I honestly can’t figure it out. There’s no manufacturer information available on this. I imagine the foundation on the side plates is important for lateral forces, but I can’t really assess how serious this is.
Background: the 91mm (3.6 inches) wide ones are €2.50 cheaper each (no idea why), and I might want to upgrade later if the pergola ends up becoming a full roof. In that case, the posts would be replaced with 100mm (4 inches) ones, and the side plates would be routed out. With 81mm (3.2 inches), that would mean quite a bit material removed when routing...
What do you think?
Background: the 91mm (3.6 inches) wide ones are €2.50 cheaper each (no idea why), and I might want to upgrade later if the pergola ends up becoming a full roof. In that case, the posts would be replaced with 100mm (4 inches) ones, and the side plates would be routed out. With 81mm (3.2 inches), that would mean quite a bit material removed when routing...
What do you think?
Yes, that’s exactly the point. For now, a pergola; later, a proper structure—but not a tiled roof, most likely semi-transparent glass-in-glass photovoltaic modules with H-connection profiles. It will still be heavier than polycarbonate or acrylic. Since the post anchors will be concreted in place, I don’t want to have to replace them later.
Therefore, I will now use 80mm (3 inches) posts and compensate the 10mm (0.4 inches) gap with shims. I read elsewhere that the “adhesion” of the side flaps is not taken into account in the structural calculations anyway, because wood shrinks and permanent contact cannot be guaranteed.
For this reason, I prefer the extra-long H-profiles (80cm (31.5 inches)) so that the embedment into the concrete foundation is deep enough, while also ensuring that the posts are high enough above the ground for proper structural wood protection.
Therefore, I will now use 80mm (3 inches) posts and compensate the 10mm (0.4 inches) gap with shims. I read elsewhere that the “adhesion” of the side flaps is not taken into account in the structural calculations anyway, because wood shrinks and permanent contact cannot be guaranteed.
For this reason, I prefer the extra-long H-profiles (80cm (31.5 inches)) so that the embedment into the concrete foundation is deep enough, while also ensuring that the posts are high enough above the ground for proper structural wood protection.
Yes, that's exactly the point: a pergola for now, and later a proper structure, probably not with a tiled roof but with semi-transparent glass-glass photovoltaic modules using H-connection profiles. It will still be heavier than polycarbonate or acrylic.
And since the post anchors will be set in concrete, I don’t want to have to replace them later.
So, I will use 80mm (3 inches) posts now and fill the 10mm (0.4 inches) gap with shimming plates. I’ve read elsewhere that the “adhesion” of the side flanges is not considered in the structural calculations anyway, because wood can shrink and permanent contact cannot be guaranteed.
Therefore, I prefer to use the extra-long H-profiles (80cm (31.5 inches)) so that the embedment in the concrete foundation is deep enough, and at the same time, I get sufficient height above the ground for structural wood protection.
And since the post anchors will be set in concrete, I don’t want to have to replace them later.
So, I will use 80mm (3 inches) posts now and fill the 10mm (0.4 inches) gap with shimming plates. I’ve read elsewhere that the “adhesion” of the side flanges is not considered in the structural calculations anyway, because wood can shrink and permanent contact cannot be guaranteed.
Therefore, I prefer to use the extra-long H-profiles (80cm (31.5 inches)) so that the embedment in the concrete foundation is deep enough, and at the same time, I get sufficient height above the ground for structural wood protection.
Similar topics