Electrical Calculation VE Report: MCP101-REP-VE-003 Date: Sep. 9, 2021

Electrical calculation VE Report
Project: Masterise Centre Point

MCP101-REP-VE-003
Date: Sep. 9, 2021
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Signature: Signature: Signature:
Name: Name: Name:
Date: ………………………………. Date: ………………………………. Date: ……………………………….
Pr
oposal No. C-SG-11-048-FD-ID+PCM+QS Page 25 of 29

Contents
A- Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
B- (point 5.2.3 in the original report )To replace the 5% load spare at the Main Switch Board
to space spare for Towers D and E...................................................................................... 2
C- (point 5.2.1-b in the original report ) The Short circuit current of ACB in MSB-P, MSBs ALL
Towers : Tower B, MSB-A1 Dwg No. E__CD-A-1201 ........................................................... 9
D- (point 5.3 in the original report ) Reduction in Transformer size of Tower A and E in B6 .. 11
Value Engineering &Due Diligence expertise, Project Development, MEP & Architectural MCP101-REP-VE-003 page/1
A- Introduction
This report is only to explain to the project stakeholder regarding the electrical
calculations provided by the consultant recently.
In each item we mention the VE point as mentioned in MEL report ‘MCP-REP-VE-
001” dated July 19, 2021, and then we provide our extended explanation regarding
the provided electrical calculations.
we believe that the electrical calculations can be done in a more efficient method
that can provide savings especially on the main equipment such as transformers
and accessories
B- (point 5.2.3 in the original report )To replace the 5% load spare at the Main
Switch Board to space spare for Towers D and E
“Original text from the report MCP-REP-VE-001”
Reviewing the provided electrical drawings of Tower D and E, the value engineer propose
to replace the 5% load spare on the main switch boards (MSB-A4.1, A4.2, Ạ5.1 and A5.2)
and to be replaced by space spare only.
It should be noted that all Main Distribution Board(MDBs) and Distribution Board (DBs)
has been provided with 5-10% load spare already .
Moreover, the project is residential type project and the connected load usually for such
application is quite stable, therefore load spare on all sub-panels is more than enough and
there is no need to have that load spare on the main switch board. By doing this, all the
transformers 1600 kVA will be reduced to 1250 kVA and Genset 1500 kVA, Prime can be
changed to 1250 kVA, Prime. All cables, ACB’s … etc. will be reduced accordingly.
“It should be noted that the provided calculation note is not consistent with the provided
design drawing, such as calculations shows the transformer load should be 2000 kVA while
the drawings show 1600 kVA, it seems that after getting the approval by authority, the
designed has changed the design parameters and so the drawings were changed
accordingly”.
By doing the above proposal the expected savings for each of D1, D2, E1, E2 is expected
to be 2,081 MVND and thus the total savings for tower D and E is estimated to be 8,324
MVND.
Doing the same exercise for the other towers does not have the same impact as towers D
and E.
The estimated savings for item 5.2.2 for B7 ZONE is 8,324 MVND
The detailed of drawing will be attached at the end of this report
Proposed solution approach, option 1
1. For MSB-A4.1
1.1 : Load of Apartment 1BR, 2Brs and 3Brs :
The current calculation load of 1BR, 2BR & 3 RB (for the purpose of determining the
transformer load) as done by the designer is not efficient and considered to be on the high
range
Currently Designer calculates is following
1BR: 7.8 kVA
2BR: 9 kVA
3BR: 10.7 kVA
The idea of induction hobs 3.62kW for all type of apartments is not reasonable so Reviewer
propose to reduce capacity of one and two bedroom by using Ku =0.5, and to keep that
load only for 3BRs
The same principle, socket power in the bedroom, normally will be for light equipment so
also apply Ku =0.5, the modified calculations is shown here
By doing it, the load of 1BR, 2BR and 3BR unit following:
1BR: 6.3 kVA
2BR: 7.3 kVa
3BR: 9.9 kVA
Again, it should be noted that this intended for the total load on the transformers and to
account for the diversified loads.
We strongly advice MRH to check with some of their existing buildings, such optimization
load of these unit is more than enough
In other hands, we are providing some of sample project that we have done before for
luxury apartment projects in HCM that been already been constructed and under
operation. These project contain apartments that are similar to MRH projects.
Example for Building no. 1: Layout of typical floor, D type is 2BRs and other type is 3BRs
The actual consumptions following are almost lower than the proposal of Reviewer, pls be
noted that Reviewer is to calculate an average hours based on 12 hours per day instead
of 24 hours , and also peak hour consumption will be higher than the average hours 2
times as shown
The result for 3 floors for building 1 is below shown, the full buildings can refer to Appendix
at the end of report
The result for 3 floors for building 2 is below shown, the full buildings can refer to
Appendix at the end of report
1.2: Load of Elevator
The total number of passenger lift are 5 plus 1 fire lift, each DB will supply for 2 Elevator
so the connected capacity of MP PL01, 02 and 03 cannot be the exactly the same as
shown on the revised calculation since one of the DBs will be connected to one lift only
(note the fire lift has it’s own panel)
In addition, reviewing the lift panels, the highlighted items in yellow below should not be
counted to total connected load because those loads will not operate with the same lift
during normal case, in other words that load will be for maintenance purpose.
With the above two major point 1.1 and 1.2, by removing those yellow highlight load,
reducing capacity of PL03 to 50% (one elevator) and applying Ku for cooker hob of one
and two bedrooms, also Ku for socket of bedroom, the result following , total connected
load is 1295KVA so Reviewer proposes to size 1250 kVA
Current MEL selection

design
selection
The saving cost will be the same as mentioned in our VE report MCP-REP_VE-001 and
estimated to be 2,081MVND
2. For MSB-A4.2, MSB-A5.1 and MSB-A5.2
Following the same principle of MSB-A4.1 the result will be as follows
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
The saving cost will be the same last time for MSB-A4.2, MSB-A5.1 and MSB-A5.2
Is 3x2,081MVND = 6,243MVND
Proposed approach solution, option 2
In case MRH does not want to apply the first option, this option proposed to selected the
size of the transformers in the current design to be 1500 kVA instead of 1600 kVA, as
proposed by the designer, this will provide savings in terms of having LBS instead of CB
By doing that, the saving cost for the four MSBs (MSB-A4.1, MSB-A4.2, MSB-A5.1 and
MSB-A5.2) will be 1,080MVND
C- (point 5.2.1-b in the original report ) The Short circuit current of ACB in MSB-
P, MSBs ALL Towers : Tower A, MSB-A1 Dwg No. E__CD-A-1201
Some errors were found in the calculations, as shown in the below table, the calculated
load is 1600KVA with demand factor of 0.8 that will give a total load demand of 1280 kVA.
However, the selected transformer was 1600 KVA instead of using 1250 KVA transformer
This principle was used in the other Towers, when connected load is 2000 kVA so
Transformer 2000KVA was selected.
With the above reason, transformer of Tower can be reduced to 1250 kVA
Thus , the Medium Voltage Panel can be changed from CB to LBS and Fuse, ACB can also
reduce (following EVN HCMC guidelines), the expected savings are 2,463 MVND
However, if the project stakeholder decided not to change the transformer size of tower A
and keep it 1600 kVA, then it is proposed as Value engineering item is to change the short
circuit current of ACB from 65 kA to 50 kA, which will provide lower savings than changing
the transformer. The expected savings is 382 MVND.
Proposed solution approach

Applying the same principle for the apartment electrical load calculations as mentioned in
in Point A above, which is using Ku of socket in the bedroom and cooker hob is 0.5 so the
load of 1BR, 2BR, 3BR reduced
The result will be as follows:
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
So the saving cost is the same last time that is 2,463 MVND by reducing size of
transformer, ACB and Medium Voltage Panel
However, if MRH decided not to change the transformer size of tower A and keep it 1600
kVA, then it is proposed as Value engineering item is to change the short circuit current
of ACB from 65 kA to 50 kA, which will provide lower savings than changing the
transformer. The expected savings is 382 MVND.
D- (point 5.3 in the original report ) Reduction in Transformer size of Tower A

and E in B6
In the general, both B6 and B7 are similar in size and thus should be similar in transformer
loads. However, from the below table, most transformers are the same except for tower
A and E,
B6 B7
MSB- P Podium 1x1600 1x1600
MSB- A1 A 1x2000 1x1600
MSB- A2 B 1x2000 1x2000
MSB- A3 C 1x1600 1x2000
MSB- A4 D 1x1600 2x1600
MSB- A5 E 2x2000 2x1600
The reviewer have done preliminary calculations which based on the designer input for
load of apartment 1 BR, 2BR and 3BRs , in addition to the other loads such as: Public,
Passenger Lift, Fire Lift , ELV…
The result shows that for B6 zone, the Transformer of MSB-A1, Tower A and MSB-A5 of
Tower E can be reduced from 2000 KVA to 1600 KVA
In contrast, checking the designer calculation (as shown below) showed that the total
connected load is 1,962 kVA with demand factor is 0.8, therefore the total load demand
should be 1,596 kVA not 1,945 kVA.
The expected from reducing the transformers, generators and ACB for Tower A is 1,641
MVND, and for Towers E1 and Tower E2 will be 3,281 MVND.
Using the same principle regarding the spare load in the main switch board of 5% and
eliminating that (same as B7 zone towers D and E) then, the load of transformer can be
reduce to 1500 kVA , the expected saving from changing the transformer size from 1600
kVA to 1500 kVA is minor but Medium Voltage Panel can be changed from CB to LBS and
Fuse, and provide additional savings of 270MVND .
Proposed solution approach
Applying the same principle as mention in point A above for the apartment and lifts, the
corrected calculations are shown below
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
MEL selection
Current
design
selection
Estimated savings will be due to reduction the size of the transformer, ACB, Genset and
also Medium Voltage . The saving cost per Tower is 1,911MVND, so total of 3 Blocks
will be 5,733MVD , this saving cost is higher than last time due to missing 2 set
of Medium Voltage Panel to change from CB to LBS

Electrical Calculation VE Report: MCP101-REP-VE-003 Date: Sep. 9, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Electrical Calculation VE Report: MCP101-REP-VE-003 Date: Sep. 9, 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electrical Calculation VE Report: MCP101-REP-VE-003 Date: Sep. 9, 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electrical calculation VE Report

Project: Masterise Centre Point

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Signature: Signature: Signature:

Name: Name: Name:

Date: ………………………………. Date: ………………………………. Date: ……………………………….

oposal No. C-SG-11-048-FD-ID+PCM+QS Page 25 of 29

The detailed of drawing will be attached at the end of this report

Current MEL selection

Following the same principle of MSB-A4.1 the result will be as follows

Proposed approach solution, option 2

“Original text from the report MCP-REP-VE-001”

Proposed solution approach

D- (point 5.3 in the original report ) Reduction in Transformer size of Tower A

Proposed solution approach

You might also like