A Systematic Review of Seismic Performance of Monolithic Mivan Construction and Conventional RCC Structures in High Seismic Zone 5

Abstract

India falls within one of the most seismically active regions of the world, with Seismic Zone V representing areas of very high earthquake risk. In such regions, the selection of an appropriate structural system plays a crucial role in ensuring seismic safety, structural reliability, and serviceability. In recent years, Mivan construction technology, which employs monolithic wall–slab construction using aluminium formwork, has gained significant importance in multistorey residential construction. This paper presents a systematic review of existing research studies comparing the seismic performance of Mivan construction and Conventional Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) framed structures in Seismic Zone V conditions. The review focuses on key seismic response parameters reported in the literature, including storey displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear, natural time period, and frequency, which are critical indicators of seismic behaviour and structural safety. The reviewed studies consistently indicate that Mivan structures exhibit lower displacement and drift, reduced base shear demand, and shorter fundamental natural time periods when compared to conventional RCC structures. These trends are primarily attributed to the monolithic wall–slab action and enhanced stiffness characteristics of Mivan systems. The findings highlight the improved seismic resilience and serviceability performance of Mivan construction. Overall, this review establishes that Mivan construction offers superior seismic performance and is a viable and effective solution for multistorey residential buildings located in high seismic risk zones such as Seismic Zone V.

Introduction

The text reviews the seismic performance of Mivan construction technology compared to conventional RCC framed structures, specifically for buildings in Seismic Zone V, which is highly prone to earthquakes. In such high-risk areas, structural safety depends not only on strength but also on stiffness, deformation control, and continuity of load transfer. Conventional RCC frames rely on beam–column joints and frame action, which can result in larger lateral displacements and inter-storey drifts under seismic loading.

Mivan technology, using aluminium formwork to cast monolithic walls and slabs in a single pour, offers continuous wall–slab action, resulting in higher stiffness, better load distribution, and improved resistance to both gravity and seismic forces. Analytical studies comparing the two systems evaluate parameters such as storey displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear, natural time period, and frequency using linear and dynamic analysis per IS 1893 (Part 1):2016.

Findings indicate that Mivan structures consistently show lower lateral displacement, reduced inter-storey drift, and lower base shear compared to conventional RCC buildings. They also have shorter natural time periods and higher frequencies, reflecting greater lateral stiffness and reduced flexibility. The uniform stiffness distribution in Mivan buildings prevents localized deformation and soft-storey formation, enhancing overall seismic resilience.

The review identifies research gaps, including the limited number of studies directly comparing Mivan and RCC in Zone V, inconsistent analysis of dynamic characteristics, and lack of consolidated findings across studies. The study emphasizes the need for a systematic comparative assessment to establish Mivan construction as a suitable, resilient alternative for multistorey residential buildings in high seismic risk areas.

Conclusion

This review paper presented a comparative assessment of Mivan construction technology and Conventional RCC structural systems with specific reference to buildings located in Seismic Zone V. Based on a systematic review of existing literature, the seismic performance of both systems was evaluated using key response parameters such as storey displacement, inter-storey drift, base shear, natural time period, and frequency. The reviewed studies consistently indicate that Mivan construction exhibits superior seismic performance compared to conventional RCC framing. The monolithic wall–slab configuration of Mivan systems results in higher global stiffness, reduced storey displacement, and significantly lower inter-storey drift, particularly at upper storey levels where seismic effects are more pronounced. Furthermore, several researchers have reported lower base shear demand and shorter fundamental natural time periods for Mivan structures, reflecting improved force transfer mechanisms and enhanced resistance to dynamic excitation. The uniform stiffness distribution along the building height helps in controlling seismic response and minimizing damage to both structural and non-structural components. While both structural systems satisfy the Codal requirements prescribed by IS 1893 (Part 1):2016, the reviewed literature clearly establishes that Mivan construction provides a higher margin of safety, improved serviceability, and enhanced seismic resilience. Therefore, based on the findings of existing research studies, Mivan construction is found to be more suitable for multistorey residential buildings in high seismic risk regions, particularly for mass housing and repetitive construction projects in Seismic Zone V.

References

[1] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 1893 (Part 1):2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, New Delhi, India. [2] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice, New Delhi, India. [3] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 875 (Part 1–5), Code of Practice for Design Loads, New Delhi, India. [4] Duggal, S. K., Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Oxford University Press, New Delhi [5] Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons. [6] Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K., “Pros and Cons of a Pushover Analysis of Seismic Performance Evaluation,” Engineering Structures, Elsevier [7] Jain, S. K., “Indian Seismic Codes: Past, Present and Future,” Journal of Structural Engineering, India. [8] Choudhury, J. R., and Das, S., “Seismic Behaviour of RCC Buildings with Shear Walls,” International Journal of Civil Engineering Research. [9] Mohitkar, V. M., and Waghmare, A. P., “Comparative Study of Mivan and Conventional RCC Structures,” International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT). [10] Patil, S. S., and Kumbhar, P. D., “Time Period and Seismic Response of RCC Structures Using ETABS,” International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Anmol Hinduja, Somaya Gangotiya, Kishor Patil. 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.