TECHNICAL FEATURE

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, January 2015. Copyright 2015 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or
distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Reducing Energy Use

In Older Large Buildings
BY DAVID ARNOLD, PH.D., FELLOW/LIFE MEMBER ASHRAE

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 the todays 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 CO 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 20012003 as
part of personal research on the length of service life

David Arnold, Ph.D., is a partner at Troup Bywaters & Anders in Reading, U.K. He is chair of ASHRAEs Historical Committee.
52

A S H R A E J O U R N A L ashrae.org JAN UARY 2015

TECHNICAL FEATURE

FIGURE 1 
Inland Steel building floor plan.

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. The
buildings were re-visited in 2012
and 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 mid60s. 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

FIGURE 2 (LEFT) 
Section at perimeter.2 FIGURE 3 (RIGHT) Low level air supply grilles.

FIGURE 4A (LEFT) Holes drilled in cellular deck. FIGURE 4B (RIGHT) 

Air boots being installed.4

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).
Air conditioning is provided on
the office floors by all-air dual-duct
systems. The main plant is in the
basement and with the cooling towers on the roof of the services tower.
An unusual feature is that the metal
decking installed to form the floors
was used to convey air from dual
duct boxes to air outlet grilles on the
floor above. This is shown in Figure 2.
Air passes from the metal deck (13)
to the low level plenum (3) and discharges through the air supply grille
(10).2 The drawing also shows double
glazing (2), originally intended but
omitted for single glazed green tinted

JAN UARY 2015 ashrae.org A S H R A E J O U R N A L

53

TECHNICAL FEATURE

windows.3 Given the cold winters in Chicago, it was

important, although not energy efficient, to blow warm
air over the glass to reduce down draughts and cold radiation. The photograph in Figure 3 (Page 53) shows a typical
air supply outlet grille on an office floor, fed from below.
Figures 4a and 4b shows 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 is used as air supply ducts. These voids
were also used to route telecommunication and electrical
power cables to the perimeter.
In 2003 the original plant installed in 1957 was still
operating including the boilers, chillers, cooling towers,
air-handling plant and even the pneumatic controls.
The original chillers did not continue in operation for
long after the first visit. The building was soon connected to the Chicago district chilled water system.

A new building owner announced, in 2007, ambitious

plans for the retrofitting of the building with the goal of
achieving LEED Platinum certification.5 The building
was originally intended to have a double-glass skin, and
to use the space between as a climate modifying wall.
This idea was not implemented then but was included
in proposals to achieve LEED Platinum status. This
would have meant installing a second glass wall behind
the outer window wall with programmable mechanical blinds between the panes. Other energy saving
measures planned included, daylight 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

Advertisement formerly in this space.

54

A S H R A E J O U R N A L ashrae.org JAN UARY 2015

TECHNICAL FEATURE

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 energysaving 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 replaced by digital and
the constant air volume dual duct
system replaced progressively by VAV
using the original ducts.

FIGURE 5 (LEFT) Daley Center boiler plant. FIGURE 6 (RIGHT) Daley Center induction unit.

Richard J. Daley Center

The Richard J. Daley Center, originally known as the
Chicago Civic Center, has a floor area of 137,700 m (14
million ft2) and although the building is more than 200
m (656 ft) tall it has only 31 floors. It was completed early
in 1966. The central boiler plant has four high-pressure
water tube steam boilers (Figure 5), three rated at 17.2
MW (50,000 lbs/h steam) and one rated at 24.0 MW
(70,000 lbs/h steam). The 24.0 MW 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 7.0 MW (2,000
ton). The chillers are located in the buildings basement
and connected to high level cooling towers built into the
structure.
Two types of air conditioning were installed. The
perimeter had non-changeover induction and interior
areas, constant volume units with reheat. A typical
induction unit is shown in Figure 6. Air outlets discharge
over the windows, essential given the winter climate and
single glazing without thermal breaks. At an early stage
the heating, 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 3C (37F), 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.
56

A S H R A E J O U R N A L ashrae.org JAN UARY 2015

This no-cost energy conservation measure alone saved

more than 5,400,000 kWh in the first year of operation.
This modification to the buildings 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 mid1990s 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;
Modernizing 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 266 W/m (25 W/ft) in 1997 to 151

TECHNICAL FEATURE

W/m (14 W/ft) 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 260,000 m (2.8 million ft2), 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 faade of the building is curtain
walling with single-glazed windows to the offices and
double glazed to the apartments.
The office floors have induction unit and all-air CAV
systems, similar to the Richard J. Daly building. The
building is unusual in that it is all electric with an

Advertisement formerly in this space.

estimated electrical demand, when constructed, of

69,000 kVA. There are 10 electric boilers, each with heating capacities of 1600 to 1800 kW, 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 21.5 MW (6,100 ton) 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 OShea 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.
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

Advertisement formerly in this space.

JAN UARY 2015 ashrae.org A S H R A E J O U R N A L

57

TECHNICAL FEATURE

exceed $3 million in 1985. The report

FIGURE 7 (LEFT) John Hancock Center chiller. FIGURE 8 (RIGHT) New inverters in cases of original equipment.
continued, Hancock has budgeted
$500,000 to install a computerized,
System 600 Building Management
System and Another $1 million will go
toward converting the building`s constantvolume ventilation system to a variableair-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
A Central Area DeCarbonization Plan10 has been
article commented that these works were projected to
developed for Chicago establishing eight strategies to
save $12,000,000 over the next 10 years, which equates
reduce energy use. The strategies include investigatto around a 40% reduction in annual energy costs.
Since the first energy-saving measures were carried out ing how existing structures can be upgraded to improve
energy efficiency, increase the value of aging buildin 1985 the inverters have been replaced by new state
ing stock and tap into the potential to transfer excess
of the art speed controllers. The new inverters demonenergy loads back to the grid, all while offsetting the
strate the miniaturization of electronic controls as the
need for new construction. While upgrading existing
new inverters fit inside the cases of the original units
structures in older buildings has the greatest potential
with room to spare (Figure 8). The building engineering
for sustainability, in the case of Landmark buildings,
team maintains a high standard of maintenance, which
it is difficult to achieve; due largely to constraints that
is reflected in the current condition of plant. Most of it is
original, dating from the 1960s including the electric boil- restrict changes in appearance. Had, for example, the
master plan to completely retrofit the Inland Steel builders, chillers and air-handling plant. There is an ongoing
ing been implemented, it would inevitably have resulted
replacement program for the cooling coils, but otherwise
in greater energy savings than the improvements curthe units are as originally installed.
rently being carried out. However, had the objections
of the Commission of Chicago Landmarks been overConclusions
There is no right way to implement energy conserva- come, and the structure changed, it would have meant
a loss of embedded energy in the original structure,
tion in older buildings to improve sustainability. This
and mechanical and electrical systems. This benefit of
article described several examples of ways in which
embedded energy is much less tangible than direct savenergy use can be reduced, in older buildings, with
ings that can be predicted for new energy reducing meavarying degrees of intervention, from simple continusures but, none the less real and should be taken into
ous improvement and refinement of the operation of
account when considering the options for energy saving
mechanical and electrical systems to rebuilding includmeasures in older buildings.
ing adaptive reuse. There is at present a lack of incenThe measures in all three buildings have reduced
tive for building owners to invest large sums of money
energy use to a greater or lesser extent but in addition to
in techniques that can take many years to pay back,
reducing energy use, interventions of any degree need
when payback is often less than certain. There are no
to be cost effective if building owners are going to invest
code requirements to enforce improvements. The main
incentives are either profit or being able to take the high in improvements. This is probably why the low hanging
moral ground by achieving high ratings in LEED, Energy fruit, the measures most likely to give the biggest return
on investment have been applied in all three buildings.
Star or other schemes.
58

A S H R A E J O U R N A L ashrae.org JAN UARY 2015

TECHNICAL FEATURE

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 good stewardship of both
public funds and the environment and Lastly, the PBC and
MB Real Estate found value in demonstrating that older buildings
can be successfully managed and retrofitted to meet and exceed
todays standards.7 The key, to energy sustainability in
existing major buildings, is ensuring they can be retrofitted and energy managed successfully. Given that
around 75% of buildings in 2050 exist today.; Unless
this goal is achieved countries will not be able to meet
national commitments for reductions of emissions. In

the case of the United States the target is a reduction of

83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

References
1. Buildings Energy Data Book. 2012. http://tinyurl.com/kz7a9hl.
2. Danz, E.1963, Architecture of Skidmore Owens Merrill the
Architectural Press, pp 74 81.
3. Bright, W. 2013. The Groundbreaking Inland Steel Building
Becomes Fully Appreciated 50 Years Later. Chicago Architecture
Blog, http://tinyurl.com/pl2ohtg.
4. HPAC. 1957. Whats happening in Chicago. Heating Piping and
Air Conditioning Magazine (02):157161.
5. Lange, A. 2010, In Metropolis: Blue Sky Thinking. http://tinyurl.
com/m7qwwuh.
6. EPA. 2013. Richard J. Daley Center Energy Star Labeled Profile.
http://tinyurl.com/lsyttfb.
7. USGBC. 2012. Richard J. Daley Center. http://tinyurl.com/mcspo3k.
8. Ibata, D. 1985, Hancock Aims At $12 Million Energy Savings.
Chicago Tribune. http://tinyurl.com/qz5q95d.
9. US-EIA. 2012. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Table
8.10 Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2011 (Cents per
Kilowatt-hour, Including Taxes). http://tinyurl.com/q7la8eg.
10. Smith, A., Gill, G., 2011, Toward Zero Carbon The Chicago
Central Area DeCarbonization Plan. Images Publishing Group.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

JAN UARY 2015 ashrae.org A S H R A E J O U R N A L

59