A Stability Comparison between Mivan and Conventional Structures

Abstract

The rapid urbanization & housing demand in Indian cities have made construction speed, quality, & cost optimization critical for high-rise projects. This project report presents a comparative analysis between Conventional RCC framed structure with brick infill & M?VAN aluminum formwork technology for a G+20 storey building. The study evaluates both methods on key parameters: structural performance, quality of finish & suitability for repetitive high-rise construction. Conventional construction involves RCC beam-column frames with 230mm brick masonry walls, formwork, & internal/external plaster. M?VAN construction uses pre-engineered aluminum formwork panels to cast monolithic RCC shear walls & slabs together in a single pour, eliminating brickwork & plaster. Preliminary findings indicate that M?VAN technology reduces floor cycle time from 15-20 days to 7-10 days, increases carpet area by 5-8% due to thinner 150mm RCC walls, & provides superior dimensional accuracy with reduced seepage issues. However, it demands higher initial investment, complete design freeze before execution & is less flexible for architectural variations. Conventional method offers better thermal insulation, easier mid-way changes & lower setup cost but results in longer project duration & higher finishing costs. The report concludes break-even point for M?VAN investment & recommendations on selection criteria based on project scale, timeline, & design complexity. The study aims to help developers, contractors, & engineers in Tier-2 cities make informed decisions while adopting modern formwork technology for high-rise construction.

Introduction

Mivan formwork is an advanced aluminum formwork system used for rapid, monolithic reinforced concrete (RCC) construction. Developed by Mivan Company Ltd., Malaysia, it replaces traditional timber formwork with lightweight, reusable aluminum panels that enable walls, slabs, beams, and other structural components to be cast together in a single concrete pour. This technology offers faster construction, superior surface finish, reduced labor requirements, improved durability, and better seismic performance. A typical floor can be completed within 7–10 days, making Mivan highly suitable for mass housing and high-rise projects.

The study reviews previous research comparing Mivan and conventional RCC construction, highlighting that although Mivan has a higher initial cost, it significantly reduces construction time, improves quality, and enhances structural performance. Various studies using ETABS software have shown that Mivan structures perform better under seismic loads due to their monolithic shear wall system.

The main objective of the research is to compare the seismic behavior of G+20 Mivan and conventional RCC buildings in seismic Zones II and III. The comparison focuses on parameters such as lateral displacement, storey drift, base shear, stiffness, natural time period, and structural irregularities using ETABS and Response Spectrum Analysis in accordance with IS 1893:2016 and IS 456:2000. The study aims to determine which construction system provides better safety, economy, and seismic efficiency for high-rise buildings

Conclusion

The ETABS analysis comparing G+20 tall buildings utilizing conventional and Mivan models in Zones II and III indicate that Mivan shear-wall buildings experience a significantly greater base shear while simultaneously achieving a notable decrease in top-story displacement relative to conventional frame structures. 1) Transitioning from Zone II to III, results in a precise 60.00% increase in base shear for conventional buildings in both directions, attributed to the elevated zone factors. In contrast, Mivan structures demonstrate a remarkable increase in base shear, with a staggering 348.66% rise in the X-direction solely within Zone II. 2) The introduction of continuous 150 mm RCC walls in Mivan buildings substantially enhances lateral stiffness, leading to a reduction in the fundamental time period and an increase in the seismic force coefficient. Mivan systems effectively manage top-story displacement, achieving a reduction of up to 94.18% in the Y-direction under Zone III conditions when compared to conventional frames. 3) The traditional framework (600x600 mm columns) demonstrates significantly greater flexibility, enabling its 20th-floor displacement to attain 37.248 mm in Zone III (Y-direction). 4) Transitioning from Zone II to III shows a 120.12% increase in the Mivan building\'s X-direction displacement, although the absolute measurement remains comfortably within safe limits at 6.236 mm. The Mivan system exhibits a distinctive 18.80% decrease in Y-displacement when advancing to Zone III, indicating either dynamic load redistribution or a particularly rigid shear wall configuration along that axis. 5) All computed top-story displacements easily comply with the standard code drift limit (H*0.004 = 266.6 mm), thereby ensuring safety across all four variants. 6) Although Mivan technology necessitates more robust foundation designs due to increased base shear, it continues to be the optimal structural choice for high-rise buildings owing to its unmatched drift resistance.

References

[1] Pramod Shinde ‘Review Paper on Feasibility of Mivan Formwork Technology over Conventional Formwork Technology for Construction projects’. [2] Arbaz Kazi; Fauwaz Parkar ‘Comparative study and decision making for a formwork technique to be adopted on a construction site in Mumbai’, ?JRET:- ?SSN: -2319-1163 | ?SSN:- 2321-7308. [3] Sharmila, Aaron Christopher ‘ Effective Selection of Form work for high rise buildings ‘International Journal of Scientific& Engineering Research, April--2o17,Volume7, Issue 4, ?SSN-2229-5518. [4] Arbaz Kazi, Fauwaz Parkar, ‘Comparative study and decision making for a formwork technique to be adopted on a construction site in Mumbai’, ?JRET:- ?SSN:-2319-1163 | ?SSN:-2321-7308. [5] A. Sharmila, A Aaron Christopher, ‘effective selection of form work for high rise buildings ‘International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, , April--2017,Volume7, ?ssue4, ?SSN-2229-5518. [6] P Dinesh; M Soundararajan,’ Analysis of effective selection Of formwork system based on Various factors for Construction projects” [7] Prof RB Bajare; Shubham Deshmukh, Ashwin Mahajan, Roohi Karnataki, ?ndrayani V Patil’. Remedies to the Common Deficiencies Faced in Mivan Technology at Malin Rehabilitation ‘[?OSR—JMCE] Volume 14,e--?SSN:- 2278--1684,p-?SSN:-2320 [8] Rahul bMojidra1, Pinal h.Patel2 Vinu R. Patel, ‘Analysis and design of tall structure using monolithic construction’ [SJ?F] April--2017:-4.72 Volume-4, ?ssue-4. [9] Mivan Company Ltd., ‘Aluminium Formwork System–Technical Brochure,’ 2022. {Online}. Available :https://www.mivan,com [10] Ashok Mandal, ‘Scaffolding & Formwork Maintenance &Safety’, CE &CR, August 200 6,Vol.19,No. 8, Pg.46-50. [11] ‘Mivan Formwork Products’ Products &Services ,MFE Formwork [12] Technologies. Www.mfeformwork.com/Product Servic es/Products-Services/Products-Services, asp Mivan Technology reference paper by Mr. Kushal Patil

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Priya B Baligar, Madhukaran . 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.