In modern reinforced concrete construction, formwork (also called shuttering) is very important. It not only shapes the building, but also affects how much the project costs, how good the work is, how fast it gets done, and how well it holds up over time. For many years, builders have used traditional systems like timber, plywood, or steel for formwork. But lately, a newer method called Mivan — which uses aluminium formwork — has become more popular, especially when a project has lots of repeating parts.
This article gives a clear comparison between Mivan shuttering and traditional shuttering. It explains how each one works, what its benefits are, what problems there might be, and what you should think about when choosing. The goal is to help everyone involved in a project—owners, contractors, architects—figure out which formwork system fits best for their own building.
What is Mivan Shuttering?
Mivan shuttering, also known as Mivan formwork or aluminium formwork technology, is an advanced construction method that utilises reusable aluminium panels (forms) to cast in situ concrete walls, slabs, beams, and columns with high efficiency and precision. Originating in Malaysia in the 1990s, it has since been adopted in many countries, particularly in Asia, owing to its advantages in quality, speed, and durability.
The name “Mivan” comes from Mivan Company Ltd., which first developed these aluminium formwork systems. “Mivan shuttering” is the term commonly used in India and neighbouring regions for this technology. “Shuttering” refers to the formwork or moulds that shape concrete until it sets.
What is Traditional Shuttering?
Traditional shuttering in construction means the old, usual way of building moulds or boxes to hold wet concrete until it becomes strong. These moulds are often made from wood or materials made from wood, like boards or plywood. The parts are built or put together right there on the construction site, not made ahead in factories like some modern systems.
Key Differences Between Mivan and Traditional Shuttering
The key differences between Mivan and Traditional shuttering are stated below:
- Material: In Mivan shuttering, the material used is consistent and reusable, like aluminium, steel, etc. But in Traditional shuttering, the material used is either single-use or less resistant, like plywood, timber, etc.
- Lifespan of formwork: Mivan shuttering, being resistant and having a long shelf-life, becomes an excellent mark in the construction, whereas Traditional shuttering has less lifespan as compared to the Mivan shuttering.
- Speed of Construction: Traditional shuttering demands a high labour force, whereas Mivan shuttering does not demand the same. The work done using Mivan formwork can be completed in five to seven days. On the other hand, it takes more than twenty days in traditional shuttering.
- Cost: Mivan shuttering demands a hefty investment in the initial stages, and then one can get sorted for long years without any replacement issues or high maintenance costs. Perhaps Traditional shuttering demands investment at each stage, either during construction or in the maintenance procedure.
- Labour Needs: Since the system of Mivan shuttering is modular, one can also use less skilled labour, but in traditional shuttering, a skilled workforce is required to keep up with the excellent work outcomes.
- Design flexibility and alterations: Traditional formwork is more flexible than modern formwork. It is easy to adapt, alterable in mid-construction, and flexible designs can be produced. On the other hand, Mivan shuttering has lower flexibility. It has a monolithic casting; therefore, it is difficult to change once the concrete takes its shape.
Mivan Shuttering: Pros and Cons
Every notion has its silver lining and a dark side. No single entity is wholly positive or negative. Therefore, here are some pros and cons of Mivan shuttering in construction as well. They are discussed below:
Pros:
- Speed in construction & formwork cycles
- Faster delivery.
- Very good finish quality; minimal to no plastering inside.
- Reuse of panels many times → lower long‑term cost per cycle.
- Better structural performance, especially in seismic zones, because of monolithic casting.
- Reduced labour requirement (especially skilled labour) for finishing.
Cons:
- High upfront cost of the formwork system.
- Need for careful planning from the design stage; uniform layouts help; changes are harder to accommodate.
- Skilled supervision is needed to ensure correct alignment and avoid defects/leakage.
- Some issues, like finishing lines or joint marks, tie holes, etc., may appear and need treatment.
- Shrinkage/contraction cracks are possible in certain types of box‑type construction.
- Not very economical for small projects or when there are many variations in design.
Traditional Shuttering: Benefits and Drawbacks
As discussed above in the pros and cons of Mivan shuttering, traditional shuttering also has some benefits and drawbacks. These are mentioned below:
Benefits:
- Low initial cost
- Easy availability of materials
- Flexibility in shape and design
- Simple tools & skills required
- Lower risk for small or custom projects
- Good insulation
- Ease of making adjustments on site
Drawbacks:
- Limited reusability
- Maintenance & warping issues
- More labour & time for dismantling
- Less precision
- Low finish quality
- Waste & environmental impact
- Structural limitations
- Durable under favourable environmental conditions
- Hidden or finishing defects
Conclusion
At the end of the day, choosing between Mivan shuttering and traditional shuttering depends on your project — how big it is, what design you want, how fast it needs to be done, and how much you can spend now for gains later.
Mivan uses aluminium panels that you can use again and again. It helps get things done fast, gives a nice smooth finish, and ensures the structure is consistent. It works best in big buildings, tall towers, or housing projects where many floors or units are almost identical. But this comes with a cost: you need to spend more at first, it is harder to make changes once building starts, and you must plan carefully so things like visible joint lines or unexpected design features don’t cause problems.
Traditional shuttering works better when designs are custom or vary, when money is limited, or for smaller projects where such a high initial investment isn’t possible. Despite slower cycles, more labour, higher finishing work, and material waste, it offers adaptability, low upfront costs, and easier modification during construction.
Ultimately, the right answer lies in balancing immediate constraints with long‑term benefits. If your project affords uniformity, volume, and you can amortise the higher initial cost over many repetitions, Mivan is likely to deliver greater value. If not, traditional shuttering may remain the safer, more flexible path. Whichever route you choose, strong design coordination, good supervision, and appropriate skills on site will be decisive in achieving quality and cost effectiveness.
When deciding between Mivan (aluminium) shuttering and traditional shuttering, the choice becomes clearer once you evaluate not just performance on paper, but what the supplier can deliver—quality, experience, support, and value over the long run. That’s where BSL Scaffolding stands out. BSL is not new to the game. It’s been a long time since BSL has been delivering trust, quality and assurance to the consumers. This experience means we understand the challenges that real sites face—logistics, labour issues, environmental conditions, quality control—and are more likely to anticipate and address them proactively. Therefore, choosing BSL would be a better choice indeed.
