Está en la página 1de 1

COMPARISION BETWEEN THREE SYSTEMS

Project : Housing project at sector-106,Gurgaon

S.No.

DISCRIPTION

MIVAN SYSTEM

ALL WALLS ARE RCC

PARTIALLY MIVAN SYSTEM

CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM

MOSTY OUTER WALLS AS RCC


RCC AT SOME LOCATIONS,REST
AND INNER WALL AS INFILL WITH
OF WALLS AS INFILL WALLS
COLUMNS

Carpet area loss

Less
Due to thin wall thickness

Moderate

High

Parking below
tower

Higher parking loss

Less parking loss

No parking loss

Aesthetics

Better (uniform wall thickness)

Average

Not good,(column are visibile in


rooms)

Planning

Higher initial effort required in


terms of capital cost as well as
services planning.

Average

Lesser initial effort required in


terms of capital cost as well as
services planning.

Speed

Fast,The walls and the floor slabs


are casted simultaneously

Quality

Superior quality,
Due to in-situ casting of whole
structure and transverse walls
done in continuous operation.

Average,
Outer shell (elevation part)
precise only internal partition
require more supervision.

Normal quality,
All external and internal
partition walls required more
supervision.

Services

Concealed services become


difficult due to small thickness of
the structural components.

Mostly services through internal


wall so,there is no difficulty.

Easy

Post construction
modifications

Difficult

Internal modification can be done

Can be done

Load on
foundation

Load on foundation higher due to


rcc walls(higher density)

Average load on foundation due


to partially rcc walls

Load on foundation less due to


light weight partition walls.

10

Maintenance

No maintenance required

Less Maintenance required

Higher maintenance required

Medium,Only internal walls shall slow,The partition walls shall be


be done after structure
done after structure