Wood insert (and problems) came with the house

[Ashful]

Well, not what we were hoping for (or expecting, but who can judge from photos?), but you have a solution.

Depending on budget, I'd seriously consider removing the chimney. You could replace it with a masonry stack (liner inside), a framed chase (metal chimney inside), or nothing at all (put class-A outside house). Why keep the chimney, unless the budget dictated you must?

 

[mellow]

If you ask me it would look horrendous to have a Class A chimney attached to the outside of a brick chimney.

As they say on that tv show that leaves people with huge tax debts after they get done fixing up the place..... Tear that thing down!

You might be able to resell the bricks or use them elsewhere.

 

[stamello]

Well, I decided to get a second opinion, and the next chimney sweep said the same thing - the chimney is unusable and unsalvageable. He didn't think that it was structurally a problem though - no cracks or movement in 30 years. Our area is not prone to earthquakes, so I'm not worried.
He also suggested the same thing as the last guy - knock a hole out of the back of the chimney and run a new class A chimney attached to the outside of the existing chimney. Good idea? If so, can I do this myself, and at what cost?

Resurrecting an old thread, but I had other projects and haven't messed with this for almost a year. Until yesterday...
I climbed the chimney, got a 12 foot pipe and sledge and smashed out the ledge from the top. I now have a 6.75 square ID all the way down the chimney.
Unfortunately, i also have about a 1 for square section of studs and plywood in the chimney right at the point where the clay tile meets the old chimney. Looks like the mortar shelf I smashed out was stuck directly to the upstairs wood.
What about one of those asbestos heat shields on that section combined with a dura vent solid liner?

 

[Mt Bob]

Might want to consider micafil repair.

 

[Ashful]

Id be planning a tear down, at this point. I would just never get comfortable with wood in the chimney, no matter how it's lined.

 

[jophysx]

I want to thank you for posting about your "challenges" with this chimney. It's been very educational. I am sorry you are having these problems, and I commend you for tackling them head on.
-Jim

 

[stamello]

Back again...
I gutted the chimney from the inside in order to be able to put a new chimney/liner inside of the old chase. So I smashed the tile out and around 6 more inches as well in order to get enough space to work with. In doing this I found that around 12 feet of chimney tile was leaning directly against the particle board of the 2nd story of my house, so I stripped that side of the chimney entirely. Its unbelievable that the house never burned down...
So after smashing everything, I have masonry on three sides, and a 3 foot by 12 foot piece of particle board (the house) on the fourth side. I've had two different chimney sweeps look at it, and they're both comfortable putting a liner in it now, provided of course that the combustibles are properly covered and cleared. Here are their plans:
1. First guy wants to put in a 6 inch stainless steel flexible liner, put insulation around it, and run it through the whole chimney. Then he wants to slowly pour in a vermiculite mix to fill in the space between the liner and the particle board (as well as the rest of the chimney). This would be around 4 - 6 inches of vermiculite mix between the liner and the combustible. He thinks that this will provide proper insulation to the combustibles as well as stabilize the chimney.
2. Second guy does not like this plan. He wants to put a double wall liner in, but does not like the idea of the masonry mix. He wants 1-2 rows of actual brick (i.e. stacked and mortered) between the particle board and the liner. It would end up being the same distance (4-6 inches) between the particle board and the liner, but with brick instead of vermiculite.
What do you think?

 

[begreen]

Wow, you are indeed very lucky. Personally, I would consider completely removing the chimney and replacing it with a 6" class A chimney, using the current chimney chase. Removing brick is not that hard. It would probably take a full day's labor, but that can by DIY. If not, I prefer the second guy's approach.

 

[stamello]

Wow, you are indeed very lucky. Personally, I would consider completely removing the chimney and replacing it with a 6" class A chimney, using the current chimney chase. Removing brick is not that hard. It would probably take a full day's labor, but that can by DIY. If not, I prefer the second guy's approach.

Yeah, that is the other possibility. But we ultimately want a stone clad chimney - which is already there. So if I tore it down I'd need to build a new chase around the class A and then put stone up again. I'm hoping to just use the empty chase that I have. I could put a class A inside this chase though - I have enough room.

 

[begreen]

If you can chase the class A without removing the stone, that would be good. Assuming there are no clearance problems, the main issue would be supporting it properly and securely.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

im with BG, especially since an air space would be created between the flue and the exposed wooden wall. these kinds of things worry me, with the "pour" i'd be worried about good coverage if the vermiculite did not fill completely (and there really wouldnt be a way to check it) it could leave a hot spot where heat could transfer to the wooden wall undetected.

its a much safer bet to do the insulated class A inside the chase as the insulating quality of the pipe system itself would be adequate even without the additional brick added to the inner wall provided the clearances asked for by the pipe manufacturer are met.

 

[bholler]

For a liner you need to have atleast 4" nominal masonry between the liner and the combustibles and then either 1" of pour in or 1/2" of wrap to meet code and to be anywhere near safe. You should not let that first sweep work on your house if that was his plan it is totally against code and would be unsafe. The second plane would work but would be very difficult to do. I like bg's plan the best it would be the safest and easiest option. If there is room to do it and get the required support you might be able to treat the old masonry like a chase and run a class a inside it. Not really what it was meant for but it would be a good solution if there is room

 

[stamello]

For a liner you need to have atleast 4" nominal masonry between the liner and the combustibles and then either 1" of pour in or 1/2" of wrap to meet code and to be anywhere near safe. You should not let that first sweep work on your house if that was his plan it is totally against code and would be unsafe. The second plane would work but would be very difficult to do. I like bg's plan the best it would be the safest and easiest option. If there is room to do it and get the required support you might be able to treat the old masonry like a chase and run a class a inside it. Not really what it was meant for but it would be a good solution if there is room

Thanks, that is helpful. So it sounds like the vermiculite does not count as masonry?

 

[stamello]

im with BG, especially since an air space would be created between the flue and the exposed wooden wall. these kinds of things worry me, with the "pour" i'd be worried about good coverage if the vermiculite did not fill completely (and there really wouldnt be a way to check it) it could leave a hot spot where heat could transfer to the wooden wall undetected.

its a much safer bet to do the insulated class A inside the chase as the insulating quality of the pipe system itself would be adequate even without the additional brick added to the inner wall provided the clearances asked for by the pipe manufacturer are met.

I had also thought about cutting out the wood and replacing it with a sheet of concrete board. This way there wouldn't be any exposed wood at all. (As an additional step, not a solution).

 

[begreen]

As long as there is at least 2" clearance from any combustible to the class A pipe then that step would not be necessary, but it wouldn't hurt either.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

I had also thought about cutting out the wood and replacing it with a sheet of concrete board. This way there wouldn't be any exposed wood at all. (As an additional step, not a solution).

well, with the insulated class A pipe BG (and sweep #2) suggested, the clearances you have would be totally acceptable even with the inside "wood" exposed to the pipe. typically the insulated class A is used for homes which do not have a traditional brick chimney and are commonly enclosed in a wooden chase. clearances are generally 2 inches (give or take an inch, one would always check manufacturers specs for actual clearance by brand) so even in a framed out wooden box with that much airspace around the pipe its perfectly safe. nothning wrong per se doing as you mentioned, but with the proper pipe its actually not necessary

 

[bholler]

Thanks, that is helpful. So it sounds like the vermiculite does not count as masonry?

no it is insulation not masonry you still need masonry between it and combustibles

 

[Ashful]

This is correct. The "0/0" rating of insulated liners (inc. vermiculite) means "zero clearance to masonry, and zero clearance from masonry to combustibles," not "zero clearance from liner to combustibles." This is sometimes cited as one of the distinctions between a "chimney" and a "liner", when discussing metal piping.

 

[stamello]

For a liner you need to have atleast 4" nominal masonry between the liner and the combustibles and then either 1" of pour in or 1/2" of wrap to meet code and to be anywhere near safe. You should not let that first sweep work on your house if that was his plan it is totally against code and would be unsafe. The second plane would work but would be very difficult to do. I like bg's plan the best it would be the safest and easiest option. If there is room to do it and get the required support you might be able to treat the old masonry like a chase and run a class a inside it. Not really what it was meant for but it would be a good solution if there is room

I talked to the second guy about the class a and he said it could be done, but would be around 2000 more mostly because of masonry work because he'd need to support it with an elbow at the bottom. But wouldn't it be easier to hang it from the top with something like this? http://www.woodlanddirect.com/Chimney/DuraTech-Chimney-System-Parts/6-inch-DuraTech-Roof-Support

 

[bholler]

with a class a he would not need to add masonry between it and the wood. And hanging it from the top is fine but it would still probably need stabilized more but that would depend upon the install instructions

 

[claydogg84]

I just read the entire thread.. What a mess! Have you decided to stick with the original insert?

 

[stamello]

I just read the entire thread.. What a mess! Have you decided to stick with the original insert?

No - I decided to sell it on Craigslist and get a bigger englander.

 

[stamello]

If you can chase the class A without removing the stone, that would be good. Assuming there are no clearance problems, the main issue would be supporting it properly and securely.

Since the class A would be inside the chase and running straight down into the woodstove, there wouldn't be room to access a cleanout tee. Is this ok? How would I clean?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

depends on the stove , for instance if it were one of my non-cat units , you could remove the ceramic baffles and tubes then brush the flue right down into the firebox itself, then clean the firebox out and reinstall the baffles and tubes, its acttually quite simple to get the upper package out of the stove and back in

 

[stamello]

depends on the stove , for instance if it were one of my non-cat units , you could remove the ceramic baffles and tubes then brush the flue right down into the firebox itself, then clean the firebox out and reinstall the baffles and tubes, its acttually quite simple to get the upper package out of the stove and back in

I'm thinking the englander 30 (non-cat), so maybe this would work