Als Reaktion auf die bauaufsichtliche Einführung der Eurocodes wurden die Anlageblätter der Typenprüfungen für Trapezprofile in Abstimmung zwischen den Aufstellern und Prüfämtern für Baustatik überarbeitet. Das Nachweiskonzept und die wesentlichen Nachweise blieben dabei trotz der sich daraus ergebenden geringfügigen Abweichungen von DIN EN 1993‐1‐3 gleich. Lediglich bei den Schubfeldnachweisen ergaben sich inhaltliche Änderungen, die auf neuere Entwicklungen im Nachweiskonzept und die unterschiedlichen Wünsche der jeweiligen Antragsteller zurückzuführen sind. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt die überarbeiteten Anlagen vor, begründet die Beibehaltung einzelner Regelungen trotz offenkundiger Abweichungen von DIN EN 1993‐1‐3 und erläutert die neuen und überarbeiteten Regelungen und Nachweise. Revised Annexes of Typenprüfungen for trapezoidal sheeting – commentary and background information. As a reaction to the implementation of Eurocodes by the building authority, the annexes of the Typenprüfungen (type approval) for trapezoidal sheeting were revised. The concept of verification and the basic proofs stayed the same, resulting in some small deviations from DIN EN 1993‐1‐3. Proofs for diaphragms and stressed skin design changed, merely resulting from new developments in the concept of verification and different requests of the different applicants. The paper at hand presents the revised annexes, justifies perpetuations for some rules and explains new and revised rules and proofs.

No abstract

No abstract

Diaphragms made of trapezoidal profile sheeting are often used to stabilize members or work as bracing to transfer horizontal loads (wind or seismic loads) to the ground. In Europe there are currently two approaches for the design of these shear diaphragms, both often denoted by the names of their corresponding developers: Schardt and Strehl and Bryan and Davies. Although the mechanical background to calculating the diaphragm stiffness is more or less identical in both approaches, there are differences in the level of detailing, i.e. in the number of parameters regarded as significant for practical design. Generally, the Schardt/Strehl approach was reworked much more and is therefore easier to use in practical design. On the other hand, the Bryan/Davies approach is much more realistic regarding the failure modes (shear buckling, failure of fasteners) and loadbearing capacity. This paper discusses the differences and similarities in detail, makes an assessment and highlights the particular advantages. Recently, a new approach was elaborated based on work previously carried out by Baehre and Wolfram and taking into account new developments and findings. This "combined approach" presented here combines the advantages of the Schardt/Strehl and Bryan/Davies approaches as given above. The paper includes a comparison with test results with regard to both diaphragm stiffness and loadbearing capacity. Detailed information is given on how to elaborate the sheetingrelated parameters in tables, allowing for easy use in practical design. This is of special importance for implementation in practical design and in relation to the further development of the Eurocodes.

No abstract