Wall reinforcement

Most load-bearing walls above grade require reinforcement to provide the flexural strength required, as these
masonry walls expand and contract due to temperature changes, loads imposed by strong winds, and the
weight of the wall itself. Reinforcement also provides stability of CMU walls during seismic events. Walls
can be solid masonry or “veneer” or “cavity” walls.
Cavity wall construction often consists of a brick outer wall, an air space, and a structural inner wall of steel
or wood studs faced with gypsum board. These two wall types must be joined together to provide structural
integrity and steel wall reinforcement. Reinforcements can be truss and ladur types or wall ties that tie the
outer wall to the inner wall.
Sections of masonry walls are known as wythes; a single wythe is one masonry wall thick, and a double-
wythe wall consists of one outer and one inner wall, often of different masonry types: one brick (outer) and
one CMU (inner).

The effectiveness of the double-planked flooring depends on its connection with the already existing
timber floor and, overall, to load-bearing walls. Once the connection has been ensured, the orthotropic timber
membrane can be modeled according to the thickness of the triple-board slab and the shear modulus of
timber.
In the following, the validity of double-planked flooring intervention was assessed by the addition of ties at
each floor. If the floors are sufficiently stiff to be nondeformable, not much additionally seismic capacity can
be expected from the structure. This situation occurred in both CA24 and MS27, according to the FE method.
The contribution of ties to the EF model changes lintels collapse from combined compression and bending to
shear, as reported by Magenes et al. (2000),. In addition, the two software produced similar collapse
configurations in terms of damage patterns.
 In structures consisting of load-bearing walls and floors in combination, in which the load-bearing walls
also act as shear walls, the analysis of internal forces is very difficult, as was indeed made clear by the
questions posed at the end of Mr. Harvey's paper. Such structures often consist essentially of thin walled
beams (the walls) which are discontinuous transversely (i.e. in horizontal planes) except at
the diaphragms (the floors). The degree of monolithic or beam action which occurs may be slight. The
presence of unknown but probably very severe shearing forces within walls and through floors, particularly
where breaks in the walls occur, have evidently, from the discussions, caused designers some uneasiness.
This is especially the case where units are prefabricated and site connections develop less than the full
strength of the units.
Several interesting papers were presented on the analysis of combined shear wall and floor structures, but it
was evident that much more reseach work is required before it can be said that we understand their behaviour
at all thoroughly. The same remarks as before apply to the question of ultimate strength.
At the same time, such systems if used properly can be very stiff, and Mr. Taranath and Professor Morice
showed how “flag” structures, in which it is possible to remove supports and thus provide wide uninterrupted
space, can be analysed. It was interesting also to learn from Mr. Beckmann that the principle had in fact been
exploited in actual structures designed by his firm.

The buildings are all large panel structures of the Larsen Nielsen type. The load bearing walls and floors of
the buildings are large prefabricated reinforced concrete panels. The buildings are all 64m tall and have plan
dimension of 23.7m by 17.9m. There are small differences in the plan layout of the ground and first floors of
the buildings. Above this level the plan sections of all of the buildings are identical with each floor
containing five flats. Typical elevational views and a floor plan are given in figures 1 and 2. The buildings
are all on the same site, near the north bank of the River Thames in the London Borough of Newham. Their
principal axes are all in the same direction and they all have similar types of foundation, namely a heavy
concrete podium which is supported by piles driven into alluvium. The buildings are divided into two groups,
types A and B, the difference between the two groups being a change in the detailing of the joints.
The best known of the buildings is Ronan Point, which suffered a progressive collapse of the South East
corner of the building after a gas explosion occurred on the 18th floor. A consequence of this explosion was
that the joints of the existing buildings (type A) were strengthened to resist an explosion of equivalent static
pressure of 2.5 p.s.i. (16.2 kN/m1). This was accomplished using bolted steel angles to strengthen the
connections between load bearing walls and floors. Also, all mains gas supplies were removed from the
buildings. After the collapse the damaged section of Ronan Point was reconstructed using insitu construction
rather than the original precast panels. The type B buildings were constructed after the Ronan Point collapse
and included revised joint details to provide for a static pressure of 5 p.s.i.
 Resources
• Sidney M. Levy, in Construction Process Planning and Management
A.J. FRANCIS, in Tall Buildings

• B.R. ELLIS, J.D. LITTLER, in Advances in Wind Engineering

• Maria Rosa Valluzzi, ... Luca Sbrogiò, in Numerical Modeling of