Comparative Analysis of Mivan Technology with Conventional RCC Structure using ETABS

Abhijeet Anandrao Mandave1

1ME Student, KJ’s Educational Institute, KJ College of Engineering and Management Research, Pune, Maharashtra (Affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University

 Prof. Abhijeet R. Undre

2Associate professor, KJ’s Educational Institute, KJ College of Engineering and Management Research, Pune, Maharashtra (Affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University) )

Dr. Atul Pujari

3Associate professor/Dr., KJ’s Educational Institute, KJ College of Engineering and Management Research, Pune, Maharashtra (Affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University)

Abstract- Rapid urbanization and the demand for mass housing have increased the need for construction systems that are fast, economical and structurally reliable. Conventional reinforced cement concrete (RCC) framed construction is widely adopted in India, but it generally depends on beams and columns for lateral resistance and may show higher storey displacement and drift under earthquake loading. Mivan technology, also known as aluminium formwork construction, forms monolithic RCC walls and slabs using reusable aluminium panels. This paper presents a comparative analytical study of Mivan technology and a conventional RCC framed structure using ETABS. A G+10 building is considered with the same plan dimensions, material grades, loading conditions and seismic code basis for both models. The principal response parameters are base shear, storey displacement and storey drift. The G+10 ETABS result screenshots show that the conventional RCC frame has a maximum top displacement of 4.088662 mm, whereas the Mivan model has about 0.92 mm in the governing plotted direction. This corresponds to about 77.5% reduction in top displacement. The maximum drift also reduces from about 305 x 10^-6 to about 40 x 10^-6. Hence, for conservative reporting, the Mivan structure can be stated to provide at least 30% better seismic serviceability than the conventional RCC structure.

Keywords- Mivan technology, conventional RCC, ETABS, base shear, storey displacement, storey drift, aluminium formwork, IS 1893:2016, limit state method.