Ecolibrium

THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF AIRAH MARCH 2018 · VOLUME 17.2

RRP $14.95
PRINT POST APPROVAL
NUMBER PP352532/00001

Common
good
  Games facility
A
built for all.
 FORUM
P EER - R E V I E W ED T ECH N I C A L PA P ER S
Reducing energy use
in older large buildings
By David Arnold, PH.D.
ABSTRACT
This article is about energy-reducing measures attempted and carried out in three large office buildings in Chicago.
The larger the building, the greater the amount of energy needed to provide comfort for the occupants and meet power demands
of modern business. Buildings are typically replaced at a rate of 1% per year. However, large buildings tend to be kept in use longer,
and even longer if they become national monuments. Older buildings also use more energy. For example, pre-1980 office buildings
in the United States use 10% to 15% more energy on average1 than post-1980.
Once buildings are deemed to be landmark buildings,
significant constraints are applied that restrict the options for
saving energy, particularly if the measures affect the appearance.
Given that the current horizons for reducing energy use extend
to 2050 and that the majority of today’s buildings (and in some
cases the mechanical systems), estimated at 60% to 75%, will
still be in use at that time it is important, if not more important,
to focus attention on reducing energy use in existing buildings
in order to cut CO2 emissions and achieve sustainability, rather
than new.
This article is about energy-reducing measures attempted
and carried out in three large office buildings in Chicago.
The buildings are all skyscrapers and, by coincidence
Chicago is the city generally acknowledged to be where
the first skyscraper, “The Home Insurance Building,” was
built in 1885. Architects of the so-called “First Chicago School”
pioneered the steel-frame construction necessary to build
skyscrapers; largely used initially to construct large office
buildings. Air conditioning meant it was no longer necessary
to restrict the depth of the floors from windows in buildings
to provide natural ventilation. It allowed architects to design
much deeper floor plates and ignore the thermal properties
of buildings; the use of curtain walling became endemic
in new buildings of the era. Experience has shown, however,
that overcoming the inherently poor standards of airtightness
and thermal properties of buildings built post World War II,
particularly with curtain walling makes achieving high
standards of sustainability a very difficult task.
The three buildings in this article are of this vintage,
and were first visited by the author in 2001–2003 as part
of personal research on the length of service life of equipment
in air conditioned buildings. Chicago was selected due
to the abundance of large air conditioned buildings built
in the 1950s and 60s, many with their original systems.
The Inland Steel Building and the Richard J. Daley Center have
been designated landmarks by the “Commission on Chicago
Landmarks” and as such are subject to constraints on alterations.
44 ECO L I BR I U M  •  M A RCH 2018
Fellow / Life Member ASHRAE
The buildings were re-visited in 2012 and it was found that
during the intervening period many energy saving measures
had been attempted or applied to the buildings, in distinctly
different ways, with different levels of intervention.
The air conditioning systems for all three buildings were
designed between the mid-50s and the mid-60s. The designs
were typical of the era, well before the “First Oil Crisis” in the
United States, and show little acknowledgement to the need to
conserve energy. The systems have common energy-demanding
techniques such as:
a) Operating air and water distribution systems at a constant rate,
b) Cooling air to below its dew-point temperature to
dehumidify, and
c) High inlet pressures terminal units.
The buildings continue to operate today with the original
air conditioning systems modified and retrofitted to reduce
energy use although the levels of intervention differ from
relatively simple measures such as the addition of digital
controls and inverter drives, to plans, not achieved, to take
one building back to its frame and completely replace all
mechanical and electrical systems and the building cladding.
THE BUILDINGS
Inland Steel Building
The Inland Steel Building was designed by architects
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in 1956 and completed
in 1958. The building has 19 stories above ground and a
particularly unusual plan form, which separates office areas
from a services tower.
The services tower houses support facilities including, elevators,
wash-rooms service shafts etc., leaving completely open spaces
(Figure 1).
 FORUM

Air conditioning is continue in operation for long after the first visit. The building
provided on the office was soon connected to the Chicago district chilled water system.
floors by all-air dual-duct
A new building owner announced, in 2007, ambitious plans
systems. The main plant
for the retrofitting of the building with the goal of achieving
is in the basement and with
LEED Platinum certification.5 The building was originally
the cooling towers on the
intended to have a double-glass skin, and to use the space
roof of the services tower.
between as a climate modifying wall. This idea was not
An unusual feature is that
implemented then but was included in proposals to achieve
the metal decking installed
Figure 1:  Inland Steel building LEED Platinum status. This would have meant installing
floor plan. to form the floors was used
a second glass wall behind the outer window wall with
to convey air from dual
programmable mechanical blinds between the panes.
duct boxes to air outlet grilles on the floor above. This is shown
Other energy saving measures planned included, daylight
in Figure 2.
saving lighting controls, variable speed drives, single pass
outdoor air supplies and integrated chilled beams, which
incorporated lighting and other fixtures, instead of the original
energy inefficient dual duct system.
The plan ran into problems. First, the Commission on
Chicago Landmarks rejected the change in glazing because
it threatened to change the appearance of the building.
Second, subsidies for conservation projects that made
the plan economically viable were withdrawn and, third,
the recession hit in 2008 and the fall in property values finally
killed the ambitious scheme.
The goal of achieving LEED Platinum status is now unlikely
but the owners continue to invest in energy-saving measures.
The building is in the process of a major renovation to bring
its functionality up to current standards.3 The mechanical
improvements include, a new chiller, pneumatic controls
Figure 2:  Section at perimeter.2 Figure 3:  Low level air supply grilles.
replaced by digital and the constant air volume dual duct
Air passes from the metal deck (13) to the low level plenum (3) system replaced progressively by VAV using the original ducts.
and discharges through the air supply grille (10).2 The drawing
also shows double glazing (2), originally intended but omitted Richard J. Daley Center
for single glazed green tinted windows.3 Given the cold winters The Richard J. Daley Center, originally known as the
in Chicago, it was important, although not energy efficient, Chicago Civic Center, has a floor area of 137,700m² and
to blow warm air over the glass to reduce down draughts although the building is more than 200m tall it has only
and cold radiation. The photograph in Figure 3 shows a 31 floors. It was completed early in 1966. The central boiler
typical air supply outlet grille on an office floor, fed from below. plant has four high-pressure water tube steam boilers
(Figure 5), three rated at 17.2MW/h steam and one rated at
24.0MW/h steam. The 24.0MW boiler was added to feed the
adjacent “Chicago City Hall” but the service was never provided.
Cooling is provided by four open type centrifugal water chillers
each rated at 7.0MW. The chillers are located in the building’s
basement and connected to high level cooling towers built
into the structure.

Figure 4a:  Figure 4b: 

Holes drilled in cellular deck. Air boots being installed.4

Figures 4a and 4b show the air boots that transfer the

temperature controlled air from dual duct boxes to air supply
grilles on the floor above, being installed. The photographs
are from a feature article published in February 1957 in the
Heating Piping and Air Conditioning Magazine.4 Figure 4a
shows holes being drilled in the cellular floor deck and 4b
air-boots being connected to voids in the cellular decks, which
are used as air supply ducts. These voids were also used to route Figure 5:  Figure 6: 
telecommunication and electrical power cables to the perimeter. Daley Center boiler plant. Daley Center induction unit.

In 2003 the original plant installed in 1957 was still operating Two types of air conditioning were installed. The perimeter had
including the boilers, chillers, cooling towers, air-handling plant non-changeover induction and interior areas, constant volume
and even the pneumatic controls. The original chillers did not units with reheat. A typical induction unit is shown in Figure 6.

M A RCH 2018 • ECO L I BR I U M 45
 FORUM
Air outlets discharge over the windows, essential given
the winter climate and single glazing without thermal breaks.
At an early stage, the building engineers found it necessary to
run the perimeter high pressure air supply systems and heating
continuously when the temperature fell to below around 3°C,
simply in order to maintain reasonably comfortable conditions
during the day.
The engineering team modified the system, by increasing
the temperature of the hot water feeding the induction units,
which then allowed the units to act as natural convectors and
avoid running the high pressure fans, warming outside air
unnecessarily. The fans are switched off overnight and not
used at all on Sundays. This “no-cost energy conservation
measure” alone saved more than 5,400,000kWh in the first
year of operation. This modification to the building’s induction
system is one of the energy-saving measures that contribute to
the rating of buildings in the Energy Star certified buildings and
plant scheme.6 The engineering team, operating the mechanical
and electrical systems in the building, has actively followed the
Energy Star guidelines for energy management to achieve and
improve the building rating. Building operators that participate
in this program have the actual energy use of their buildings
compared against similar buildings and rated. A rating of 50,
for example, represents typical performance, while a score
of 75 indicates that the facility performs better than 75%
of all similar facilities nationwide. This building achieved
a score of 75 in 2009, which has improved to 82 in 2013.
Many energy-saving measures have been applied to the
engineering systems in this building since the mid-1990s
and include:
• Supplementing the pneumatic control system
with digital control;
• Changing from CAV reheat to VAV without reheat;
• Changing VAV boxes to digital control;
• Installing inverter drives;
• Retrofitting chillers with R-134a, variable speed drives
and digital controls;
• Installing lighting control systems and converting
to electronic ballasts;
• Modernising elevators with digital controls and AC-DC
generators with VSDs coupled directly to the motors.
These measures and others have reduced the use of electricity
from 266W/m² in 1997 to 151W/m² in 2011 and contributed
to the building being awarded Silver Certification LEED for
Existing Buildings: Operation and Maintenance (EBOM).7
John Hancock Center
The John Hancock Center is another building designed
by SOM. It was completed in 1969 and has a gross area in
excess of 260,000m², 100 stories high with a mix of offices,
retail floors and apartments. There is parking at the lower
levels of the building with retail and commercial floors from
Concourse to Level 5; then office floors up to Level 41. Levels
45 to 92 are apartments and a restaurant occupies levels 95 and
96. There are mechanical equipment rooms at basement level and
Levels 16, 17, 42, 43, 93 and 98 to 100 where the cooling towers are
located. The façade of the building is curtain walling with single-
glazed windows to the offices and double glazed to the apartments.
46 ECO L I BR I U M  •  M A RCH 2018
The office floors have induction unit and all-air CAV systems,
similar to the Richard J. Daley building. The building is unusual
in that it is “all electric” with an estimated electrical demand,
when constructed, of 69,000kVA. There are 10 electric boilers,
each with heating capacities of 1600 to 1800kW, and air-handling
units have step controlled electric resistance heating coils.
The apartments had electric heating but the tenants installed
their own air conditioning.
There are four large centrifugal water chillers with a total
capacity of 21.5MW serving the office air conditioning located
in the level 42/43 mechanical equipment rooms. The photograph
in Figure 7 of the former assistant chief engineer Dan O’Shea
standing in front of one of the chillers provides an indication
of their physical size. They are part of the original installation
and still operate on refrigerant R-114.
Figure 7:  Figure 8:  New inverters in
John Hancock Center chiller. cases of original equipment.
The first energy saving intervention happened early in the
life of this building as reported in the Chicago Tribune 1985.8
“In 1974, its first year of full occupancy, the all-electric
Hancock building spent nearly $1.1 million on energy,
according to the property`s manager, Sudler & Co.
By 1984, though, its electric bill had more than doubled
to $2.8 million and was expected to exceed $3 million
in 1985.” The report continued, “Hancock has budgeted
$500,000 to install a computerised, System 600 Building
Management System” and “Another $1 million will go toward
converting the building`s constant-volume ventilation system
to a variable-air-volume or VAV system . . .”
The average retail price of electricity in 19859 was 7.27 cents
per kWh and at this unit cost the building was using over
40 million units per year. As a consumer of this size would
have negotiated lower unit rates the actual use was probably
higher. The article commented that these works were projected
to save $12,000,000 over the next 10 years, which equates
to around a 40% reduction in annual energy costs.
Since the first energy-saving measures were carried out in
1985 the inverters have been replaced by new “state of the
art speed controllers.” The new inverters demonstrate the
miniaturisation of electronic controls as the new inverters
fit inside the cases of the original units with room to spare
(Figure 8). The building engineering team maintains a high
standard of maintenance, which is reflected in the current
condition of plant. Most of it is original, dating from the
1960s including the electric boilers, chillers and air-handling
plant. There is an ongoing replacement program for the
cooling coils, but otherwise the units are as originally installed.
 FORUM

CONCLUSIONS In the case of the United States the target is a reduction of 83%
below 2005 levels by 2050.  ❚
There is no “right way” to implement energy conservation
in older buildings to improve sustainability. This article
described several examples of ways in which energy use can be REFERENCES
reduced, in older buildings, with varying degrees of intervention,  1. Buildings Energy Data Book. 2012.
from simple continuous improvement and refinement of the http://tinyurl.com/kz7a9hl.
operation of mechanical and electrical systems to rebuilding
including adaptive reuse. There is at present a lack of incentive  2. Danz, E.1963, “Architecture of Skidmore Owens Merrill”
for building owners to invest large sums of money in techniques the Architectural Press, pp 74 – 81.
that can take many years to pay back, when payback is often  3. Bright, W. 2013. “The Groundbreaking Inland Steel
less than certain. There are no code requirements to enforce Building Becomes Fully Appreciated 50 Years Later.”
improvements. The main incentives are either profit or being Chicago Architecture Blog, http://tinyurl.com/pl2ohtg.
able to take the high moral ground by achieving high ratings
in LEED, Energy Star or other schemes.  4. HPAC. 1957. “What’s happening in Chicago.” Heating
Piping and Air Conditioning Magazine (02):157–161.
A “Central Area DeCarbonization Plan”10 has been developed
for Chicago establishing eight strategies to reduce energy use.  5. Lange, A. 2010, “In Metropolis: Blue Sky Thinking.”
The strategies include “investigating how existing structures http://tinyurl.com/m7qwwuh.
can be upgraded to improve energy efficiency, increase the
 6. EPA. 2013. “Richard J. Daley Center – Energy Star
value of aging building stock and tap into the potential to
Labeled Profile.” http://tinyurl.com/lsyttfb.
transfer excess energy loads back to the grid, all while offsetting
the need for new construction.” While upgrading existing  7. USGBC. 2012. Richard J. Daley Center.
structures in older buildings has the greatest potential for http://tinyurl.com/mcspo3k.
sustainability, in the case of Landmark buildings, it is difficult
 8. Ibata, D. 1985, “Hancock Aims At $12 Million Energy
to achieve; due largely to constraints that restrict changes in
Savings.” Chicago Tribune. http://tinyurl.com/qz5q95d.
appearance. Had, for example, the master plan to completely
retrofit the Inland Steel building been implemented, it would  9. US-EIA. 2012. “U.S. Energy Information Administration.”
inevitably have resulted in greater energy savings than the Table 8.10 Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2011
improvements currently being carried out. However, had (Cents per Kilowatt-hour, Including Taxes).
the objections of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks http://tinyurl.com/q7la8eg.
been overcome, and the structure changed, it would have
meant a loss of embedded energy in the original structure, 10. Smith, A., Gill, G., 2011, “Toward Zero Carbon
and mechanical and electrical systems. This benefit of embedded – The Chicago Central Area DeCarbonization Plan.”
energy is much less tangible than direct savings that can be Images Publishing Group.
predicted for new energy reducing measures but, none the
less real and should be taken into account when considering
the options for energy saving measures in older buildings.
The measures in all three buildings have reduced energy
use to a greater or lesser extent but in addition to reducing
energy use, interventions of any degree need to be cost effective
if building owners are going to invest in improvements. This is
probably why the “low hanging fruit,” the measures most likely
to give the biggest return on investment have been applied in all
three buildings. For example, converting CAV systems to VAV,
installing digital controls and fitting pumps with inverters.
The Richard J. Daley Center is the only building, with publicly
available measured data, that records the reduction in energy
use. This shows a 43% reduction since 1997 for the building
and demonstrates the success of incentive programs such as
LEED and Energy Star. Paul Spiels representing the owner
of the building, the Public Building Commission stated,
with reference to achieving LEED Silver status, “As a building
funded by public dollars, it is important to demonstrate ABOUT THE AUTHOR
good stewardship of both public funds and the environment” David Arnold, Ph.D., is a partner at Troup Bywaters & Anders
and “Lastly, the PBC and MB Real Estate found value in in Reading, U.K. He is chair of ASHRAE’s Historical Committee.
demonstrating that older buildings can be successfully
managed and retrofitted to meet and exceed today’s standards.”7
The key, to energy sustainability in existing major buildings,
This article was published in The ASHRAE Journal, January 2015.
is ensuring they can be retrofitted and energy managed Reprinted by permission. Copyright remains with ASHRAE, and
successfully. Given that around 75% of buildings in 2050 exist the article may not be reproduced without the express permission
today. Unless this goal is achieved countries will not be able of ASHRAE. Visit www.ashrae.org
to meet national commitments for reductions of emissions.

M A RCH 2018 • ECO L I BR I U M 47