Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

Structural Performance of Mivan Structural System

Over Conventional Structural System
Nisarga K: Madhukaran:
PG Student(Computer Aided Design Of Structures) Assistant Professor
Department of Studies in Civil Engineering, University Department of Studies in Civil Engineering, University
B.D.T. College of Engineering, B.D.T. College of Engineering,
Davangere, Karnataka, India Davangere, Karnataka, India

Abstract:- India's metropolitan population is now the B. Conventional Structural System

world's second-largest, and its projected growth is Beam-Column and Slab are key elements of structures
causing more demand in housing. To deal with this and supports building weight and create safe load path from
problem, India must urgently prepare for the acquisition slab to the foundation, and effective to withstand vertical and
of land and the rapid construction of housing units. In horizontal loads. Brick walls consider non-load-bearing
recent years, there have been significant modifications in walls.
the construction process. Buildings were created with the
aim of load-bearing in mind in ancient times, and the II. OBJECTIVES
RCC framed approach was established later. The RC
structural wall technology is widely used at the moment.  To analyze the G+5 and G+10 multi-storey building for
Aluminium formwork, also known as Mivan technology, mivan structural system over a conventional structural
is a more advanced advancement of the current building system in zone IV and V using ETABS.
approach. This technology uses an RC structural wall  For opt models investigate the link between maximum
system to design the entire construction, which is also storey displacement and height of storey.
known as a Shear wall system. It is primarily meant to  To look into the hook up between base shear and building
allow. altitude for considered models.
 To inquire about the relationship between storey elevation
Keywords:- Mivan Structure(MS), Framed Structure(FS), and storey drift.
Conventional Structure Shear wall, Storey Displacement,  To examine the variations in the time period and natural
Storey Drift, Base Shear, Time Period, Frequencies, frequencies for different building models of modes
Response Spectrum Analysis, ETABS. considered.
 To review the elite model with the excessive seismic
I. INTRODUCTION affecting parameters.

Mivan was created in Malaysia around the 1990s. The III. MODELLING AND STRATEGY
use of repeating formwork in the construction of large
structures saves money. Looking around the world, India's Classic formwork and a regular building process are
use of mivan invention is small in comparison to other often used to produce the traditional beam-column system.
countries. Mivan enhances production & maintains a higher The RC structural wall system is constructed using
degree of quality when using good materials and machinery. Aluminium form technology. G+5 and G+10 stories are
The formwork is made of alminium since the slab, column, chosen in a classic residential building concept. Analysis was
and beam were cast monolithically, placed on a clean done for both the traditional system and Shear wall system
surface & speedier assembly. It's a very simple and for the below typical plan. Both are modelled in ETABS
uncomplicated procedure. This strategy is also quickly under particular assumptions and analysed in the Response
accepted by labor. These light aluminum formworks can Spectrum Method for varied load Combinations.
really be reused up to 250 times.
A. Models Considered For Thesis
A. Mivan Structural System G+5 story Framed and Mivan structures in both zone IV and
Mivan Structures are earthquake & gravity load V
resistant because of shear walls & RC slabs. The major G+10 story Framed and Mivan structures in both zone IV and
vertical components are RC structural walls of thicknesses V
varying about 150mm - 500mm based on the storey elevation
and thermal insulation. Some basement walls are often used
for commercial and parking operations.

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 23
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

B. Analysis Considered For The Thesis D. Models View

 Response Spectrum Method

The greatest possible responses of a spectrum of
hypothetical single degree freedom systems of varied natural
periods with similar damping, when subjected to the same
earthquake ground motion at bases.

Fig. 2 G+5 Story Mivan Structure

Fig. 1 Plan

C. Details of the Structures

Area of building = 715.5 sq m

Number of storey = Ground+5 and Ground+10
Storey elevation = 3m
Concrete Grade = M30
Steel Grade = Fe500

Frame Segments:
Beam = 300mm X 450mm
Column = 300mm X 600mm
Slab = 125mm
Shear wall thickness = 160mm
250mm
Non load bearing wall = 230mm Fig. 3 G+10 Story Mivan Structure
Loads considerations:
Super dead(wall) load = 11.73KN/ m2
Service load = 2KN/sq m
Floor finish = 1KN/ m2

Seismic Parameters:
Zone Factor for Zone IV = 0.24
Zone V = 0.36
Soil type = Medium {type 2}
Response reduction factor = 5

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 24
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

Fig. 6 Displacement in mm in X-direction

1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) of Ground+5

Table 2 Displacement in mm in X-direction

1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) of Ground+10
Fig. 4 G+5 Story Framed Structure
DISPLACEMENT IN MM IN X-DIRECTION
(1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX) OF GROUND+10
STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
xi 44.4 11.5 66.6 17.1
x 42.7 9.8 64.1 14.7
ix 40.2 8.3 60.3 12.4
viii 36.9 6.8 55.4 10.2
vii 32.95 5.5 49.5 8.2
vi 28.6 4.2 42.8 6.3
v 23.7 3.1 35.5 4.6
iv 18.5 2.1 27.8 3.1
iii 13.1 1.3 19.7 1.9
ii 7.7 0.9 11.6 1.1
i 2.8 1.1 4.2 1.2
0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 5 G+10 Story Framed Structure

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Displacement In Storey

Table 1: Displacement in mm in X-direction

1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) of Ground+5
DISPLACEMENT IN MM IN X-DIRECTION
(1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX) OF GROUND+5
STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
vi 23.3 6.43 34.95 9.7 Fig. 7 Displacement in mm in X-direction
v 21.3 4.56 31.94 6.9 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) of Ground+10
iv 17.84 2.98 26.8 4.5
 Observation and Discussion
iii 13.22 1.74 19.82 2.6 We can conclude from the aforementioned findings that
ii 7.98 0.82 11.96 1.2 displacement is growing in both structures as building
i 2.92 1.04 4.4 1.1 elevation grows. The mivan structure has less displacement
than the conventional structure, and the zone V values in both
0 0 0 0 0
X and Y directions are higher than the zone IV values.

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 25
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

B. Storey Drift

Table 3 Storey Drift in X-direction 1.5*(DL+ SDL+EQX)

of Ground+5
STOREY DRIFT IN X-DIRECTION
(1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX) OF GROUND+5
STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
vi 0.0007 0.00006 0.001 6.7E-05
v 0.0012 5.9E-05 0.00173 6.1E-05
iv 0.0015 5.9E-05 0.00231 5.9E-05
iii 0.0017 5.7E-05 0.00262 5.7E-05
ii 0.0017 5.20E-05 0.00253 7.60E-05
Fig. 9 Storey Drift in X-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in
i 0.001 1.90E-05 0.00146 2.80E-05
Ground+10
0 0 0 0 0
 Observation And Discussion
From the above facts, we can conclude that increasing
the elevation of structurecauses an increase in drift and
ultimately a reduction in both structures. When compared to
the conventional structure, the mivan structure produces less
drift. In both directions, the zone IV values are lower than the
zone V. Mivan structure storey drift is reduced by 91% in 5
storey zone IV structure and 93.3% in zone V structure when
compared to conventional structure. In 10 storey structure,
mivan structure storey drift is reduced by 98.7% in zoneIV
and 98.9% in zone V when compared to conventional
structure.

C. Base Shear

Table 5 Base shear in X-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in

Fig. 8 Storey Drift in X-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in Ground+5
Ground+5 BASE SHEAR IN X-DIRECTION (1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX)
OF GROUND+5
Table. 4 Storey Drift in X-direction 1.5*(DL+ SDL+EQX) STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
in Ground+5
GROUND+5 3825.8 4850.3 5738.7 7275.5
STOREY DRIFT IN X-DIRECTION
(1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX) OF GROUND+10
STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
xi 0.0006 0.00054 0.00085 0.00081
x 0.0008 0.00051 0.00126 0.00077
ix 0.0011 0.00049 0.00165 0.00073
viii 0.0013 0.00046 0.00197 0.00068
vii 0.0015 0.00042 0.00222 0.00063
vi 0.0016 0.00038 0.00242 0.00056
v 0.0017 0.00033 0.00259 0.00049
iv 0.0018 0.00028 0.0027 0.00041
iii 0.0018 0.00021 0.0027 0.00032
ii 0.0016 9.90E-05 0.00246 0.00015
i 0.0009 4.10E-05 0.00138 6.10E-05 Fig. 10 Base shear in X-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in
0 0 0 0 0 Ground+5

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 26
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

Table 6 Base shear in x-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in

Ground+10
BASE SHEAR INX-DIRECTION (1.5DL+1.5SDL+1.5EQX)
OF GROUND+10
STOREY FS Z 4 MS Z 4 FS Z 5 MS Z 5
GROUND+10 3562.9 8904.3 5344.3 13356.5

Fig. 12 Time Period of Ground+5 Structures for zone IV

Table 8 Time Period of Ground+5 Structures for zone V

GROUND+5 IN Z -V
MODES FS MS
Fig. 11 Base shear in x-direction 1.5*(DL+SDL+EQX) in
Ground+10 i 1.01 0.283
ii 0.85 0.283
 Observation and Discussion iii 0.84 0.283
It is obvious from the foregoing data that base shear of iv 0.34 0.283
mivan structure is the highest when compared to the
traditional system. The base shear increases as the storey v 0.27 0.283
elevation rises, and zone V results are bigger in both vi 0.26 0.12
directions than the zone IV results. When compared to vii 0.19 0.093
traditional construction, the base shear of a mivan structure viii 0.15 0.085
for zone IV is increased by 21% and for zone V by 21.2%,
while the base shear of a mivan structure in zone IV got ix 0.145 0.066
increased by 59.95% and in zone V 60% in a 10 storey x 0.14 0.067
structure. xi 0.12 0.068
xii 0.11 0.069
D. Modal Time Period

Table 7 Time Period of Ground+5 Structures for zone IV

GROUND+5 IN Z -IV
MODES FS MS
i 1.01 0.283
ii 0.85 0.283
iii 0.84 0.283
iv 0.34 0.283
v 0.27 0.283
vi 0.26 0.12
vii 0.19 0.093 Fig. 13 Time Period of Ground+5 Structures for zone V
viii 0.15 0.085
ix 0.145 0.066
x 0.14 0.067
xi 0.12 0.068
xii 0.11 0.069

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 27
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

Table 9 Time Period of Ground+10 Structures for zone IV

GROUND+10 IN Z -IV
MODES FS MS
i 1.58 0.3
ii 1.38 0.29
iii 1.36 0.29
iv 0.59 0.29
v 0.5 0.29
vi 0.49 0.29
vii 0.35 0.29
viii 0.28 0.29
ix 0.27 0.29 Fig. 15 Time Period of Ground+10 Structures for zone V
x 0.24 0.29
 Observation And Discussion
xi 0.2 0.285
As seen by the above results, the mivan structure has a
xii 0.19 0.197 much shorter time period than the conventional system
including both G+5 & G+10 structures. The time period
lengthens as the storey height rises, and the values in zone V
are greater than those in zone IV among both directions.

E. Frequencies

Table 11 Frequencies of Ground+5 for zone IV

GROUND+5 IN Z -IV
MODES FS MS
i 0.99 3.52
ii 1.18 3.52
iii 1.2 3.52
iv 3.01 3.52
Fig. 14 Time Period of Ground+10 Structures for zone IV v 3.76 3.52
vi 3.82 8.85
Table 10 Time Period of Ground+10 Structures for zone V
vii 5.04 10.9
GROUND+10 Z -V
viii 6.74 11.98
MODES FS MS
ix 6.93 14.57
i 1.58 0.3
x 7.07 14.57
ii 1.38 0.29
xi 8.47 14.57
iii 1.36 0.29
xii 9.44 14.57
iv 0.59 0.29
v 0.5 0.29
vi 0.49 0.29
vii 0.35 0.29
viii 0.28 0.29
ix 0.27 0.29
x 0.24 0.29
xi 0.2 0.285
xii 0.19 0.197

Fig. 16 Frequencies of Ground+5 for zone IV

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 28
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

Table 12 Frequencies of Ground+5 for zone V

GROUND+5 IN Z -V
MODES FS MS
i 0.99 3.52
ii 1.18 3.52
iii 1.2 3.52
iv 3.01 3.52
v 3.76 3.52
vi 3.82 8.85
vii 5.04 10.9
viii 6.74 11.98
Fig. 18 Frequencies of Ground+10 for zone IV
ix 6.93 14.57
x 7.07 14.57 Table 14 Frequencies of Ground+10 for zone V
xi 8.47 14.57 GROUND+10 Z -IV
xii 9.44 14.57 MODES FS MS
i 0.64 3.43
ii 0.73 3.52
iii 0.74 3.52
iv 1.71 3.52
v 2.01 3.52
vi 2.03 3.52
vii 3.05 3.52
viii 3.7 3.52
ix 3.75 3.52
x 4.19 3.52
xi 5.26 3.55
xii 5.43 5.12
Fig. 17 Frequencies of Ground+5 for zone V

Table 13 Frequencies of Ground+10 for zone IV

GROUND+10 Z-IV
MODES FS MS
i 0.64 3.43
ii 0.73 3.52
iii 0.74 3.52
iv 1.71 3.52
v 2.01 3.52
vi 2.03 3.52
vii 3.05 3.52
viii 3.7 3.52 Fig. 19 Frequencies of Ground+10 for zone V
ix 3.75 3.52
x 4.19 3.52  Observation And Discussion
By observing the above results the Frequencies of
xi 5.26 3.55 conventional structure is lesser than mivan system in G+5 and
xii 5.43 5.12 G+10 structures. Both zone IV and zone V had the same
results in both X and Y directions.

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 29
Volume 2 Issue 2 2022 International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology

V. CONCLUSIONS journal of engineering sciences & research technology,

October 2015.
The following conclusion is made from this analytical [4]. Kavita Patgar and Dr. Srinath Shetty K (2015)
study. “Conventional formwork & mivan formwork structure
 When relative to a conventional construction, the – A comparative study &analysis” .JHJOC, 2018.
optimum storey displacement in the mivan G+5 structure [5]. Sajeet.S.B and Supreeth S Gowda (2015) “earthquake
is 72.43% for zone IV & 72.5% fornventional building response of different shapes of mivan wall tall
zone V, while the storey displacement in the mivan G+10 buildings” International Journal of Research in
structure is 74.29% for zone IV and 74.4% for zone V. Engineering and Technology.
 When compared to a conventional building, the inter- [6]. Anagha M (2016) “Earthquake Response of Different
storey drift in the mivan G+5 structure is 91% for zone IV Shapes of Tall Vertically Irregular Mivan Wall
& 93.3% for zone V, & in the mivan G+10 structure it is Building” International Journal of Engineering
98.7% for zone IV & 98.9% for zone V. Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 5 Issue 08,
 When compared to framed structures, base shear rose in August-2016.
mivan structures by 21% in zone IV and 21.2% in zone V [7]. Deepak Suthar and H.S.Chore (2014) “High Rise
for G+5 mivan structures and 59.98% in zone IV & 60% Structure Subjected To Seismic Forces And Its
in zone V for mivan G+10 structures. In the x-direction, Behavior” International Conference, 29th June-2014.
overall storey shear was larger than in the y-direction. [8]. Pawan M. Walvekar and Hemant L. Sonawadekar
(2017) “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Mivan
 G+5 structures have a time period of 1.004 secs for zone Structural System v/s Conventional Structural System
IV & 0.284 secs in zone V, whereas G+10 structures have
with Effect of SSI by Pushover Analysis” International
a time period of 1.574 secs for zone IV & 0.292 secs in
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
zone V. When compared to traditional constructions,
(IRJET), Volume: 04 Issue: 06 June-2017.
mivan has a longer time period.
[9]. G. Prasanna Lakshmi and Dr Hemant L.Sonawadekar
 This mivan structural system has greater natural (2016) “Seismic Evaluation of Residential Building
frequencies over traditional structural systems. In both with Masonry Wall using ETABS” International Journal
directions, zone 4 & zone 5 had almost the same values. of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology,
 Because the time period of a mivan structural system ISSN: 2277-9655, May-2016.
comes virtually equivalent to zero; the acceleration is 0 [10]. Abhay Guleria (2014) “Structural Analysis of a Multi
during structure vibration. Storeyed Building using ETABS for different Plan
 Construction cost of less in mivan structural system than Configurations” International Journal of Engineering
conventional structural system due to reuse of formwork. Research and Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181,
 As mivan consists of RC elements it requires more Vol. 3, Issue 05, May-2014.
concrete compared to conventional structures. [11]. Mr N.B Basraskar and Prof. U.R. Kawade (2015)
 When compared to a mivan structural system, a “Structural Performance of RC Structural wall system
conventional building system requires more steel. over conventional Beam-Column system in G+15
 Based on the analysis, Mivan structures are effective in storey Building” International Journal of Engineering
resisting the lateral stresses of earthquakes. Research and General Science, Vol. 3, Issue 04,
July/August-2015.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [12]. IS-1893:2016, “Code for earthquake resistant design of
structures- general provisions for buildings, Part I,
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
administration of Visveshwaraya Technological University, [13]. IS-456:2000, “Code of practice for plain and reinforced
Belgaum for allowing them to undertake analytical work in the concrete code of practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards,
University B.D.T. College of Engineering’s CAD laboratory. New Delhi, 2000.
Davangere-577004 [14]. IS-875:1987, “Code for Dead load design of structures-
general provisions for buildings”, Part I, Bureau of
REFERENCES Indian Standards”, New Delhi.
[15]. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, IS-875:1987,
[1]. K. Suhanth Reddy and CH.Rajesh (2017) “Analysis of “Code for Live Load Design of Structures- General
Conventional Beam Column System over RC Structural Provisions for Buildings”, Part II.
Wall System in Multi Storey Building” International [16]. IS-875:1987, Part III, Design Loads Except
Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Earthquake(Wind Load) for Buildings and Structures.
Management, and Research, May 2017. [17]. IS 13920: 1993 is a 1993 standard that was created.
[2]. Miss. Mrunal S. Khobragade and Dr. A. V. Patil (2018) Clause 9, it stipulates the ductile details of shear walls,
“Comparative Study in Analysis, Design and Material According to IS: 13920: 1993, the first clause defines
Requirement of Conventional Structural System and the basic criteria, whereas article 9.2 describes the shear
Frameless R.C.C structural System” Volume 8, Issue wall ductwork. The quantity of reinforcement required
IV, APRIL 2018. as well as the bar orientation are specifie in the ductile
[3]. D.Ramya and A.V.S.Sai Kumar (2015) “comparative details.
study on design and analysis of multi-storeyed building
(g+10) by staad. pro and etabs software’s” international

IJSRMT10FEB1021411117 http://www.ijsrmt.com/ 30