International Journal of Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering

& Science (IJTIMES),(UGC APPROVED)

Impact Factor: 5.22 (SJIF-2017),e-ISSN:2455-2585
Research Symposium on
“Advancements in Engineering, Science, Management, and Technology”
Volume 5, Special Issue 04, April-2019.

Comparative analysis of Mivan Formwork and Precast Method of Construction in

Residential building of Noida Region

Pawan Kumar Bhati1 and Satyaprakash2*

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharda University, Greater Noida, UP,
*2
Department of Civil Engineering, Sharda University, Greater Noida, UP

Abstract: This Paper givesa comparative overview of Mivan Formwork and Precast method of construction in
residential buildings. This helps in identifying themain aspects of both methods and possible reasons for affecting the
selection of any method. These new technologies are analyses on various parameters like cost,time,labour etc.

Keywords- Mivan formwork, Precast Method, Cost-effectiveness, End Product and Residential buildings

I. INTRODUCTION

There are many studies showing a shortage of house in India and mainly in U.P.As a neighbouring part of Delhi, Noida has
more possibilities for developing these required houses at a high-speed rate. As it is known that India is a developing
country where the adoption of technology is changing day by day, the same is also true for the construction industry[1-3].
Thus it is necessary also for a change oftechnology in the construction industry from the old traditional conventional
formwork system, which is very time and labour consuming style of work [4].
There are two most commonly adopted formwork system over the conventional method, viz., Mivan Formwork and
Precast Method. The two advanced technology came tothe Noida region only in the past few years and is growing day by
day.

Mivan Formwork was developed in Malaysia and adopted in India rapidly in past few years. It is widely adopted by the
builders in Noida region because the end product from the conventional system is not up to mark and customers are un-
satisfied as the building starts needing maintenance work within one or two years [5-7]. Apart from this, Mivan has many
benefits in terms of Cost, Time and Quality of Project. In this formwork system Column, Wall and Slab concreting is done
in one go and is alsocalled as “Monolithic Casting”. Thesame formwork can be re-used for around 250 repetitions which
makes it cost saving formwork.

Precast method, on the other hand, is also an alternative to both Mivan and Conventional but not popularfor residential
construction, until now in Noida.Both Mivan and conventional methods are labour dependent and intensive and may cause
a delay in a project. This can be avoided using Precast as it is more machine dependent. In this method, structural elements
like shear walls and hollow core slabs are cast in a factory under the supervision of skilled persons [8]. After achieving
required strength they are transported to the site and erection of panels are done using tower crane and minimum
manpower is required to complete the job [9-10].

The use of Precast in the residential sector is very low in the Noida region compared to Mivan. It has great potential
especially as per current needs.

An attempt has been made in the current paper to compare the two methods for a residential building construction on the
basis of cost, time, manpower usage and end product result, customer satisfaction and limitations.

Organized By: School of Engineering & Technology, Sharda University 11

 International Journal of Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science (IJTIMES)
“Research Symposium on Advancements in Engineering, Science, Management, and Technology
Volume 5, Special Issue 04, April-2019
I. METHODOLOGY
The methodology adopted here is the collection of data from the site through visits and getting thequestionnaire filled,
discussion with the managers and workers at the site, literature review and existing case studies. Also, some customer
satisfaction data were collected from the end-users. The data was mainly collected with respect to individual builders and
not as per different sites of the same builders because there is a very little variation in the process and other factors. One
site of pre-cast has been considered, due to non-availability of the site there are several upcoming projects whose data is
not available for analysis, till the time of the study. In the case of Mivanformwork, there are many builders who are
working on the technology, but only one has been considered, due to very little variation in rates, for analysis purposes.
II. OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of the study were to compare the Mivan formwork and pre-cast method on the basis of,
1. Cost Effectiveness
2. Time
3. Manpower Usage
4. End Product Result and Satisfaction
5. Limitations
Data was collected from one residential tower of each of the buildings and the collected data has been tabulated in the
below tables, Mainly For Precast Supertech Golf Village and in Mivan avg. data sheet prepared from the projects of
builders like Gaur City project Yamuna Expressway, Migsun Wynn Project and Mahagun Manorial.
Cost Effectiveness
TABLE 1: Cost comparison of Pre-Cast construction and Mivan formwork

S.no Description Precast Mivan

1 Building Types Residential Residential
2 Floor B+2P+20 B+P+25
3 Total Construction Area (SqFt) 185263.5 238625
4 Total Construction Cost (Rs) 17.69 Cr 18.86 Cr
5 Per SqFt Cost 955 Rs/Sqft 790 Rs/Sqft

Cost Comparision Precast Vs Mivan

1200
Price in Rs. per sq ft

1000
800
600
400
200
0
Precast Mivan
Method used

Fig. 1 Graph showingper sqft structure cost difference between Mivan and Precast.

Organized By: School of Engineering & Technology, Sharda University 12

 International Journal of Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science (IJTIMES)
“Research Symposium on Advancements in Engineering, Science, Management, and Technology
Volume 5, Special Issue 04, April-2019
Time
TABLE 2: Time taken tocomplete the work

S.no Description Precast Mivan

1 Floor Cycle above Cast-In Situ 7 days per Floor 12 days per Floor

This table is shown for one-floor construction, Precast take avg. 7 days whereas mivan takes avg 12 days. For 20 storey
building make a difference of 100 days or 3 months.

Manpower Usage
TABLE 3: Manpower required for both type of work

S.no Description Precast Mivan

1 Skilled (nos) 04 21

2 Unskilled (nos)
04 25

This table helps in understanding the usage of the type of manpower required to complete a task. This shows that in Precast
mainly skilled manpower used and also numbers are less overall as compared to Mivan. So Precast is less manpower
dependent than Mivan. This data is to complete a one-floor cycle Per day activity.

End Product Result and Satisfaction

A satisfaction survey was conducted with many home buyers, some of whomwere already residing in the houses
constructed using Mivan form.
However, due to lack of delivered project of Precast in high rise residential society, especially in the Noida region, the
authors were not able toget any data but while discussion, it came to that they are aware of technology and seems
interested.
Due to a good finish and more strength, buyers are now moving from conventional formwork to these two types of
technology as they are produced less wastage and fast delivery with good strength.
After talking to many buyers one question was raised by the buyers about precast that will it sustain during an earthquake,
as it is not monolithic construction but panels are brought from manufacturing and assembled at site. How long this
assembling of panel stays and how much safer it is to live in a house made-up of precast elements? Since there are very
few projectsbeing constructed using this technology, and lack of knowledge and awareness about the technology, raises a
question in the buyer's mind but it plays a very small role and after discussion with the project team, the doubts are cleared.
However, low maintenance cost as compared to the conventional form of construction is one of the benefits, which end-
users are looking at.

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

From the analysis of collected data, it has been observed that the construction cost of Precast is higher as compare to
Mivan formwork. When the quality, speed and durability of the structure is almost the same for both the methods, the only
cost makes the difference for selection of which type of method is to be adopted for construction.

Then Mivan is to be adopted and it is used more commonly due to cost factor as per the results of current regions and
situations.

Organized By: School of Engineering & Technology, Sharda University 13

 International Journal of Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science (IJTIMES)
“Research Symposium on Advancements in Engineering, Science, Management, and Technology
Volume 5, Special Issue 04, April-2019

The Precast technology can be boosted up if manufacturing units are set up near or inside the project site, which results in
the cost reduction in the transportation of panels. Also if rates are revised and make it reasonable then construction cost of
precast will be reduced and might be the same as Mivan.If it is done then precast is much better than Mivan because of
high accuracy, speed and less manpower dependent.
Precast is also sustainable because it creates less noise pollution, minimum waste generation and less water requirement as
compared to Mivan formwork.

Limitations
Mivan Limitations
1. The Aluminium formwork is expensive and can only be cost-effective if used for symmetrical structures.
2. Difficult in modification to existing structure due to RCC Walls and cost escalates, if changes are requested.
3. Since the size of the wall is small, it is difficult to work for laying the electrical and plumbing conduting.
4. May not be used for small projects which have fewer floors, as it would increase the cost.

Precast Limitations
1. Most of the work is machine dependent which increases the cost.
2. Materials are transported from the factory to site cause damages to corners and panels.
3. Transportation cost is high
4. Panels are heavy weighted.
5. The higher cost is incurred in factory installation.

IV. CONCLUSION

From the results, it is concluded that till now in this region for residential building construction Mivan is suitable for
adoption.
Also, Mivan is widely adopted by many builders which signifies its importance and value for money product. Due to less
construction cost, maintenance cost and speedy work it put ahead of Precast method at this stage.

V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thanks the projects persons of the respective site who provide necessary data and give time for discussion
and visits required for completing the research. It will be difficult to reach to any conclusion without their supports.

VI. REFERENCES

[1] Swapnali M. Karke1, M.B. Kumathekar “Comparison of the use of Traditional and Modern Formwork Systems.” Civil
Engineering Systems and Sustainable Innovations ISBN: 97893-83083-78-7
[2] PatilDhanashriSuryakant , Desai D B “Emerging Trends in Formwork - Cost Analysis & Effectiveness of Mivan
Formwork over the Conventional Formwork.” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN:
22781684, PP: 27-30
[3] NuzulAzamHaron, SalihuddinHassim, Mohd. RazaliAbd.Kadir and MohdSalehJaafar “Building CostComparison
Between Conventional And Formwork System” JurnalTeknologi, 43(B) Dis. 2005: 1-11
[4] Ben Moselle” National Building Cost Manual” Craftsman Book Company 6058 Corte delCedro, Carlsbad, CA 92011
[5] NuzulAzamHaron, MohdSyazwanand Md. Rahim “Construction Cost Comparison Between Conventional and
Formwork System for Condominium Project” IJASCSE, Volume 2, Issue 5, 2013.

Organized By: School of Engineering & Technology, Sharda University 14

 International Journal of Technical Innovation in Modern Engineering & Science (IJTIMES)
“Research Symposium on Advancements in Engineering, Science, Management, and Technology
Volume 5, Special Issue 04, April-2019
[6] D.M Wijesekara, Cost Effective and speedy construction for High Rise Buildings in Sri Lanka using Aluminium Panel
System Forworks 2012
[7]K.Loganathan, K.E Viswanathan, A study Report on Cost, Duration and Quality analysis in Different Formworks in
High Rise Buildings 2016
[8] Shankar Bimal Banerjee, PawanDilipBarhate, VipulPradipJaiswal, Mivan Technology 2015
[9] NuzulAzamHaron, RazaliAbd. Kadir and MohdSalehJaafarBuilding, Cost comparison between conventional and
Formwork system: A case study of four-storey school building in Malaysia 2005
[10] HemendrasinhChauhan, Dr K B. Parikh, Comparision and Effectiveness of Mivan Formwork over the conventional
Forwork 2017

Organized By: School of Engineering & Technology, Sharda University 15