Comparative Study of Mivan Technology and Conventional RCC Structures in High Seismic Zones

Abstract

The growing demand for rapid urban development, coupled with the increasing risk of earthquakes in certain regions, has necessitated the adoption of construction technologies that offer both structural safety and speed of execution. This research presents a comparative study between Mivan formwork construction and conventional Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) systems. A G+12 residential building model was developed and analysed under seismic and wind loads using advanced structural analysis software. Key structural parameters such as storey displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear, and natural time period were examined for both construction systems. The findings demonstrate that Mivan structures, due to their monolithic and joint-free construction technique, perform better under lateral forces, showing reduced displacement and drift. Moreover, the speed of construction and labour efficiency in Mivan technology make it a suitable choice for mass housing projects in seismic zones. This study provides valuable insights into the selection of structural systems for safe, efficient, and durable high-rise construction.

Introduction

The construction industry is evolving to address urbanization, safety, speed, and sustainability challenges. In earthquake-prone regions like India, construction systems that offer both seismic resistance and faster, cost-effective execution are increasingly in demand. Two common systems are Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) and Mivan construction technology.

• RCC is a traditional system with separate beams, columns, and slabs plus brick infill walls. It is flexible in design but time-consuming, labor-intensive, and sensitive to workmanship quality.

• Mivan technology uses reusable aluminum formwork for monolithic casting of walls and slabs, originally from Malaysia but popular in India due to faster construction (about 7 days per floor vs. 21-28 for RCC), higher quality control, reduced labor needs, and better seismic performance from its rigid, joint-free structure.

This study models a G+12 residential building in ETABS software, applying Indian seismic and loading standards, to compare the seismic behavior of Mivan and RCC structures. The two systems share identical building dimensions and loads but differ structurally—Mivan uses shear walls with monolithic casting, while RCC uses a beam-column frame with brick infill.

Key findings:

• Mivan construction showed significantly lower storey displacement at the roof level compared to RCC, indicating better resistance to lateral seismic forces.

• Other parameters analyzed included storey drift, base shear, and natural time period, under consistent loading conditions to ensure a fair comparison.

The research aims to identify which system delivers superior performance, safety, and construction efficiency in high seismic zones.

Conclusion

This research presents a structured comparative evaluation of Mivan and conventional RCC construction systems, with focus on their seismic performance in high-rise residential buildings. A G+12 structural model was analyzed under identical seismic and gravity load combinations, allowing for a uniform and unbiased comparison of both technologies. The results indicate that the Mivan system outperforms RCC construction in several key aspects. The monolithic wall-slab configuration and high formwork precision of Mivan structures contribute to: 1) Lower lateral displacements 2) Reduced inter-storey drift 3) Enhanced lateral stiffness 4) A shorter fundamental time period These properties significantly enhance the structural resilience of buildings in high seismic zones. From a construction management standpoint, Mivan technology offers notable advantages in terms of speed, quality, labor efficiency, and long-term cost-effectiveness. Its high repeatability and minimal site variability make it suitable for large-scale housing and infrastructure projects, especially where consistency and rapid execution are critical. Although conventional RCC construction remains widely used due to its design flexibility, it is more vulnerable to seismic deformations and requires more time and labour resources. These limitations can be particularly challenging in post-disaster scenarios or projects with tight deadlines. In conclusion, Mivan technology is a structurally robust, economically viable, and operationally efficient construction method. It is highly recommended for multi-storey developments in seismic Zones III, IV, and V, where performance, safety, and rapid delivery are of paramount importance.

References

[1] P. Agarwal and M. Shrikhande, *Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures*, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2019. [2] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), *IS 1893 (Part 1): Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures – General Provisions and Buildings*, New Delhi, India, 2016. [3] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), *IS 875 (Part 1–3): Code of Practice for Design Loads (Other Than Earthquake) for Buildings and Structures*, New Delhi, India, 1987. [4] A. Sharma and R. Patel, “Comparative Study of Conventional RCC and Mivan Construction in Terms of Cost and Time,” *International Journal of Construction Management*, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 345–359, 2020. [5] S. Patil, K. Jadhav, and P. Kulkarni, “Mivan Formwork: A Revolution in Construction Technology,” *International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)*, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 556–560, 2018. [6] R. Rana, A. Verma, and R. Choudhary, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mivan and RCC Construction Methods,” *International Journal of Civil Engineering Research*, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 98–110, 2020. [7] R. Singh, A. Kumar, and P. Gupta, “Seismic Behaviour and Performance of Mivan Technology Buildings,” *Engineering Structures*, vol. 238, 112221, 2022. [8] P. P. Bansal, S. Singh, and S. K. Kaushik, “Performance Evaluation of Monolithic and Conventional RCC Structures in Seismic Zones,” *Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)*, vol. 147, no. 4, 04021049, 2021. [9] Computers and Structures Inc., *ETABS Ultimate 21.0.1: Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design*, Berkeley, California, USA, 2021.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Anmol hinduja, Tarun Sankle, Mahroof Ahmed. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.