DOI:10.23883/IJRTER.2018.4266.JHJOC 502

Conventional formwork & mivan formwork structure –

A comparative study &analysis

Kavita Patgar1, Dr. Srinath Shetty K2 1,2 Department of Civil Engineering, NMAMIT Nitte

Abstract— The project is done on a residential building to observe which type of structure gives

better resistance to seismic effect. Residential building of 15 storey is modelled in 3 types such as

conventional type, monolithic structure with openings, and unreinforced masonry infill wall structure

using ETABS. ETABS is powerful software tool used for building analysis and design with easy step

and accurate solution. Parameter like base shear, displacement, storey drift, time period and concrete

quantity is found and compered with these building models. Analysis is done through response

spectrum method.

Keywords— Mivan building; Unreinforced masonry infill wall structure; Response spectrum

analysis; Base shear; Displacement; Storey drift; Time period.

I. INTRODUCTION Construction is one of the noteworthy phase of Indian financial system. It is likewise a crucial part of

development. At present India is second largest populated country in the world when compared in

terms of city population. These improvement ends in amplified call for housing. To conquer from

these problem India has to plan for acquirement of land and fast advent of housing unit at greater

quantity. There is rising awareness these days that the velocity of construction need to be set advanced

significance especially for large housing projects. This crucial for the sooner business of device

investments. It is necessary to reduce the housing cost to acquire the national objective of creating a

large standards. Positive innovative technologies imparting faster production are available for example

prefabrication, tunnel work and aluminum for work of construction and so forth.

In the year 1990’s mivan was developed, at Malaysia. For the construction of mass project

using repetitive formwork in the cost effective manner it was born. When look into worldwide, the

mivan technology used lesser in India compared with other countries. Mivan gives more productivity,

maintenance, quality when used with good materials and proper machineries. Here the formwork is

made by aluminium which gives smooth finished surface, and faster construction because here slab,

column beams are casted monolithically. The technique is very simple and unskilled labours also

adopt this technique very quickly. These aluminium formworks are very light and can repeat up to 250

times.

Infill wall is a 3D framed structure used as supported wall to increase the lateral stability of the

structure. It can be used for architectural purpose also. From past earthquake records shows that use of

infill wall results in good stability. When compared to average intensity of earthquake, RC frame

structure with bracing system have proven better performance despite the fact most of the structure

have not been designed and detailed for Seismic response. In the present work, speedy and low cost

restoration was found to retrain these structures that are beneath excessive chance of earthquake

destruction. Without relocating the people the structure can be substantiated. Each width of the

bracing should be calculated as IS 1893 -2016(part 1).

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 503

II. RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

It is the plot of peak or steady state response of series of oscillation of varying natural frequency that

are found into motion by vibration. In the absence of time history analysis we can compute response

of the building using this method. It gives the prediction of displacement and member force in

structural system.

III.METHODOLGY

A multistoried building of 15 floors residential plan is selected for the project and three different

models such as conventional system, RC structural wall, and unreinforced infill masonry wall are

modeled using ETABS. Using various load condition analysis is done. Earthquake load calculation is

done as per IS 1893 (2016). Zone considered is V. Each floor height is 3m. Figure 3.1 shows the

typical floor plan. Modelling of typical structure is explained in flow chart shown in figure 3.2

Figure 3.1Plan of the structure

Figure 3.2 Flowchart of modelling of conventional structure

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 504

Figure 3.3 Conventional structure analysis Figure 3.4 Mivan structure analysis

Figure 3.5 Unreinforced infill wall masonry structure analysis

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Response spectrum analysis is done for each model to observe the behavior of structure under

different loading condition. Obtained results are compared in following tabular form. The parameter

like Base shear, Displacement, Storey drift and time period are in different floors are obtained and

compared.

4.1 Base shear- It’s the total sum of all load expected at the base.

Table 4.1 Base shear

BASE SHEAR

CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL

WALL

4300.81 2057.27 3621.79

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 505

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

CONVENTIONAL

INFILL WALL

CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL

Series1 4300.81 2057.27 3621.79

BASE SHEAR - RESPONSE SPECTRUM

ANALYSIS

Figure 4.1 Bar chart for Base shear

4.2 Displacement – It’s the total displacement of the storey with respect to ground and it occurs at the

center of diaphragm.

Table 4.2 Displacement

DISPLACEMENT –SPECX

STOREY CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL

16 99.8 3.6 48.8

15 98.8 3.4 47.6

14 96.9 3.2 46.4

13 93.9 2.9 45.1

12 89.7 2.7 43.7

11 84.4 2.4 42.2

10 78.1 2.1 40.7

9 71.7 1.9 37.8

8 64.7 1.6 34.2

7 57.0 1.3 30.3

6 48.7 1.1 26.1

5 39.9 0.8 21.6

4 31.2 0.6 17.1

3 22.1 0.4 12.4

2 12.9 0.2 7.5

1 4.6 0.1 2.8

0 0.0 0.0 0.0

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 506

0

5

10

15

20

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0

ST

OR

EY

DISPLACEMENT (mm)

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

CONVENTIONAL

MIVAN

INFILL WALL

Figure 4.2 Bar chart for displacement

4.3 Storey drift – It’s the ratio of consecutive floor displacement to the height of that floor.

Table 4.3 Storey drift

STORY DRIFT -SPECX

STOREY CONVENTIONAL MIVAN INFILL WALL

16 0.000396 0.000075 0.000464

15 0.00076 0.000087 0.000467

14 0.001348 0.000085 0.000525

13 0.001874 0.000088 0.000582

12 0.002255 0.00009 0.000613

11 0.002542 0.000092 0.000604

10 0.002484 0.000092 0.001175

9 0.002652 0.000092 0.001387

8 0.002816 0.000091 0.001472

7 0.002965 0.000088 0.001533

6 0.003085 0.000084 0.001594

5 0.002987 0.000077 0.001566

4 0.003058 0.000069 0.001621

3 0.003068 0.000059 0.001659

2 0.00279 0.000045 0.00158

1 0.001527 0.000024 0.000945

0 0 0 0

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 507

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

ST

OR

EY

DRIFT (mm)

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

CONVENTIONAL

MIVAN

INFILL WALL

Figure 4.3 Bar chart for storey drift

4.4 Time period – Time taken to complete one oscillation.

Table 4.4 Time period

TIME PERIOD

MODE CONVENTIONAL MIVAN

INFILL

WALL

1 2.44 0.47 1.91

2 2.44 0.43 1.91

3 2.39 0.25 1.81

4 0.82 0.13 0.63

5 0.81 0.11 0.59

6 0.80 0.08 0.57

7 0.47 0.06 0.36

8 0.46 0.06 0.34

9 0.46 0.04 0.33

10 0.32 0.04 0.25

11 0.31 0.04 0.24

12 0.31 0.04 0.23

International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER) Volume 04, Issue 04; April- 2018 [ISSN: 2455-1457]

@IJRTER-2018, All Rights Reserved 508

0

1

2

3

0 5 10 15TIM

E P

ER

IOD

MODE SHAPE

RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS

CONVENTIONAL

MIVAN

INFILL WALL

Figure 4.4 Bar chart for time period

V. CONCLUSION

Base shear of a mivan structure reduces by 51.7 % as compared with conventional structure. In

case of unreinforced infill masonry wall it reduces by 15.6 %

The displacement reduces by 97 % in mivan and reduces by 52.3 % in infill wall structure when

compared with conventional structure

Storey drift reduces by 87% in mivan and it reduces by 42% in infill wall structure as comparing

with conventional structure

Time period reduced by 80% in mivan and it reduces by 21% in infill wall building when

compared to conventional building

REFERENCE I. N.B.Baraskar and U.R.Kawade, “Structural performance of RC structural wall system over conventional beam

column system in G+15 storey building”, 2015, international journal of research general science, Vol. 3, Issue 4.

II. Sajeet.S.B and Supreeth S Gowda, “Earthquake response of different shape of mivan wall tall building”, 2015,

eISSN: 2319-1163, Vol. 4, Issue 10.

III. K.G.Patwari and L.G Kalurkar, “Comparative study of RC flat slab & shear wall with conventional framed

structure in high rise building”, 2015, international journal of engineering research, Vol. 5, Issue: special 3, pp:

612-616.

IV. Haaris M. Mal and Umang Parekh, “Comparative study of conventional structure with monolithic structure”,

2016, international journal of science and research, Vol. 5, issue 5.