International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.8, pp : 672-675

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 August 2016

Comparative Analysis of MIVAN Formwork Building and Conventional

Formwork Building Based on Cost and Duration
1

Danish Sadruddin Ansari, 2 Pratik Sudhakar Kudale

B.E, Department of Civil Engineering ,Pad. Dr D.Y Patil Institute of Engineering, Management and Research University of Pune. Akurdi- INDIA.
1
[email protected] , 2 [email protected]
Abstract :The project involves detailed cost estimation and
duration analysis of a building constructed by MIVAN formwork and
Conventional formwork. The buildings are of G+21 floors where the
saleable area of building with Mivan formwork is 8747.28 S.ft and
that with Conventional Method is 9786.67 Sft on each floor with 3.0 m
as the height of each floor. Later comparative analysis is done on cost
and duration of both the buildings.

Keywords: MIVAN formwork, Conventional formwork, Detailed

estimation, Duration, Comparison.

I.

The progress made by the construction industry of any country

could be considered as the index of development of that country.
While there has been a progressive rise in stock of housing in
India since independence, the speed thereof has not kept pace
with the rapid growth of population and urbanization. As a
result, the shortage of accommodation is increasing continuously
and the situation has become acute in urban areas. The severity
of the problem is critical especially in the metropolitan area and
a classic example is Mumbai, the housing shortage is as high as
50 percent as against national average of 20 percent.
For undertaking mass housing works, it is necessary to have
innovative technologies which are capable of fast rate
construction and are able to deliver good quality and durable
structure in cost effective manner.
One such technology is the MIVAN Technology!
The Mivan Technology was developed by Mivan Company Ltd
from Malaysia in late 1990s as a system for constructing mass
housing project in developing countries. The units were to be of
cast-in-place concrete, with load bearing walls using a formwork
of aluminum panels. To be erected by the hundreds, of a
repetitive design, the system ensured a fast and economical
method of construction. The concrete surface finish produced
with the aluminum forms allows achievement of a high quality
wall finish without the need for extensive plastering. This is one
of the systems identified to be very much suitable for Indian
conditions for mass construction, where quality and speed can be
achieved at high level. The speed of construction by this system
will surpass speed of most of the other construction
methods/technologies.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the Quantities of material required for

construction of building by both MIVAN formwork and
Conventional formwork.
To determine Time required for completion of the
building by both the above methods.

IJER@2016

III.

INTRODUCTION

II.

To compare the cost of buildings based on the cost of

materials required in each of them.
To compare the time required for construction of
buildings considering the other influencing factors.
To carry out comparative analysis between the two
methods of construction and define suitable difference
between them.
To describe Advantages and Limitations of the methods
under comparison based on comparative analysis.
METHODOLOGY

The methodology adopted includes collecting the data from

sites and site visits, interviews, questionnaires to Project
manager, Site engineers and workers, literature reviews, case
studies, internet, books etc.
As the above work is based on a live project the Architectural
plans and the Structural drawings for both the buildings have
been obtained from the engineers in charge at the site.
The estimate of materials has been calculated by using the
principles/method of Quantity estimation which can be stated as:
A. Cubic contents method
Cubic Contents Method is used to find the volume of the work.
In this method the LENGTH, WIDTH and DEPTH of the
elements is multiplied to obtain the quantity of that element. In
case of plastering and other surface works the surface area is
found by multiplying the length with the width.
The rate/unit of the work is then multiplied with the quantity of
the work to get the amount required to do the work. The rates in
this project have been consulted by the engineers from purchase
department. However it is also available in the latest DSR
(DISTRICT SCHEDULE RATES)
B. BAR BENDING SCHEDULE FORMULA (BBS FORMULA)
The BBS Formula is used to calculate the quantity of steel in the
elements, by the following procedure:
Find Length of Reinforcement Bar
used in the Element.

Add Development length and

bending length of the bar to get the Total length of the
bar.

Obtain the Number of bars required

in that element by dividing the Length or Width of that
element with the Spacing.

Obtain the total length of the bar by

multiplying the Total length of single bar with the
number of bars required.

doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s8/807

Page 672

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.8, pp : 672-675

Now find the weight per/unit of the

reinforcing bar of a particular diameter by following
formula- d^2/162, where d=diameter of the bar.
Finally multiply the weight per/unit
of that bar with the total length of the bar which gives
the total weight of reinforcement in that element.
IV.

2.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Estimation Results of MIVAN formwork building(MYSTIC)

1. Estimate of Materials

Estimate of Time for one floor of area 8747.28 S.ft (6

flats)
ACTIVITY

PROBLEM STATEMENT

This study is done for a live project currently under construction

at Hinjewadi phase-3, by PEGASUS PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.
The details of the two buildings are as follows:
A. MEGAPOLIS-MYSTIC( constructed with MIVAN formwork)
1.
Saleable area (total)- 183,693 S.ft
2.
No of floors- 21F
3.
Floor to floor height- 3.0 m
B. SPLENDOUR HOMES (constructed with conventional
formwork)
1.
Saleable area (total)- 205,520 S.ft
2.
No of floors- 21F
3.
Floor to floor height- 3.0 m
Detailed estimate for following items of work in Substructure
and Superstructure is calculated:
a- R.C.C work
b- Shuttering work
c- Steel
d- Block-work (200mm, 150mm, 100mm)
e- Fly Ash (200mm, 150mm, 100mm)
f- Plastering work (Gypsum, single coat, external)
g- Painting work (Internal, external)
V.

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 August 2016

18

Steel Reinforcement

18

Concel electrification & plumbing

Allignment checking

Buffer time

Concrete placing

Removal of Vertical formwork

Removal of Other formwork

14

Lifting of wall panels

Gypsum plastering & painting etc

30

TOTAL

98

Note: In the above table, Vertical formwork refers to walls,

columns & vertical sides of beams and, other formwork
refers to Slabs, beam soffits & props to slabs etc.
3.

Concluding results
a.
b.
c.
d.

TOTAL COST= RS 212766937.00

COST PER SQ,FT= RS 1,160.00
DURATION PER FLOOR=98 DAYS
TOTAL DURATION FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE=
2058 DAYS i.e 5.6 yrs.

B. Estimation results of Conventional formwork building

(SPLENDOUR HOMES)
1. Estimate of Materials
SR.NO

SR.NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ITEM OF WORK
SUBSTRUCTURE
R.C.C WORK
SHUTTERING
STEEL
BLOCK WORK
FLY ASH
PLASTERING
PAINTING
SUPERSTRUCTURE
R.C.C
SHUTTERING
STEEL
BLOCK'S
FLY ASH
PLASTERING
PAINTING
MISCELLINEOUS
TOTAL

AMOUNT (Rs)
21336104
6928220
3593984
9252880
640985
N.A
640035
280000
191430834
55874335
52273020
51089116
N.A
N.A
16915308
10118000
5161055
212766937

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

2.

IJER@2016

NO OF DAYS

All Shuttering

ITEM OF WORK
SUBSTRUCTURE
R.C.C WORK
SHUTTERING
STEEL
BLOCK WORK
FLY ASH
PLASTERING
PAINTING
SUPERSTRUCTURE
R.C.C
SHUTTERING
STEEL
BLOCK'S
FLY ASH
PLASTERING
PAINTING
MISCELLINEOUS
TOTAL

AMOUNT
17346624
5313634
3517673
5685030
N.A
1112460
1252461
465365
140379565
27602195
29476823
34354825
20500941
327055
24215831
3871894
30000
157726188

Estimate of Time for one floor of area 9786.67 S.ft (12

flats)

doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s8/807

Page 673

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.8, pp : 672-675

ACTIVITY

NO OF DAYS

Column shuttering

12

Column steel-reinforcement

12

Buffer

Beam & slab shuttering

15

Beam & slab steel placing

12

Levelling

Concrete placing

Removal of formwork

15

Brickwork

30

Plastering

30

Finishing

30
TOTAL

3.

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 August 2016

On Y- axis: Time in yrs

167

Concluding results
a.
b.
c.
d.

TOTAL COST= RS 157726188.00

COST PER SQ,FT= RS 768.00
DURATION PER FLOOR=167 DAYS
TOTAL DURATION FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE=
3507 DAYS or (2592 DAYS i.e 7.1 yrs)

Note: Here, according to 167 days per floor total number of days
is 3507 for 21 floors. But, practically on site many activities are
carried simultaneously so the time is reduced by a certain factor
based on experience. Thus, 2592 Days.
VI.

RESUT COMPARISON

A. Comparison of Cost and Duration.

From analysis of cost and duration for both the formworks the
results of V- A & B can be compared graphically as:

On Y- axis: Rs in Cr.

IJER@2016

On Y- axis: Rs in thousand.
Note: The comparison is based on per Sq.ft as the Saleable/floor
area is different in both the cases. Also for comparison of time it
is assumed that the number of workers and working hours on
both the sites is constant.
B. General comparison.
1. Advantages of Mivan formwork over conventional
construction.
a. More seismic resistance- The box type construction
provides more seismic resistance to the structure.
b. Increased durability- The durability of a complete
concrete structure is more than conventional brick bat
masonry.
c. Higher carpet area- Due to shear walls the walls are thin
thus increasing carpet area.
d. Faster completion Unsurpassed construction speed can
be achieved due to light weight of forms.
e. Simplified foundation design due to consistent load
distribution.
2. Limitations of Mivan.
a. Because of small sizes finishing lines are seen on the
concrete surfaces.
b. Concealed services become difficult due to small
thickness of components.
c. It requires uniform planning as well as uniform
elevations to be cost effective.

doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s8/807

Page 674

International Journal of Engineering Research

Volume No.5, Issue No.8, pp : 672-675
d. Modifications are not possible as all members are caste
in RCC.
e. Large volume of work is necessary to be cost effective i.e.
at least 200 repetitions of the forms should be possible at
work.
f. The formwork requires number of spacer, wall ties etc.
which are placed @ 2 feet c/c; these create problems such as
seepage, leakages during monsoon.
g. Due to box-type construction shrinkage cracks are likely
to appear.
h. Heat of Hydration is high due to shear walls.
VII. CONCLUSION
From the above case study following conclusions can be made:1. Cost of construction with MIVAN formwork increases
by almost 25-30 % as compared to the conventional
method.
2. Cost of construction per.Sq.ft in MIVAN is as high as
33 % as compared to the Conventional Method.
3. The difference in per.Sq.ft cost of construction
increases by almost 392 Rs/Sq.ft in MIVAN.
4. Duration of Construction in MIVAN is less than
Conventional Method by almost 25 % and 534 days i.e
1.5 yrs.
Thus from the above points it is quite clear that construction by
MIVAN formwork is quite expensive than the Conventional
Method. However it can save considerable amount of time in
construction of high rise building. Also, many of the finishing
works is saved in Mivan which includes plastering (both internal
and external), brickwork etc.
Monolithic casting of the members at one pour saves time and
increases strength and durability and also makes it seismic
resistant.

IJER@2016

ISSN:2319-6890)(online),2347-5013(print)
1 August 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to acknowledge and thank our project guides
Mr. Ram Kadam Sir (H.R), Mr. Atul Joshi, Mr. Sandeep Hirve
(P.M) and Mr. Sameer Pathak from PEGASUS PROPERTIES
PVT.LTD - MEGAPOLIS, Hinjewadi. for sharing and providing
us with all the necessary data and site visits required for
completing the case study without which it would have been
difficult for us to complete the Study.
REFERENCES
i. Emerging Trends in Formwork - Cost Analysis &
Effectiveness of Mivan Formwork over the Conventional Formwork IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)
ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 27-30 www.iosrjournals.org
ii. Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in
Engineering (SICETE)
Dr.J.J.Magdum College of
Engineering, Jaysingpur
iii. "Emerging Trends In Formwork And Scaffolding", CE & CR,
Sep 92.
iv. Comparative analysis on cost and duration of MIVAN
formwork building and Conventional Formwork building International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing
and Communication-ISSN: 2321-8169 Volume: 3 Issue: 12
v. 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
vi. "Emerging Trends In Formwork And Scaffolding", CE & CR,
Sep 92, Pg.46-49.
vii. Formwork & Scaffolding, CE & CR, September 1992, Vol.
05, No. 9, Pg. 4 6-57.
viii. Mivan technology- novateur publications international
journal of innovations in engineering research and technology [ijiert]
issn: 2394-3696 volume 2, issue 3 march2015.
ix. Mivan Technology- International Journal of Engineering and
Technical Research (IJETR) ISSN: 2321-0869, Volume-3, Issue-6, June
2015.
x. Emerging Trends in Formwork - Cost Analysis &
Effectiveness of Mivan Formwork over the Conventional Formwork
IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)
ISSN: 2278-1684

doi : 10.17950/ijer/v5s8/807

Page 675