Abstract: - In recent years, the construction industry has seen rapid growth due to increasing population and demand for housing, especially in urban areas. Conventional Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) framed structures have been widely used for many years, but they involve longer construction time, higher labour requirement, and complex construction processes. To overcome these challenges, modern construction techniques such as MIVAN technology have been introduced. MIVAN technology uses aluminium formwork and allows monolithic construction of walls and slabs, which improves structural strength, quality, and speed of construction. The present study focuses on the structural performance and seismic response of MIVAN technology and conventional RCC framed structures in high seismic zones using software analysis. A multi-storey building is modelled and analysed using structural software such as STAAD.Pro/ETABS by considering different loading conditions including dead load, live load, and seismic load as per Indian Standard codes. Important parameters such as storey displacement, storey drift, base shear, time period, and stiffness are evaluated and compared for both systems. From the analysis, it is observed that MIVAN structures perform better under seismic conditions due to their monolithic construction and presence of shear walls, which increase stiffness and reduce lateral displacement. The results also show that MIVAN technology provides better load distribution and improved structural stability compared to conventional RCC systems. Although the initial cost of MIVAN is higher, it is more economical for large-scale projects due to faster construction and reduced labour requirement. The study concludes that MIVAN technology is a suitable and efficient alternative to conventional RCC construction for buildings located in high seismic zones, as it provides better safety, durability, and performance under earthquake loading.
Wadibhasme et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: