International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)

ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-5, January 2020

Optimum Shape for High Rise Mivan and

Conventional Structure in Seismic Loading
Anuj Choubey, Savita Maru

Abstract: Generation is living in a time where in approx. 1.8 Mivan shuttering is a Rapid-
million people in India are homeless out of which 52% are based paced construction technique which gives strength and
in town. Now a day’s India is heavy populated city in India total stability to a building by use of aluminum formworks
0.15% of the country's total population is homeless. However Well here brief about the procedure:
despite of the explosion in construction activities, the scenario on
the housing sector remains far from acceptable. The construction
• First the structure is erected by using steel
of structure are more composite due to growing human reinforcement.
enterprise and the construction industry need to respond to the • This reinforcement is surrounded by prefabricated
exceptional challenges presented in front in terms of construction structures for the erection of slabs, walls.
period, economically and durability resulting in affordable
residence opportunities for current generation. There is a
technology which is capable to overcome the problem the
technology is mivan framework technology. Mivan technology is
mainly used to construct the tall structures. In this technology we
used concrete wall instead of masonry wall. The present paper
focuses on the context the use of MIVAN technology for super
high rise building and check the seismic response for different
shapes i.e. Rectangle Shape, C shape, L shape and I shape of
high rise building having irregularity were analyzed by Response
spectrum Method using Etab software.

.Keywords: Rise Building, Mivan technology, Irregularity,

Storey Drift, Lateral Displacement, Seismic load, Etab.

I. INTRODUCTION Fig.1: Placing of prefabricated structures around The

The building technique is rapidly converting for steel reinforcement
advancement. With-changing times, new techniques and the
materials are being used. In current generation due to II. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
advancement, the construction industry has started focusing
on new technology and modern ways of working. The The following are the objectives of present study:
construction industries have started new technologies and  To study of conventional high rise Structure &
proceed towards. In order to increase the Strength and life of Mivan High rise Structure.
the project. A lot of research and development is carried out  To Comparative seismic analysis of different
in the construction industry throughout the world regular and irregular tall Structure from
construction period, necessity, economy, strength and utility conventional & Mivan Methods Results using
of space have become the main factors of the construction
ETAB.
industry. With all these advantages there is a technology
used across globe named as Mivan technology.  Between Conventional and Mivan Structure which
The Mivan Company Ltd. from Malaysia started Structure is useful in Seismic area.
manufacturing formwork systems. There are a number of  Determine Optimum shape which performs better
construction in India that are being constructed with the help in different aspects in various seismic areas.
of the Mivan technology, that has Required less time, less
labor cost, less maintenance cost as well as suitable for the III. METHEDOLOGY
general Indian construction atmosphere.
Using ETAB software, G+10 building models with plan
dimension 35*40 m is been created. We have considered
following shapes for both conventional & Mivan structure.
Manuscript published on January 30, 2020.
* Correspondence Author The following structures shape is to be considered:
Anuj Choubey*, Post Graduating Student Department, Civil
Engineering Ujjain Engineering College, Ujjain M.P. India Id-  Rectangle
[email protected]  C Shape
Savita Maru, Professor of Civil Engineering department Ujjain
Engineering College, Ujjain M.P. India  I Shape
 L Shape
© The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and
Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the
CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/)

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3798 & Sciences Publication
 Optimum Shape for High Rise Mivan and Conventional Structure in Seismic Loading

1. Rectangle Shape

Fig 2.1 Rectangular Shaped Conventional Structure Fig 3.2 C-Shaped Mivan Structure

3. I Shape

Fig 2.2 Rectangular Shaped Mivan Structure

Fig 4.1 I-Shaped Conventional Structure

2. C Shape

Fig 4.2 I-Shaped Mivan Structure

Fig 3.1 C-Shaped Conventional Structure

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3799 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-5, January 2020

4. L Shape 1) Self weight: The self weight of the building is

estimated from IS 875 (I). The Density of concrete is
taken as 25kN/m3. Etab has already self weight
calculator. Floor finish is taken as 2 kN/m2 .

For Normal Structure:

Self weight of Wall is calculated as;
Self weight of Wall = Thickness of wall X wall Height
X Density of the brick = 0.150 x 3 x 22
= 9.9 kN/m
Where;
Thickness of wall is taken as 150 mm and height of wall as
3m. Total density is obtained as sum of the brick density and
plastering density as 22kN/m3.
For Mivan Structure:
Self weight of Mivan Wall;
Self weight of Wall = Thickness of wall X Height of wall X
density of the concrete
= 0.200 x 3 x 24
Fig 5.1 L-Shaped Conventional Structure = 14.4 kN/m

Where;
Thickness of wall is taken as 200 mm and height of wall as
3m. Density of concrete obtained is from IS-875 i.e.
24kN/m3.
2) Seismic Load: Assume that the structure is to be
constructed in Zone-IV as per IS 1893 – 2016. So the zone
factor is taken as per IS-1893 – 2016. Zone factor is 0.24.
Importance factor is taken as 1 as per IS-1893–2016.Soil
category is assume to be IInd.
3) Load Combination:
Design loads and its combination are considered in the
analysis as per provisions in IS code IS 1893{Part I} : 2016,
the following load combination is taken for the analysis of
high rise building is represented below:
1.5 (DL__+LL_)
1.2 (DL__+LL_ +EQ__X)
1.2 (DL__+ LL_ –EQ__X)
Fig 5.1 L-Shaped Mivan Structure 1.2 (DL_+ LL_ +EQ__Y)
1.2 (DL_+ LL_–EQ__Y)
The base storey height of the model is 3.3 m and the
rest storey’s height is 3 m. Analysis has been performed for 1.5 (DL_+EQ__X)
all the structures based on Seismic Zone using Response 1.5 (DL_–EQ__X)
Spectrum method.
Beam size of the conventional building models is 1.5 (DL_+EQ__Y)
400*600 m and the column size is 750*750 m in the entire 1.5 (DL_–EQ__Y)
building with the brick wall thickness 150 mm.
0.9 DL_+1.5EQ__X
In Mivan structure, instead of the beam and column,
concrete walls provided and wall thickness 200 mm has 0.9 DL_–1.5EQ__X
been used for the entire structure. 0.9 DL_+1.5EQ__Y
LOAD INFORMATIONS 0.9 DL_–1.5EQ__Y
Loads applied on the building are Self weight load and
Seismic load. They are Estimate as follows-:

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3800 & Sciences Publication
 Optimum Shape for High Rise Mivan and Conventional Structure in Seismic Loading

(DL_ denotes addition of self weight and floor finish load Above results conclude following points:
and EQ__X/ EQ__Y denotes seismic load in X—dirn and
 From the above Tables in case of conventional
Y—dirn respectively).
structure and Mivan structure, rectangle And in
PARAMETERS OF STRUCTURES irregular structure I shape has less displacement as
S. No. Particulars Model Data
compare to other shapes.
1 No. Of Storey’s 11 (G+10)  Displace values of Concrete wall structure are less
2 Beam Size 400 * 600 mm than that of Masonry Structure.
3 Column Size 750 * 750 mm  Maximum Displace rate of different shapes in
Base storey 3.3 m & 3 m conventional building lies in the range of 40-
4 Storey Height
throughout the rest storey’s
45mm. But in Mivan structure it is reduced to 7-
20mm.
5 Material Property M30  While comparing the maximum storey drift values
of different structures, for rectangle shape building
Slab has the minimum storey drift in both cases.
6 150 mm
Thickness  Storey drift values of Mivan wall buildings are
Concrete Wall much lesser than conventional buildings for all
7 200 mm
Thickness
shapes.
Table 1: Parameters of the Structures  Maximum values of storey drift for all the shapes
S. No. Particulars Model Data
in conventional building lie in between 0.00170-
IV Zone (Z=0.24)
0.0018. But in Mivan it is reduced to 0.000254-
1 Zone Factor
.000628.
2 Seismic Analysis Response Spectrum Analysis
 In the above tables shows that Mivan structure is
3 Soil Type Type II Soil valuable in both parameters i.e. Displacement and
Data Analysis Max. Displacement Value, Storey storey drift
4
Drift Value & Base Shear
Load Pattern Live Load, Self weight,
5
EQx&EQy
6
Software
Selection
ETABs Displacement of
Table 2: Some of the parameters used for the Rectangle Shape
Analysis of building
60
Displacements(mm)

IV. RESULTS 42.51

Results Estimated from the study of conventional high 40
rise structure and mivan high rise structure with different
20 7.8
shapes by using computer software ETABS (ver. 4.0) under
earthquake loading. The Details of Different prepared Conventional
0
software model which include total height, wall type and Mivan
thickness, type of irregularity and shape of building Methods
considered for the analysis.

Shapes Displacement Maximum

(mm) Storey Drift
I Shape displacement
Rectangle 42.519 0.001701
50 43.882
C Shape 45.574 0.001794
Displacements(mm)

L Shape 44.62 0.001772 40

I Shape 43.88 0.001737 30
Table 3: Maximum Displacement & Storey drift for 20
Conventional Building 7.9719
10
Shapes Displacement Max. Storey Drift
(mm) 0 conventional
Rectangle 7.8 0.000254 Methods Mivan
C Shape 19.09 0.000619

L Shape 13.1 0.000419

I Shape 7.17 0.000253

Table 4: Maximum Displacement & Storey drift for
Mivan Building

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3801 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-5, January 2020

C Shape displacement Srorey Drift of C Shape

50 45.574 0.001794
0.002
Displacements(mm)

40
0.0015

Storey Drift
30
19.09 0.001 Conventional
Conventional 0.000619
20
Mivan 0.0005 Mivan
10
0 Method
0
Methods

Srorey Drift of L Shape

L Shape displacement
0.002 0.001772
50 44.62

Storey Drift
0.0015
Displacements(mm)

40
30 0.001 Conventional
13.13 0.000419
20 0.0005 Mivan
10 Conventional
0
0 Mivan
Method
Methods

V. CONCLUSION
Srorey Drift of Rectangle From the analysis of Different high rise structure by
conventional and Mivan method successive conclusions are
Shape obtained:
0.002 0.001701
 All the results i.e. displaced value also maximum
Storey Drift

Drift of Mivan wall buildings are less than

0.001 Conventional conventional building.
0.000254
Mivan  For the Displacement and storey drift Perspective
0 in irregular structure I shape is better than other
Methods
irregular shapes.
 From the outcomes it is conclude that Concrete
wall structure are very efficient in resist the
earthquake forces as compare to Conventional
Srorey Drift of I Shape building.
 Performed seismic analyses by Response spectrum
0.002 0.001737 for different regular and irregular tall conventional
& Mivan structures and conclude that Mivan grow
ssstorey Drift

0.0015 the overall rigidity of the building.

0.001 Conventional REFRENCES
0.0005 0.000253 Mivan 1. Bhanulatha, G. N., Reddy, M. S., & Reddy, D. R. (2017). Dynamic
Behavior of a Mivan Structure with dissimilar Percentage of
0 Openings Comparing Different Earthquake area. ijasre , 07-16.
Methods 2. M S, H., & T, K. (2017). Study of Wind Response on Different
Shapes of Tall Mivan Wall Buildings by Using Gust Factor Method.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET) , 211-222.
3. Modakwar, P. N., Meshram, S. S., & Gawatre, D. W. (2014).
Earthquake study of Structures with irregularity. IOSR-JMCE , 63-66.

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3802 & Sciences Publication
 Optimum Shape for High Rise Mivan and Conventional Structure in Seismic Loading

4. Shukla, V. P., Rote, S. P., & Kamble, M. B. (2018). Comparative

Analysis & Design of Regular & irregular Building & its Behavior at
Different Earthquake Zone by Using Etabs & Rcdc Software. IJTSRD
, 1955-1959.
5. SUTHAR, D., Chore, H., & Dode, P. (2014). HIGH RISE
STRUCTURE SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC FORCES AND ITS
BEHAVIOR. Proceedings of 12th IRF International Conference, (pp.
156-160). Pune.
6. IS 875_ {part 1}2015: Indian Standard code of practice for design
loads for buildings and structures.
7. IS 875_{part 2}2015: Indian Standard code of practice for design
loads for buildings and structures.
8. IS 1893 {Part 1} 2016: IS Criteria for Seismic Resistant Design of
Building part 1 – General Provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian
standards ,New Delhi

AUTHORS PROFILE
Anuj Choubey, Post Graduating student (Computer Added Structural
Design and Drafting) Civil Engineering department Ujjain Engineering
College, Ujjain M.P. India Id- [email protected]
Contact No. 7415065736

Savita Maru, Professor of Civil Engineering department Ujjain

Engineering College, Ujjain M.P. India

Retrieval Number: E6588018520 /2020©BEIESP Published By:

DOI:10.35940/ijrte.E6588.018520 Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Journal Website: www.ijrte.org 3803 & Sciences Publication