Trype of flue liner?

i_hate_the_csa

I am about to renovate a old house built in the 1800's and will be fitting a multifuel Dovre stove in the fireplace. What will the best way of lining the flue be? Should a double skinned aluminium liner be used or would cementing new pots the length of the chimmeny be better?

Are there pro's and cons to these two ways?


Many thanks for any help guys.

A._Badger

i_hate_the_csa wrote: »

I am about to renovate a old house built in the 1800's and will be fitting a multifuel Dovre stove in the fireplace. What will the best way of lining the flue be? Should a double skinned aluminium liner be used or would cementing new pots the length of the chimmeny be better?

Are there pro's and cons to these two ways?


Many thanks for any help guys.

If you go to The Solid Fuel Association, they have downloadable material that discusses the options.

http://www.solidfuel.co.uk/frame/800index.html

Hope that helps.

crphillips

They're not aluminium....they're stainless steel. If your chimney is structurally sounds then a steel flexi liner is probably the cheapest and easiest way. To open up the chimney and insert clay liners is unnecessary......i haven't seen this done for years and the end result is not as good as a flexi liner.

The only other system worth considering is the concrete cast in situ liners. They're very long lasting and strengthen the chimney from the inside. They're pretty expensive though and i don't really see them been any better than a 904 grade flexi liner. If you go down the route of a concrete lining system make sure they shutter the bottom up to create a flat slab at the bas of the chimney so you can connect the stove with a clay liner adapter. All of the concrete lined flues i've seen have been lined for an open fire and are unsuitable to connect upto with a stove and have ended up having to line it anyway.

hethmar

As CR says, putting clay liners in the chimney would be hellishly disruptive and I believe OH said clay liners are being phased out. We often line chimneys where the clay liners have been badly fitted or have cracked or, quite often put in the wrong way up

With the cast in situ liner that CR mentions, a requirement is that you have a sound chimney before you do the work. My husband used to train people and trouble shoot all over the UK and parts of Europe in that method and he still shivers at some of the sights he saw and had to go and sort out when chimneys have collapsed under the weight of tons of material/water being pumped into them. I believe they still only have a 10 year warranty (though salesmen will stress a possible 60 year life expectancy). The other problem with that method was that if the chimney had sulphate saturated brickwork, you could get the sulphates being activated and seeping through/staining plasterwork.

I have to say I have two of those myself, but only cos OH was a master of them and they were done 20 odd years ago. He now favours the 904/904 stainless steel liners as they have a warranty for 25 years and are much less disruptive. (CR, cast in situ should be no more than a decent stainless steel installation, but due to the rarity of installers of that system now, I reckon the price is often knocked up). There is also a newer form of the cast in situ with ceramic material rather than the volcanic rock previously used. This is supposed to be sprayed onto the interior of the chimney and is being pushed as an answer to lining large inglenooks without reducing the flueway too much.

Take it your house isnt listed?

emmahip

I have just been quoted 1800+vat for 2 x chimneys to be lined via the in situ method, the material is pumice based I believe and the installer (as you would) tells me it's far superior to the steel liners. Not 100% convinced but wavering.....