4th January 2013

Architect Hafeez Contractor

29, Bank Street,
Flora Fountain,
Mumbai

Kind Attention: Ms. Apoorva Sharma

Ref: VT analysis dated 11th April 2011 for Residential Towers for ICC
Revised VT Report dated 16th April 2011
Last VT Report dated 20th April 2011
My discussions with you about the stacking of Tower A
Our discussions of 1st June 2011.
E-mail dated 1st June 2011 from Apoorva, indicating the revised no. of parking slots.
VT Report iv dated 2nd June 2011.
Our tele-talk on 27th June 2011.
VT Report V dated 28th June 2011
VT Report dated 4th July 2011
VT Report dated 14th July 2011.
Your mails dated 9th and 14th Nov. 2011.
VT Report dated 2nd May 2012
VT Report dated 25th May 2012
VT Report dated 3rd June 2012
VT Report dated 29th October 2012
VT Report dated 2nd November 2012
VT Report dated 5th November 2012
VT Report dated 24th December 2012.

Dear Apoorva,

Based on our meeting at the office of the Bombay Realty and the discussions held with the representatives of the
customer and your goodself, please find below the results of the analysis carried out with various options with the
revised configuration.

Definitions

The adequacy of lift service is related to the length of time passengers wait for service and the ability of the lift
system to handle people as they require service. Following definitions of our key design terminologies together with
the acceptable standards for the Destination Control System are indicated below for a better understanding.

Lerch Bates Private Limited

2 Ajanta Apartments
75 Colaba Road, Mumbai 400005, India
T 91-22-22153740 . F 91-22-22153726 • www.lerchbates.com
In the Destination Control System, a passenger registers his floor destination in the lobby as opposed to
registering the destination inside the lift car.

The Lift group control knows the demands and final destination points to establish assignments accordingly.

This results into minimizing the passenger’s time to the destination.

Since the lift system knows the precise demand viz. number of prospective passengers and destinations in “real
time”, the system provides a very positive benefit.

It can be used to enhance the security as the system can identify the users and process their security passes which
have their typical destination floor encoded upon them.

The system provides an up-peak booster which helps in improving the efficiency of the system working in the
buildings where one way traffic is predominant. It, therefore, is normally used in the Commercial Buildings,

Average Waiting Time---- is the time between the registration of the floor destination in the lobby by the passenger
and the arrival of the car for his destination.

Handling Capacity ----- is the “quantity “measure of the lift service and is defined as the number of persons which
can be transported by the system in a given length of time.

We have carried out our study on the basis of two options, parameters for which are as under.

Destination Control System.

Service Level Average Waiting Time Handling Capacity

Excellent < 30 Seconds >8%
Good 30-35 Seconds 7-8%
Fair 35-42 Seconds 6-7%
Poor > 42 Seconds < 6%

Two Button System ( Car control )

Service Level Average Waiting Time Handling Capacity

Excellent < 45 Seconds >8%
Good 45-50 Seconds 7-8%
Fair 50-60 Seconds 6-7%
Poor > 60 Seconds < 6%

We are often asked on service rating norms used overseas, we checked with
our US offices and given below are the norms used in the USA- on up market
residential blocks like Trump Towers, Chicago, and the same set of ratings
are being used here. Thus, it is confirmed our ratings recommendation
provides excellent AWI and Good %HC, which can be termed as a very
reasonable recommendation
Lift Design Criteria – Upmarket Residential Buildings

Service Level Average Waiting Interval % Handling Capacity

Excellent < 40 Seconds >8%
Good 40-45 Seconds 7-8%
Fair 45-50 Seconds 6-7%
Poor > 50 Seconds < 6%

Assumptions—

Following assumptions were made while analyzing the above data.

1. Car and Hoistway Entrance size of 1100 mm x 2400 mm.

2. Tall car with a car height of 2800 mm.
3. Spacious cars to provide luxury and comfort to the passengers

4. Lift Traffic--

5. Estimate of the population of the tower is fundamental to any lift analysis and evaluation. The estimate
becomes the basis for establishing the no. of persons requiring vertical transportation during the peak two
way traffic time period.

6. For the purpose of this study, we have considered peak period from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00a.m. in the morning
whereas in the evening it stretches from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.

7. There may be several mini-peaks within these time periods.

Tower One ICC

Residential Unit Population Table

Unit Type Estimated persons/Unit Total Population

3G 6 120 x 6 = 732
4G 8 110 x 8 = 896
2G 5 5 x 10 =50
Penthouse 10 1 x 10 =10

Option I

Estimated Population - 1658 persons.

Population per Lift core = 1658/2 =829 persons

Floors served—B1, G, CH, 1-70

Lift Travel- 278 mts.

Car capacity considered 20 persons.

 % H.C.
++Av.
**Av. with
Lift Floors No. of Speed Waiting %age
waiting Destinati
Pop’n served cars (mps) Time HC
interval on
(secs)
control
4.0 65.2 48.9 5.4 5.8
4
5.0 60.8 45.6 5.8 6.2

6.0 58.6 43.9 6 6.4

4.0 52.2 36.5 6.8 7.3

830 As Above 5 5.0 48.6 34 7.3 7.9

6.0 46.9 32.8 7.5 8.1

4.0 43.5 30.5 8.1 8.7

6 5.0 40.5 28.4 8.7 9.4

6.0 39.1 27 9 9.7

** Two Button Control (Car control)

++ Destination Control (Lobby control)

Conclusion –

Since both the systems would require the same no. of lifts at an identical speed, we would recommend a
Two Button System (car control) to a Destination Despatch Control System which is normally used for Up-
peak traffic booster in the Commercial Buildings where one way traffic pattern prevails as against the two
way traffic in the Residential Buildings.
The above recommendation provides an Excellent rated service.
The speed of the main passenger lifts will require to be minimum 5.0mps in case of using these lifts as
Firemen Lifts.

Please note that the criteria of the speed will be applicable for all the options provided in this report.

Even though these lifts will not open at podium levels, we would recommend provision of regular lift
entrances which should be blocked from the controller in the machine-room and can be operated in future if
required.
Option II

Estimated Population - 1658 persons.

Population per Lift core = 1658/2 =829 persons

Floors served—B3, B2, B1, G, CH, 1-70

Lift Travel- 285 mts.

Car capacity considered 20 persons.

% H.C.
Av.
Av. with
Lift Floors No. of Speed Waiting %age
waiting Destinati
Pop’n served cars (mps) Time HC
interval on
(secs)
control
4.0 78.2 58.6 4.6 4.9
4
5.0 73.7 55.3 4.9 5.2

6.0 71.5 53.6 5.1 5.5

4.0 62.5 43.8 5.8 6.3

5 5.0 58.9 41.2 6.1 6.6

6.0 57.2 40 6.3 6.8

830 As Above
4.0 52.1 36.5 6.9 7.5

6 5.0 49.1 34.4 7.4 8

6.0 47.6 33.3 7.6 8.2

4.0 44.7 31.3 8.1 8.8

7 5.0 42.1 29.5 8.6 9.4

6.0 40.8 28.6 8.9 9.7

Conclusion --

Apart from the increase in the required number of lifts for providing an Excellent rated service, we strongly
disapprove taking the main passenger lifts to the Basements and other parking levels as these can create
security related issues.
This will also result into complying with the Fire=brigade rules which call for pressurization of Lift Lobby in
the event of Lifts serving floors below the Ground levels.

Our experience shows that the buildings of such high standards are provided with the in house valet service
so that the Resident or a Visitor access the building at the Main Foyer and the vehicle is parked by either the
driver or the valet.

With such an arrangement which is far more convenient and safer, there is no need for the main passenger
lifts to serve parking floors.

Tower II

Residential Unit Population Table

Unit Type Estimated persons/Unit Total Population

3D 6 117 x 6 = 702
4G 8 243 X 8 = 1944
Penthouse 12 1 x 12 =12

Estimated Population = 2658 persons.

Population per Lift core = 2658/2 =1329 persons

Option I

Floors served—B1, G, CH, 1-68

Lift Travel – 270 mts.

Car capacity considered 20 persons.

Average
Av
Lift Floors No. of Speed Waiting % HC with
waiting % H.C.
Pop’n served cars (mps) Time Destination
Interval
(secs) Control
4.0 83.1 62 4.3 4.6
4
5.0 80.1 60 4.5 4.8
6.0 79.4 59.5 4.5 4.8
4.0 66.5 47 5.4 5.8
5 5.0 64.1 45 5.6 6
6.0 63.5 44 5.7 6.2
4.0 55.4 39 6.5 7
1330 As Above 6 5.0 53.4 37.4 6.8 7.3
6.0 52.9 37 6.8 7.3
4.0 47.5 33 7.6 8.3
7 5.0 45.8 32 7.9 8.6
6.0 45.3 31.7 8 8.7
4.0 42 27 8.8 9.6
8 5.0 40.3 26.2 9.1 9.9
6.0 38.6 25.6 9.2 10
Conclusion –

The results of the analysis with the recommendations are highlighted in the table above.

Option II
Floors served— B3, B2, B1, G, CH, 1-68

Lift Travel – 285 mts.

Car capacity considered 20 persons.

Average
Av
Lift Floors No. of Speed Waiting % HC with
waiting % H.C.
Pop’n served cars (mps) Time Destination
Interval
(secs) Control
4.0 63.3 44.5 5.7 6.2

6 5.0 61.3 43 5.9 6.4

6.0 60.9 42.6 5.9 6.4

4.0 54.3 38 6.7 7.3

7 5.0 52.6 36.8 6.9 7.5

6.0 52.2 36.3 6.9 7.5

1330 As Above
4.0 47.5 31.5 7.6 8.3

8 5.0 46.2 30 7.8 8.5

6.0 45.7 29.7 7.9 8.5

4.0 42.2 27.4 8.6 9.4

9 5.0 40.9 26.3 8.8 9.6

6.0 40.6 26 8.8 9.6

Conclusion –

Though our conclusions are highlighted in the table above, as in the case of a Tower I, we would strongly
disapprove the main passenger lifts to serve parking floors.
Even though these lifts will not open at podium levels, we would recommend provision of regular lift
entrances which should be blocked from the controller in the machine-room and can be operated in future if
required.

In case of non-provision of the entrances at podium levels, it would be necessary to provide an emergency
opening at every 11 mts. of a blind liftwell.

However as mentioned in the beginning we would once again stress that the Destination Control System is more
suitable for the commercial buildings due to its one way peak traffic pattern. When used for the two way traffic pattern
in Residential buildings, Hi-breed Destination Control System is preferred. In this system, a Touch pad to register the
Hall call l is provided in the Main Lobby. Sometimes destination entry points (Touch pads) are also provided at other
important floors. All other floors are provided with conventional Up/Down buttons to register the call for the desired
direction of the travel.

A lift car is provided with a traditional car operating panel to enable the passenger register his call to the desired floor
and becomes operative automatically in the downward journey.

When the passengers travel in groups/families, they often register only one call. As against the two button system, in
DCS, every passenger at the Destination Entry Point needs to register the call as otherwise the system will not
understand the number of people requiring to travel to the particular floor and it will keep on allocating fully loaded
cars to the waiting passengers leading to the degradation of the service and loss efficiency.

In order to provide a VIP service to the pent-house Residents, we would recommend Elevator Management
System (E.M.S.) which is designed to control and manage the lift services within the building. By using an
E.M.S. it is possible to provide VIP service by pulling out one car from the lift group whenever required and
dedicating it for the use of the VIP.

Vertical Transportation analysis is a planning process which needs to be carried out considering the full
occupation of the building.

Though we have separately carried out the analysis considering only 70% of the population and attached the
results as under, we would strongly request you to consider the results indicated above while taking the
final decision.

Parking Lifts ---

The adequacy of lift service is related to the length of time passengers wait for service and the ability of the lift
system to handle people as they require service. Following acceptable standards are indicated below for a better
understanding.

 
 
 
Design Criteria (Car Parking) 
 
 
Service Rating  Average Interval Handling Capacity 
Excellent  <45 seconds > 10% 
Good  45‐50seconds 8‐10% 
Fair  50‐60 seconds 7‐8% 
Poor  > 60 seconds < 7% 
Analysis for Parking Lifts of ICC Towers ---

Tower I

Total Parking slots

Total Parking Slots 810
Diversity Factor 0.8
Car occupancy considered 1/car.
Lift Population 810 x 0.8 = 648 persons

Average
No. of Lift Floors Speed Waiting %age
Service Rating
Lifts Pop’n served (mps) Interval HC
(secs)
1.6 54.5 8.5
2 1.75 53.9 8.6 FAIR

B4-B1,G,P1- 2.5 53.1 8.7

648
P3,CH
1.6 36.4 12.7

3 1.75 35.9 12.9 EXCELLENT

2.5 35.4 13.1

Tower II

Total Parking slots 1050.

Diversity Factor 0.8
Car occupancy considered 1/car.
Lift Population 1050 x 0.8 = 840 persons

`
Average
No. of Lift Floors Speed Waiting %age
Service Rating
Lifts Pop’n served (mps) Interval HC
(secs)
1.6 63.5 6.7

2 1.75 62.8 6.8 UNSATISFACTORY

B4-B1,G,P1- 2.5 62.1 6.9

840
P5,CH 1.6 42.4 10.1

3 1.75 41.9 10.2 EXCELLENT

2.50 41.4 10.4

Observations and Recommendations—

The above analysis shows that the provision of three lifts having a capacity of 15 persons @ 1.6 mps for both the
Towers in the parking area would be sufficient for vertical transportation of the people.

However, considering the premium status of the building and the apartments, a majority of cars are expected to be
driven by the chauffers who are expected to use service lifts for the internal transportation. In such a case, the
analysis is carried out as the parking lift population considered as 50%.

Our recommendations with the above assumption are highlighted in the tables below.

Tower I

Total Parking slots

Total Parking Slots 810
Diversity Factor 0.5
Car occupancy considered 1/car.
Lift Population 810 x 0.5 = 405 persons

Average
No. of Lift Floors Speed Waiting %age
Service Rating
Lifts Pop’n served (mps) Interval HC
(secs)
1.6 43.3 10.3
2 405
B4-B1,G,P1- 1.75 42.5 10.5 EXCELLENT
P3,CH
2.5 40.5 11

Tower II

Total Parking slots 1050.

Diversity Factor 0.5
Car occupancy considered 1/car.
Lift Population 1050 x 0.5 = 525 persons

`
Average
No. of Lift Floors Speed Waiting %age
Service Rating
Lifts Pop’n served (mps) Interval HC
(secs)
1.6 55.9 8.2 FAIR/GOOD

2 1.75 54.9 8.3 FAIR/GOOD

B4-B1,G,P1- 2.5 52.5 8.7 FAIR/GOOD

525
P5,CH
1.6 37.3 12.3
3 1.75 36.6 12.5 EXCELLENT
2.50 35 13.1
Service Lifts-

Service lifts provided per Tower are sufficient as there are no specific parameters for these lifts except that these lifts
should have deeper cars to accommodate heavy furniture. We notice that few of these lifts do not have deeper cars.
In such a case it would be difficult to handle the heavy and bigger objects if the lift lobby is also inadequate.

We would, therefore, request you to review the locations and dimensions of the service lifts.

Service lifts will also serve as Fireman’s lifts and per code requirement will serve all the floors and comply with the
relevant rules.

Since these lifts will also be designated as Fireman’s lifts, they should have a speed of 5.0 mps to meet the code
requirement.

 
Apart from the above, the pent houses will be provided with Home lift for the internal travel. 
 
This lift will work on 230V, single ph, 50 Hz power supply and will require a pit of 500 mm. The lift will have a speed of 0.2 mps 
with a car dimension of 1000 mm (w) x 1150 mm (d) which will require a lift‐shaft of 1400 mm (w)x 1500 mm (d). 
 
However, Home lift of most of the lift companies except Thyssen Crupp have restriction of maximum three stops as against the 
requirement of four in the pent‐house. 
 
Alternatively,  we  need  to  provide  for  a  machine  roomless  lift  which  requires  a  pit  of  minimum  1400  mm.  to  accommodate 
buffers. 
 
 
Trust  this  provides  the  design  information  of  vertical  transportation  system  for  your  building.    We  suggest  all  design  team 
members review this report and offer comments on our assumptions, which are all clearly noted. We are happy to continue 
our analysis as the project develops or new information is provided.  
 
 
Thanks and Regards,

Prashant Kulkarni
Director & Senior Consultant
Lerch Bates Pvt. Ltd.
2,Ajanta,11th. Floor
75,Colaba Road
Mumbai 400005,India

Tel:91-22 22153740;Fax 91-22-22153726

Mobile: 91-9892900600
www.lerchbates.com