All You Need To Know About Mivan Technology

If building affordable homes in a considerably shorter span of time is what India’s attempts to do, it must adopt newer technologies that would empower it to meet ambitious targets such as Housing For All by 2020. The problem, however, is that the country has yet to open itself up to new ideas. Developers are of the view that the prime reason behind this is the homebuyers’ mindset.   

The Mivan technology of building, for instance, is widely popular in Europe, the Gulf and other parts of Asia. In India, however, this aluminium formwork technology that strikes a balance between quality and quantity has yet to gain traction.

Anand Narayan, former COO, Purvankara, says that developers must start adopting new technologies as well as explain the idea behind it to homebuyers. Buyers, too, have to take a leap of faith and accept the change. The onus of informing about the benefits of use of an alternative building material or technology lies on the builder. Purvankara is one of the few companies that adopted Mivan and aluminium formwork since 2003. 

According to Bengaluru-based broker, KR Satish, the Mivan technology does have takers.  “Homebuyers need to be explained that Mivan can assure durability – the walls, beams and columns are stronger because the technology uses 70 per cent more steel. Moreover, it reduces time and effort for job completion by 20 per cent. All of these can help rationalise selling price as well,” adds Satish.

 

Saving time and money with Mivan technology  

In a research publication titled, Comparative analysis on cost and duration of MIVAN formwork building and Conventional Formwork building, Bangalore-based broker Ganar AS takes Pride Group’s Pride World City, a G+12 structure in Dhanori, Pune, as the case study. He explains that the cost and time taken to complete the project is significantly lower when opting for the Mivan technology as opposed to the traditional way.  

For a Mivan formwork building, excavation on the site took 38 days while RCC took another 400 days. For the same structure, a traditional construction set up would use 37 days for excavation, 348 days of RCC work, 150 days of bricks work, 135 days for internal plaster, another 120 days for ceiling POP, 90 days for external plaster — almost double the time.

 

Merits and demerits of Mivan technology

Merits	Demerits
Cost effective	Cost can come down only if the work is in bulk
Faster pace of construction	Heat of hydration is high owing to shear walls (can be controlled by using fly ash)
Can use unskilled labour	Uniform planning required
Minimum wastage	Modifications cannot be made
Supreme finish	Concrete structure may show some marks (can be controlled by strips)
Can be customised to suit project requirements	May cause some leakage and seepage during monsoons
Seismic resistant