floor, ceiling, ... or any concealed space.

I believe that the OP is saying that this pipe will not pass through a floor, ceiling, or a concealed space. If the opening is big enough, then you can't say that the pipe is passing "through" the floor/ceiling and so the requirement to switch to class A isn't triggered.

We have lots of homes built with two story tall rooms that run beside single level lofts. The lofts aren't always straight, maybe they are horseshoe shaped. Maybe they are doughnut shaped. The pipe above the stove setting on the bottom floor in the two story section is not passing through any floor, just beside one, so why can't it be double or single wall?

 

[Kyoufu]

I believe that the OP is saying that this pipe will not pass through a floor, ceiling, or a concealed space. If the opening is big enough, then you can't say that the pipe is passing "through" the floor/ceiling and so the requirement to switch to class A isn't triggered.

We have lots of homes built with two story tall rooms that run beside single level lofts. The lofts aren't always straight, maybe they are horseshoe shaped. Maybe they are doughnut shaped. The pipe above the stove setting on the bottom floor in the two story section is not passing through any floor, just beside one, so why can't it be double or single wall?

There are height restrictions that come into play - Single wall, maximum height of flue pipe is 10 feet so that is probably not going to work. Double wall I believ varies from manufacturer to mfr.

If the opening is "big enough" I'm sure you can make the argument that it is not passing through a ceiling, but you're getting into semantics. One consideration is this is hot uninsulated pipe. Insulated chimney that passes through a ceiling/floor into living space must be enclosed in a chase so it is not a safety hazard, or a fire hazard and it's surface is cooler than flue pipe. Fire stopping is also an important consideration. Any inspector would be that much more strict about the possibility of contact with people or combustible items to a flue pipe since it is hotter, and cannot be enclosed.

In a loft situation this is not an issue as there is no ceiling that it passing through, and it is not encroaching into living space so as long as there are no height violations, it should be fine. There is a distinct railing / pony wall defining the boundary between the two areas, or else there is a fall hazard which violates building code

In most cases it would be fairly clear when it is passing through upper regions of the same room, and when it is encroaching into the single level's space / passing through a ceiling. One is clearly allowed, one is not. If it is somehow not clear which situation you are dealing with the only one with the authority to clarify it is the local authority having jurisdiction.

The OP is a bit confusing - if you have a little alcove off the hallway, why not just use a ceiling support and firestop, change to insulated chimney, go up through the alcove the way you are supposed to and into your attic, then turn your little alcove into a chase, or into a little-er alcove. If that is in any way workable, it is definitely the way to go.

 

[Highbeam]

If the opening is "big enough" I'm sure you can make the argument that it is not passing through a ceiling, but you're getting into semantics

It's not semantics, it is definitions. You need to understand that not all two story flues that pass by an adjacent floor are passing "through" the floor. Passing through a floor triggers requirements, passing adjacent to a floor does not. We do not have enough information from the OP to determine which it is.

I think it would be a shame to wall off a nice open area to build an unnecessary chase around a pipe. Misunderstanding the firecode requirement is no reason to limit the architectural freedoms of the homeowner.

 

[Kyoufu]

It's not semantics, it is definitions. You need to understand that not all two story flues that pass by an adjacent floor are passing "through" the floor. Passing through a floor triggers requirements, passing adjacent to a floor does not. We do not have enough information from the OP to determine which it is.

I think it would be a shame to wall off a nice open area to build an unnecessary chase around a pipe. Misunderstanding the firecode requirement is no reason to limit the architectural freedoms of the homeowner.

...You are disputing my use of the word "semantics" over "definition"? OK, well either one works for my meaning, but I think we both agree. If it is clear which situation this is then it is clear whether it is allowable or not, as per earlier posts. If it is not clear, nobody here can make that call as it's not even our definition that matters, it's the local inspector's. I thought I made the same point though - passing through a ceiling is, in most cases, pretty obviously different than passing beside a ceiling.

 

[begreen]

Re chased... not my experience in Massachusetts. I use class a double wall without chase from first floor to the roof. The local building inspector approved it

If the pipe is exposed in the room it represents a hazard. A poor inspector does not make it proper or compliant. The fellow that inspected our stove installation spent about 5 seconds looking at it. He was more interested (and probably knowledgeable) in our heat pump installation than the wood stove.

 

[georgepds]

If the pipe is exposed in the room it represents a hazard. A poor inspector does not make it proper or compliant. The fellow that inspected our stove installation spent about 5 seconds looking at it. He was more interested (and probably knowledgeable) in our heat pump installation than the wood stove.

Sounds reasonable.. can anyone point me the Massachusetts building code section that spells out this requirement?

 

[bholler]

Sounds reasonable.. can anyone point me the Massachusetts building code section that spells out this requirement?

Just search for nfpa 211 and IRC. Those are the applicable codes the links i had for them no longer work i need to find new ones. Even older versions will work nothing has changed concerning this for a while

 

[Ashful]

If the pipe is exposed in the room it represents a hazard. A poor inspector does not make it proper or compliant.

But it does make it legal, and shifts liability from you to him. He is the expert and inspecting authority, right or wrong. When pursuing insurance claims, that is the important distinction.

I have two interests, in matters like this: 1. Safety. 2. Liability. Code, when it doesn't jive with these two interests, can be damned in my opinion.

 

[bholler]

But it does make it legal, and shifts liability from you to him. He is the expert and inspecting authority, right or wrong. When pursuing insurance claims, that is the important distinction.

I have two interests, in matters like this: 1. Safety. 2. Liability. Code, when it doesn't jive with these two interests, can be damned in my opinion.

Nope in the US inspectors assume no liability at all and unless you get a written varience for the violation it is not legal either. That is not how it works. Just because they miss something does not change the code. Now if I miss something it is my ass on the line.

 

[Highbeam]

We're not talking about home inspectors. We're talking about building inspectors from the ahj. If the homeowner got a permit and had it inspected he is much less liable than a homeowner that didn't.

 

[bholler]

We're not talking about home inspectors. We're talking about building inspectors from the ahj. If the homeowner got a permit and had it inspected he is much less liable than a homeowner that didn't.

Yes I know that so am I building inspectors assume no liability. I agree having a permit and inspection absolutely reduces a homeowners liability. But ultimately the liability will fall on the installer who ever that is a pro of the homeowner.

 

[Highbeam]

Yes I know that so am I building inspectors assume no liability. I agree having a permit and inspection absolutely reduces a homeowners liability. But ultimately the liability will fall on the installer who ever that is a pro of the homeowner.

I do not agree. Regardless of who installed it, if it was permitted, inspected, and approved by the AHJ I believe the homeowner has (I hate to say it but) zero liability for damages or even loss of life resulting from a malfunction of the permitted appliance. Of course if he is trying to burn cans of spray paint or otherwise operating the appliance with negligence then he takes on a separate liability.

But it does make it legal, and shifts liability from you to him. He is the expert and inspecting authority, right or wrong. When pursuing insurance claims, that is the important distinction.

This is closer to reality. The inspector should not be personally liable but the homeowner did everything he could by having it inspected.Installers are not hired to be experts. They are hired to install an appliance in a way to gain AHJ approval.

To be clear. If a family dies and a house burns down EVERYBODY will have fingers pointed at them. Do the best you can to reduce your liability so that you can defend yourself build it right and get it inspected.

 

[Kyoufu]

Nope in the US inspectors assume no liability at all and unless you get a written varience for the violation it is not legal either. That is not how it works. Just because they miss something does not change the code. Now if I miss something it is my ass on the line.

In Canada the local authority having jurisdiction has the final say one way or the other. Generally they follow the code, and look to WETT for guidance as to how to interpret it in cloudy situations but they don't have to. The installation code for solid fuel appliances basically has a big clause saying all these rules apply, but the AHJ can choose to enforce or ignore them at his discretion. There's a huge level of variation with the knowledge level of various inspectors, so depending on who you are dealing with it can be fine, or be a bit annoying.

Generally I think it's the same - they are not liable, but for example one municipality in my area the AHJ is the fire department, and they will actually sign off with their fire inspector's personal WETT number, which essentially means it they have assumed liability in the same way as if I did a WETT inspection. It is a personal number which shows the individual is certified which is for the insurance company's records. Couldn't believe it when I seen that last time I did a job in that area.

 

[bholler]

I do not agree. Regardless of who installed it, if it was permitted, inspected, and approved by the AHJ I believe the homeowner has (I hate to say it but) zero liability for damages or even loss of life resulting from a malfunction of the permitted appliance. Of course if he is trying to burn cans of spray paint or otherwise operating the appliance with negligence then he takes on a separate liability.



This is closer to reality. The inspector should not be personally liable but the homeowner did everything he could by having it inspected.Installers are not hired to be experts. They are hired to install an appliance in a way to gain AHJ approval.

To be clear. If a family dies and a house burns down EVERYBODY will have fingers pointed at them. Do the best you can to reduce your liability so that you can defend yourself build it right and get it inspected.

I dont know every states laws but i know the law in pa and have looked at many other states laws regarding this and i have yet to find any where permits and inspections take any liability away from the installer be it a pro or diy. And yes installers are absolutly hired as experts. In many cases we know much more about the regulations on the install than the inspectors do. Now the op is from canada and i dont know how it works there . Their inspection system is very different from ours

 

[bholler]

In Canada the local authority having jurisdiction has the final say one way or the other. Generally they follow the code, and look to WETT for guidance as to how to interpret it in cloudy situations but they don't have to. The installation code for solid fuel appliances basically has a big clause saying all these rules apply, but the AHJ can choose to enforce or ignore them at his discretion. There's a huge level of variation with the knowledge level of various inspectors, so depending on who you are dealing with it can be fine, or be a bit annoying.

Generally I think it's the same - they are not liable, but for example one municipality in my area the AHJ is the fire department, and they will actually sign off with their fire inspector's personal WETT number, which essentially means it they have assumed liability in the same way as if I did a WETT inspection. It is a personal number which shows the individual is certified which is for the insurance company's records. Couldn't believe it when I seen that last time I did a job in that area.

Here the AHJ has final say also. But they need to give you a written waiver for the code violation. When they do that they then take on the liability associated with that. Because of that you will almost never see a written waiver issued. They may miss things or even tell you it is ok but with out written proof that means nothing it is still a code violation. But again i dont know how that works in canada.

 

[Kyoufu]

Here the AHJ has final say also. But they need to give you a written waiver for the code violation. When they do that they then take on the liability associated with that. Because of that you will almost never see a written waiver issued. They may miss things or even tell you it is ok but with out written proof that means nothing it is still a code violation. But again i dont know how that works in canada.

I can understand why it would work that way as if there was an incident where liability was in question here it could be a bit convoluted. I don't think I have ever been in a situation where the inspector said "OK" to something less restrictive than what code or standards required, but there are many instances where something about the situation / installation was unclear or depended on an interpretation so it was up to the inspector to say yes or no. Alcoves come to mind.