HVAC SYSTEM COMPARISON
HVAC Systems: Central
vs. Floor-By-Floor
A look at the advantages and disadvantages
of central and floor-by-floor HVAC systems
A mong the major decisions
an office building design
team (owner, architect, engi-
neers, and contractors) must make
is the selection of the HVAC sys-
tem. There are many choices of
primary cooling plants (e.g., chilled
water, refrigerant direct expansion,
ice storage, packaged, air-cooled,
and water-cooled), primary heating
plants (e.g., hydronic, steam, elec-
tric, heat pump, and heat recovery),
and air distribution systems (e.g.,
central, floor-by-floor, variable
volume, constant volume, perime-
ter reheat, dual duct, and fan-pow-
ered box). The combinations of
system and plant options, each with
distinct advantages and disadvan-
tages, are virtually infinite in num-
ber.
This article addresses only one of
the many system design decisions
—the choice between a central sys-
tem and a floor-by-floor system. We
have found this to be among the
most difficult design decisions be-
cause of its impact on overall build-
ing first costs, architectural appear-
ance, building leasability, and fu-
ture building operating costs.
By ROBERT G. LINFORD, PhD, PE,
and STEVEN T. TAYLOR, PE,
Lin ford Engineering Co.,
Oakland, Calif.
The decision to use a floor-by-
floor or central system in a particu-
lar building often depends more on
the individuals involved than on
the relative objective merits of the
two systems. The owner, developer,
or architect may have prejudices or
perceptions of one or the other sys-
tems based on their past experience
with buildings they designed, built,
or leased. In many cases, a decision
is based on what has been done in
nearby competitive buildings
rather than what may really be the
best choice for the project. Simi-
larly, most engineers have a prefer-
ence based on prior experience or
perceived system merits.
The purpose of this article is to
focus on some of the major factors
that should be considered in select-
ing the HVAC system for a particu-
lar project. The factors that affect
the initial mechanical costs, related
building costs, and lifetime main-
tenance and energy costs are very
complex. As such, it is difficult to
make generalizations or draw con-
clusions that are applicable to all
buildings, all designers, or all areas
of the country. The primary cost
factors, based on our experience,
are discussed in general terms, then
specifically as they applied to the
system selection in two existing
high-rise office buildings for which
we were the mechanical engineers
and contractors. The reader should
note t h a t our conclusions are
strongly influenced by local condi-
tions, such as the relatively mild
and dry climate and the high cost of
labor in our area. They also reflect
our very practical and economical
design approach to both central and
floor-by-floor system designs.
There are many variations ot
both central and floor-by-floor sys-
tem concepts. This article focuses
on what might be considered the
extremes of each concept— the
central system consists of a central
fan system with an air economizer
and a central chilled-water plant
serving multiple floors of the build-
ing; the floor-by-floor system, on
the other hand, has distributed
cooling and air handling equip-
ment. Each floor of the building is
served by separate air handling
equipment packaged with a water-
cooled direct expansion (DX) cool-
ing plant and a water economizer
precooling coil. The only central
equipment is a cooling tower, tower
water circulating pumps, and a
central ventilation outside air fan
system. While specifically directed
toward the packaged floor-by-floor
approach, many of our comments
and generalizations also apply to
other floor-by-floor system vari-
HVAC systems
a t i o n s , s u c h as f l o o r - b y - f l o o r
chilled-water systems with air or
tower-water economizers.
The factors t h a t affect the HVAC
system costs include both direct
and indirect factors, such as engi-
neering costs, installation costs, ar-
chitectural impact costs, and costs
for other construction trades.
Engineering costs
In the design of any major build-
ing project, regardless of whether a
central or floor-by-floor system is
eventually selected, it is imperative
t h a t the engineer be involved early
in the design process. This allows
more time for a proper analysis of
the various system choices. The en-
gineer is also available to provide
the necessary input into the archi-
tectural layout of the core and pent-
house to ensure t h a t the design of
the HVAC system can be effectively
accommodated.
Analyzing and evaluating design
options can consume a great deal of
valuable engineering time. Often,
the project schedule does not allow
time for such careful study. Because
the system selection needs to pre-
cede the final architectural core and
penthouse layouts, there is a great
deal of pressure to finalize this
decision quickly. These engineering
costs and time pressures often com-
pel the engineer to select the system
with which he is most familiar. The
engineer should try to convince the
owner, developer, or architect t h a t
it is cost effective to pay the added
engineering cost required to re-
search system options carefully and
then integrate the system into the
architectural design.
Engineering costs and risk fac-
tors for designing a packaged DX
water-cooled floor-by-floor system
are usually lower than those for a
central system for the following
reasons:
• The complex portions of the
packaged floor-by-floor system are
factory designed. The design of the
refrigeration and air-side systems,
cooling and fan capacity controls,
and internal wiring become the re-
sponsibility of the manufacturer,
not the engineer.
• The equipment room layout is
simple and repeated multiple times,
which saves design time, whereas
cost-effective design of central fan
system duct risers and penthouse
layout can be very time consuming.
• Load calculations and corre-
sponding equipment selection is
less critical with packaged floor-
by-floor systems because the mod-
ular sizes of the floor units build an
additional safety factor into the
design.
Mechanical installation costs
The relative mechanical installa-
tion costs of floor-by-floor and cen-
tral systems vary from project to
project, with neither system prov-
ing to be inherently less expensive
t h a n the other. The only way to
really know which system is less
expensive for a given building is to
perform a detailed cost estimate of
each design. If this is impractical, a
careful study of the major factors
t h a t i mpact first cost can often
make the least expensive option
apparent.
The major factors and trends we
have noted in many of the projects
we designed and installed in the
past several years include:
• Number of floors. Because of
the base cost of the central cooling
tower and pumps, combined with
the high cost for the packaged units,
we have found t h a t floor-by-floor
systems are generally more ex-
pensive t h a n central systems for
buildings less than 8 to 10 stories.
For buildings above 12 to 15 floors,
mechanical costs begin to favor
floor-by-floor systems.
• Typical floor area and load.
The cost per square foot of floor-
b y - f l o o r s y s t e m s g e n e r a l l y de-
creases as the floor area on each
floor increases, with the optimum
size in the 15,000 to 25,000 sq f t
range. Above 25,000 sq ft, there is
usually inadequate ceiling clear-
ance available for a cost-effective
duct distribution system radiating
from a single unit, and the unit size
required may be above 60 nominal
tons, which is the extent of most
manufacturers' product lines.
Below about 10,000 sq ft, first
costs for floor-by-floor systems are
generally higher than for central
systems due to the large number of
small units. The installed cost of a
20-ton packaged unit is more than
half t h a t of a 40-ton unit, even
though the cost of the unit itself
may be about half. Items such as
controls, pipe and duct connec-
tions, and start-up costs are more
related to the number of units than
to their size. Control costs are a
major factor in a floor-by-floor sys-
tem unless packaged controls are
used. The cost for field-installed,
direct digital controls (DDC) or
pneumatic controls can be almost
as much for each unit as for a single
central air handling system. There-
fore, to keep the floor-by-floor sys-
tem cost reasonable, the number of
units must be minimized and unit
sizes must be as large as possible,
with the optimum unit size in the 40
to 60 ton range.
Central system costs follow a
similar trend, with costs per square
foot falling as floor size increases
but without the sudden cost impact
as floor size falls outside the 15,000
to 25,000 sq f t optimal range. First-
cost considerations will, therefore,
generally favor central systems for
buildings with typical floor areas
outside this range.
• Space available in ceiling
cavity for ducts. Ceiling cavity di-
mensions and building structure
will often limit the size of cost-ef-
fective floor distribution ducts,
which then limits the size of a single
packaged unit on a floor. Round
ducts are less expensive than rect-
angular ducts, but they require
more ceiling clearance for the same
air quantity. As the available duct
space decreases, the required aspect
ratio of the duct increases, which
increases its cost. In an extreme
case, the difference can be $0.50 per
sq f t or more between round and
extremely shallow rectangular duct
distribution systems.
Often, a shallow ceiling cavity
problem can be solved most cost
effectively by distributing air from
more than one point on each floor.
This inherently favors central sys-
tems, for which adding another
cooling air supply riser from the
central fan system would generally
add much less cost than using mul-
tiple, low-tonnage floor-by-floor
packages.
• Cost effectiveness of the sys-
tem design approach. Design phi-
losophy and design criteria have a
large impact on the cost of the sys-
tem. For instance, one design may
include multiple pieces of equip-
ment for redundancy and standby
capability while another may have
only single pieces of equipment for
each function (e.g., single boiler,
pump, or chiller). One engineer may
size a large, variable-volume duct
riser for 4500 fpm while another
may limit velocities to 1500 fpm.
One design may call for a central
system surrounded by 4-in. double-
wall sheet metal plenums while an-
other may use drywall enclosures
where possible. All in all, the differ-
ence between a very conservative
design and an overly economical
design can be several dollars per
square foot.
As design/build engineers and
contractors, we try to design sys-
tems t h a t are between these ex-
tremes, balancing high system
quality (excellent comfort and flex-
ibility, low maintenance and energy
costs) with first-cost considerations
and budget constraints. We gener-
ally spend a great deal of design
time laying out systems to minimize
material costs and the number of
duct and pipe fittings. Sound traps
in ductwork are used only where
shown by analysis to be necessary.
Pipe and duct systems are designed
to minimize costs within noise, per-
formance, and serviceability con-
straints. Equipment capacities are
matched to the calculated loads
without large safety factors. (The
reader should be aware t h a t much
of the cost data and comparisons
herein are a function of our compa-
ny's design philosophy; conclusions
may change radically for designers
with substantially different design
approaches.)
• Penthouse, shafts, and me-
chanical room architectural con-
straints. For a central system, the
penthouse or mechanical floor lay-
out has a significant impact on sys-
tem cost. It is easy to spend many
t h o u s a n d s of dollars adapting a
mechanical system into an architec-
turally pleasing penthouse t h a t is
inefficient from a mechanical point
of view. Because of the large size
and subsequent high cost of central
system components, the designer
must carefully lay out systems to
minimize the space required and
the number of duct and pipe fittings
and offsets. The cost difference be-
tween a poorly laid out system and a
clever, economical approach can be
as much as $1.00 per sq ft.
Although the impact of a poor
a r c h i t e c t u r a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n on
f l o o r - b y - f l o o r s y s t e m c o s t s is
smaller, a poorly laid out system
can still add as much as $0.75 per sq
ft. For example, duct distribution
costs can be greatly increased if the
mechanical room is located between
o b s t r u c t i o n s t h a t force all t h e
supply and return air to leave and
enter the room at one point or if the
unit is not centrally located on the
floor.
• Local code requirements for
smoke control and removal. Many
local building departments and fire
districts require mechanical smoke
control and removal systems. While
the model code adopted by most
local jurisdictions offers alterna-
tives such as break-out windows,
one major jurisdiction in the San
Francisco Bay area disallows these
options, thereby mandat i ng me-
chanical smoke control systems,
and m a n y other building de-
partments strongly encourage their
use.
This requirement can have a ma-
jor impact on system selection. The
central system with an air econo-
mizer essentially has built-in smoke
removal and control capability be-
cause of its ability to supply 100
percent outside air and exhaust an
equivalent amount of smoke. Be-
cause t h e floor-by-floor system
with water economizer does not in-
herently include this capability,
d e d i c a t e d smoke e x h a u s t a n d
makeup air systems must be added
at a cost typically on the order of
$0.50 per sq ft. In addition to the
added cost, these dedicated systems
require additional space, and they
are seldom as effective at smoke re-
moval as central systems because of
generally poor makeup air distribu-
tion. In jurisdictions where me-
chanical smoke removal is required,
cost considerations will usually fa-
vor the central system.
A r c h i t e c t u r a l impact
One of the most compelling rea-
sons for selecting a floor-by-floor
HVAC system is the reduced archi-
tectural impact compared to a cen-
tral system. While a central system
would require at least a very large
penthouse, and often both a pent-
house and dedicated intermediate
mechanical floors in buildings over
20 to 25 stories or so, the floor-by-
floor system requires penthouse
space only for a cooling tower,
pumps, and outside air ventilation
fans (and boilers, if required for the
heating system). Since it seems
most architects dislike the large
louvered skin characteristic of cen-
tral system mechanical floors, the
minimal architectural impact of the
floor-by-floor system can be one of
its strongest selling points.
The typical floor-by-floor system
mechanical room serving the typi-
cal 15,000 to 25,000 sq f t office floor
is about 18 by 12 ft, the former
dimension often being determined
by the adjacent stair or elevator
core width. If the central minimum
o u t s i d e air v e n t i l a t i o n s y s t e m
serves no more than about 10 floors,
the ventilation air shaft may often
be taken out of a corner of the room.
Otherwise, more area must be taken
from the floor.
Walls enclosing floor-by-floor
fan rooms, unless adjacent to non-
critical areas such as toilet rooms or
stairwells, are generally required to
be acoustically t r e a t e d in some
manner. Requirements vary de-
pending on desired noise criteria
HVAC systems

levels, but on most of our projects, central system shafts will exceed by-floor systems also generally have
walls have been drywall construc- that required by floor-by-floor sys- factory-packaged controls, which
tion with staggered or 6-in. studs tem mechanical rooms for buildings reduces control wiring costs.
with batt insulation, several layers greater than 8 or 10 stories, based Plumbing costs for floor-by-floor
of gypsum board, and an exposed on a typical floor area of 15,000 to systems will generally be higher
acoustical lining on the interior 25,000 sq ft. For buildings smaller than those for central systems due
face. Where mechanical room doors than 8 stories, the size of the central to the larger number of floor drains
open to tenant areas, double solid - system penthouse becomes a less and condensate drains. However,
core doors are usually provided, one significant factor architecturally the impact is generally small and
acoustically rated opening into the compared to the increasing burden should not be a key factor in system
room with the outside door selected of the floor-by-floor system me- selection.
to match architectural finishes. chanical room space required. For
While the space required by the that reason, as well as the increased Energy costs
floor-by-floor system mechanical mechanical cost of a floor-by-floor Proponents of the floor-by-floor
room is certainly not usable by ten- system for small buildings, central system often cite the reduced fan
a n t s , A N S I S t a n d a r d Z 6 5 . 1 systems are generally favored for energy required (ostensibly due to
(prepared by Building Owners and buildings less than 8 stories in the lack of central duct riser) as one
M a n a g e r s A s s o c i a t i o n I n t e r - height. of the system's major assets. In fact,
national) designates it as rentable For high-rise buildings over in most medium-velocity VAV ap-
space. However, at least in the cur- about 15 stories, overall building plications, there should be little
rent "office glut," many sophis- first costs will almost always favor difference in fan energy use be-
ticated tenants will negotiate a the floor-by-floor system. While the tween the two systems.
lower overall rental rate to com- cost of building acoustically treated The pressure drop in the duct
pensate for such nonusable space. fan rooms is not insignificant, the riser is relatively small for a me-
Shafts required for central sys- cost of the penthouse and/or dedi- dium-velocity system. Friction
tems are considered nonrentable cated mechanical floors to house rates in large duct risers are usually
space. Our rule of thumb for shaft central system equipment is almost relatively low (0.15 to 0.25 in. WG per
area required by a central, single- always significantly higher. This 100 ft) due to velocity limitations.
duct VAV system is about 1.3 sq ft cost difference generally grows with For a central system serving 15 sto-
per 1000 sq ft of total conditioned the number of floors. Where a cen- ries, the additional pressure drop of
area served by the fan system. This tral system may require a dedicated the riser and riser tap will be on the
includes space for a medium veloc- mechanical floor for air handling order of 0.5 to 0.6 in. WG at design
ity duct riser as well as for air return equipment every 15 or 30 stories, conditions. The added pressure
back up the shaft. This is the shaft the floor-by-floor system will usu- drop on the return side is generally
area required on the first few floors ally only require a single penthouse negligible due to very low velocities
adjacent to the fan room; the shaft for the cooling tower, pumps, and in the return shaft. Unfortunately,
is generally stepped back as floors boilers. many designers overestimate the
drop off the system to maximize pressure drop of plenum return
rentable space. Impaet on other trades systems and install large, inefficient
One flexibility offered by central The impact on electrical costs of return fans that operate mostly at
system duct shafts is that they may central versus floor-by-floor sys- low load. We prefer to use relief fans
be strangely shaped. Floor-by-floor tems varies from project to project. in lieu of return fans. They are usu-
mechanical rooms must generally The central system has fewer pieces ally less expensive and offer signifi-
be rectangular to accommodate the of equipment to power and will al- cant energy savings since they oper-
shape of the packaged air handler. most always have a lower total ate only for economizer relief, while
Since the central system shaft area connected load due to building di- the more efficient supply fans pick
is primarily used for return air, the versity, higher-efficiency cooling up the return air pressure drop
shaft may be tucked in among other equipment, and fewer equipment when the economizer is locked out
core e l e m e n t s r e s u l t i n g in L- s e l e c t i o n " r o u n d - o f f " e r r o r s . in warm weather.
shaped, t r a p e z o i d a l , and even (Floor-by-floor system equipment But the floor-by-floor system
curved shaft footprints. The return must be selected from an equip- usually has compensating pressure
and supply portions of the shaft ment line with a limited selection of drops as well as lower fan effi-
may also be separated if required by cooling capacities.) However, the ciencies. In most buildings, the
the core configuration, although central equipment is most often floor-by-floor air handler discharge
this usually results in a slight in- located high up in the building, arrangement is less than ideal due
crease in space required. requiring longer runs of larger bus to space constraints, forcing the use
Based on the rules of thumb sug- duct, while floor-by-floor system of a discharge plenum or sharply
gested above, the area required by loads drop off at each floor. Floor- turning duct elbows and adding a
 Table 2—Comparison of equipment alternatives and costs for a build-
Table 1—Comparison of equipment alternatives and costs for a build- ing located in Foster City, Calif. (Project 2).
ing located in San Francisco, Calif. (Project 1).
Gross area 4 5 0 , 0 0 0 sq ft
Gross area 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 sq ft N u m b e r of floors 17 office, 3 o f f i c e / r e t a i l
N u m b e r of floors 4 2 total, 3 3 of o f f i c e s Area per office floor 2 0 . 0 0 0 sq ft ( a v e r a g e )
Area per office floor 1 4 , 0 0 0 sq ft ( a v e r a g e ) Type of s t r u c t u r e Steel
Type of s t r u c t u r e Steel Floor-to-floor height 13 ft 6 in. with 9 ft ceilings
Floor-to-floor height 13 ft 6 in. with 8 ft 9 in. ceilings Design c o n d i t i o n s
Design c o n d i t i o n s Summer 84 F DB, 6 5 F WB
Summer 7 9 F DB, &3 F WB Winter 35 F _ _
Winter 38 F Installed HVAC s y s t e m
Installed HVAC s y s t e m Cooling s y s t e m
Cooling s y s t e m Type 7 8 8 f u n s DX p a c k a g e s , 4 0 a n d 5 0 t o n s
Type 9 0 0 t o n s — c e n t r i f u g a l w a t e r chillers Location Floors 4-21. each floor
Location 3 3 r d floor Heating s y s t e m
Heating s y s t e m Type Central w a r m air VAV, g a s boilers
Type Hot w a t e r - g a s - f i r e d boilers Location Penthouse
Location P e n t h o u s e ( 4 2 n d floor) Fan s y s t e m
Fan s y s t e m Type F o r w a r d - c u r v e d centrifugal, no return f a n s
Type Airfoil centrifugal, supply and r e t u r n Location Each floor
Location 3 3 r d floor, 1st b a s e m e n t Fan volume control D i s c h a r g e d a m p e r s , (FC tans)
Fan v o l u m e control Scroll d a m p e r s , 1 0 0 p e r c e n t shut-off Type of e c o n o m i z e r Water-side, closed circuit
Type of e c o n o m i z e r 1 0 0 p e r c e n t o u t s i d e air, dry bulb lockout Smallest o p e r a b l e unit One floor
Control s y s t e m Combination DDC and p n e u m a t i c Control s y s t e m Combination electronic, D(DC, and p n e u m a t i c
S m a l l e s t o p e r a b l e unit One floor Auxiliary cooling Extra c o n d e n s e r w a t e r loop capacity
Auxiliary cooling 2 5 0 t o n s closed-circuit c o n d e n s e r w a t e r Interior z o n e control Shut-off VAV
Interior zone control Shut-off VAV Exterior zone control Dual-duct VAV
Exterior zone control VAV with hot w a t e r r e h e a t HVAC c o s t s
HVAC c o s t s Core $3.67 per sq ft
Core $ 4 . 3 0 per sq ft Tenant $2.65 per sq ft ( a v e r a g e )
Tenant $ 3 . 1 0 per sq ft ( a v e r a g e ) Maintenance/repair costs . . . $0.08 per sq ft per yr, $ 0 . 6 8 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h
Maintenance/repair costs . . . $ 0 . 0 6 per sq ft per yr, S 0 . 5 0 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h HVAC energy c o s t s $0.31 per sq ft per yr, $ 2 . 5 0 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h
HVAC energy c o s t s $ 0 . 2 6 per sq ft per yr. $ 2 . 1 0 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h Total p r e s e n t w o r t h $9.50 per sq ft ( 1 2 p c r c e n t , 3 0 yr)
Total p r e s e n t w o r t h $ 1 0 . 0 0 per sq ft ( 1 2 p e r c e n t , 3 0 y r ) Alternate s y s t e m proposal
Alternate s y s t e m proposal Cooling s y s t e m
Cooling s y s t e m Type 7 2 0 t o n s — c e n t r i f u g a l w a t e r chillers
Type 1 0 0 0 ton DX p a c k a g e s , 3 0 and 4 0 t o n s Location P e n t h o u s e ( 2 1 s t floor)
Location Each floor Heating s y s t e m
Heating s y s t e m Type Central w a r m air VAV, g a s boilers
Type Hot w a t e r - g a s - f i r e d boilers Location Penthouse
Location P e n t h o u s e ( 4 2 n d floor) Fan s y s t e m
Fan s y s t e m Type Airfoil centrifugal supply, propeller relief
Type F o r w a r d - c u r v e d centrifugal, no r e t u r n f a n s Location Penthouse
Location Each fioor Fan volume control Variable-speed drive
Fan v o l u m e control Inlet v a n e s Type of e c o n o m i z e r 1 0 0 p e r c e n t o u t s i d e air, dry bulb lockout
Type of e c o n o m i z e r Water-side, open-circuit Control s y s t e m Combination DDC and p n e u m a t i c
Control s y s t e m Combination electronic, DDC and p n e u m a t i c Smallest o p e r a b l e unit One floor
S m a l l e s t o p e r a b l e unit One floor Auxiliary cooling Closed circuit HX on t o w e r
Auxiliary cooling Extra c o n d e n s e r w a t e r loop c a p a c i t y Interior zone control Shut-off VAV
Interior zone control Shut-off VAV Exterior zone control Dual-duct VAV
Exterior zone control VAV with hot w a t e r r e h e a t HVAC c o s t s
HVAC c o s t s Core $4.01 persqft
Core $ 4 . 3 2 per sq ft Tenant $2.65 per sq ft ( a v e r a g e )
Tenant $ 3 . 1 0 per sq ft ( a v e r a g e ) Maintenance/repair costs . . . $0.06 per sq ft per yr, $ 0 . 5 2 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h
Maintenance/repair costs . . . $ 0 . 0 9 per sq ft per yr, $ 0 . 7 3 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h HVAC energy c o s t s $0.24 per sq ft per yr, $ 1 . 9 3 per sq ft p r e s e n t w o r t h
HVAC energy c o s t s $ 0 . 3 5 per sq ft per yr, $ 2 . 8 2 per sq f t p r e s e n t w o r t h Added p e n t h o u s e c o s t $0.28 persqft ($125,000)
Total p r e s e n t w o r t h . . . . . . . $ 1 0 . 9 7 per sq f t _ ( 1 2 p e r c e n t , 3 0 yr) Total p r e s e n t w o r t h $9.39 p e r s q ft ( 1 2 p e r c e n t , 3 0 y r ) _

"system effect" pressure drop typi- for f a c t o r y - i n s t a l l e d discharge tem itself is less than that of the
cally on the order of 0.3 in. WG, but plenums. The water economizer central fan system. The typical
as high as 1.0 in. WG, depending on precooling coil adds another 0.25 in. floor-by-floor air handler will in-
discharge arrangement, according WG pressure drop. Finally, the effi- clude a forward-curved fan with
to one manufacturer's catalog data ciency of the floor-by-floor fan sys- inlet vanes and a relatively small
HVAC systems

Case studies
3
P r o j e c t 1 is a 42-story structure in San Francisco (Thble 1). T h e building
i consists of, from bottom to top, 3 floors of underground parking" and
j mechanical space, 32 floors of offices, 1 floor for mechanical equipment, 7
I floors of condominiums, and 2 floors for elevator machinery, boilers, cooling
| towers, and life-safety fans.
| T h e installed HVAC system includes central centrifugal chillers and
| central VAV fan systems on the 33rd floor and in the basement. Zone control
] is variable volume with hot water reheat at perimeter zones. A floor-by-I'loor
| packaged water-cooled system was studied during the design phase,
j T h e selection of a central system over the iloor-by-lloor system for this
| building was related t o higher perceived quality of the central chilled-water
system, potential noise on the office floors with the lloor-by-floor system,
| and the system types installed in competing buildings. T h e origiual esti-
'] mated costs were similar for the two systems, but life-cycle cost consid-
! erations favored the central system.
| T h e floor-by-floor system would have allowed recovery of most of the 33rd
i floor for use as rentable office space, and the fan room area on each floor is
| technically rentable space. B u t the fan rooms did not fit well architecturally
j with other core elements, ultimately reducing core efficiency and increasing
core costs. T h e problems with smoke control, ventilation, noise, and com-
petitive similar buildings were considered more important than the small
increase in rentable space in the slow rental market of the time.
It is our opinion that the primary reason the owner finally chose the central
system was the fact that most of the other top-quality buildings in San
Francisco have central systems. (As an interesting aside, the owner made a
similar decision regarding air distribution system: a VAV hot water reheat,
system was selected over a less expensive and more energy-efficient double-
duct VAV system primarily because no other major high rise in San Fran-
cisco at that time had a double-duct system. T h e owner did not want to have
to explain his system choice to prospective tenants.)
B y using the code-required smoke dampers to shut off air to unoccupied
floors, the central system off-hour energy efficiency was competitive with
that of the floor-by-floor design. Connecting the risers from the basement
and the 33rd floor fan rooms with a 25 percent capacity duct allows any one of
the four supply fans in the building to serve the entire building during off-
hour periods. T h e chillers were not equipped with hot gas bypass, which has
caused some minor problems in excessive chiller cycling during weekend off-
hour operation; night and early morning partial-occupancy operation has
not been a problem because the cool climate allows the economizer to handle
the entire cooling load without the chillers.

(15 to 20 hp) motor, with an overall
static efficiency on the order of 45 to
50 percent (including inlet vane and
belt drive and motor losses). The
central fan system, consisting of an
airfoil centrifugal fan with an AC
frequency variable-speed drive and
large high-efficiency motor, will
have an overall efficiency of about
50 to 60 percent (including drive
and motor losses).
Even with a somewhat higher
full-load fan power requirement,
the central VAV fan system may
have lower annual energy costs than
the floor-by-floor system. The pri-
mary reason is the superior part
load performance of the variable-
speed drive compared to the for-
ward-curved fan with inlet vanes.
(Variable-speed drives may also be
used on floor-by-floor fan systems,
but they are not as cost effective as
when they are applied to large cen-
tral systems. We have found their
use in the floor-by-floor application
to be uncommon at this time, but
this may change as the cost of the
drives continues to fall and drives
are included as a factory-installed
option.)
Another reason for the better
part-load performance of the cen-
tral fan system is building diversity
between floors. For instance, some
floors may be near full load while
others may be only lightly loaded. It
is more efficient to operate a single
fan at, say, 75 percent than to oper-
ate two fans with one at 50 percent
and the other at 100 percent. This is
due to fan laws (the power required
is proportional to the cube of the
velocity) and to reduced fan system
efficiency at low loads.
P r o j e c t 2 is a 20 story building in Foster City, Calif.,
about 15 miles south of San Francisco (Table 2) The
weather in Foster City is very mild but considerably
warmer than San Francisco. The lower three floors ot
the building are for office or retail tenants, while the
upper floors are offices.
The installed HVAC system serving the oflice
areas is a dual-fan/dual-duct VAV system with floor-
by-floor packaged water-cooled units with water-
side economizers and a central roof-mounted heat-
ing supply air system. An alternative central fan
system with centrifugal chillers was studied during
the design phase.
Cost and architectural factors favored the floor-b}-floor system lor this
project. UBC 1807 smoke removal requirements could be met by modifying
the central ducted VAV heating system for mechanical smoke removal. The i n c l u d e h u m i d i f i c a t i o n capability.
floor area and height of this building made it ideal lor the floor-by-floor The water economizer is essen-
system from an initial-cost, standpoint. The typical floor area was within the tially an i n d i r e c t e v a p o r a t i v e
optimum range for packaged units. cooler. Water is circulated through
Mechanical costs were higher for the central system since it is generally not a cooling tower where it is evapo-
efficient, to serve as many as 20 stories from a single fan room. The architec- ratively cooled, then circulated
tural impact was also more significant—the central system duct shafts were through cooling coils to cool supply
larger than the area required by floor-by-floor equipment rooms, and the air indirectly. Although water econ-
penthouse space required for fan rooms significantly impacted building omizers can substantially reduce
architectural appearance and first costs.
cooling compressor energy, their
The decision to use a floor-by-floor system primarily resulted from the
following factors:
overall efficiency is almost always
o The original design scheme included floor-by-floor fan rooms, and the less than that of air-side econo-
architectural changes required to accommodate a central system were mizers in the Bay area climate. This
substantial. is primarily due to the parasitic
o First costs were more important to the owner than annual energy and energy use of the cooling tower fans
maintenance costs. and pumps, which operate almost
o The owners like'floor-by-floor and felt it was easier to lease because of a continuously at full load whenever
a perceived tenant preference for systems with individual floor units for the system is on, unlike the air econ-
efficient off-hour operation. omizer, which provides truly "free"
Although the system works well, there have been occasional packaged unit cooling d u r i n g cool a n d cold
failures. There is no redundancy on the individual floors; when a unit or its
weather. Furthermore, because of
control system fails, cooling capability is totally lost on the floor until the unit
is repaired. The units do have some redundancy with multiple compressors.
the heat exchange inefficiencies of
Repair costs at Metro Center have not been as high as predicted by the the cooling tower and cooling coil,
maintenance costs estimate. But in other of our buildings, the repair costs the water economizer will not gen-
have been higher than predicted. erally provide as large a fraction of
the cooling load as an air econo-
mizer, except in very dry, mild
weather, which seldom occurs in
this area due to the influence of the
The ability of an HVAC system most HVAC designs use either air- bay.
to take advantage of the San Fran- or water-side economizers to reduce For instance, at 55 F outside air
cisco Bay area's very mild climate is cooling energy use. dry bulb temperature, an air econo-
probably the single most significant In this climate, the most efficient mizer would provide the entire
factor in determining overall energy type of economizer is the air-side cooling load for a VAV system with
performance. The dry bulb tem- economizer. In some colder cli- a fixed 55 F supply temperature.
perature around the Bay in a typi- mates, energy used for humid- Assuming a coincident wet bulb
cal year is between 40 and 70 F ification systems can substantially temperature of 50 F (typical of the
during more than 80 percent of a offset air economizer savings. But area), for the water economizer to
typical building's operating hours. the weather is seldom cold in this be equally effective, the combined
(This figure rises to about 92 per- area, and comfort problems due to tower leaving water temperature
cent for San Francisco, the "air- very low relative humidity caused approach to wet bulb and cooling
conditioned" city.) With such mild by cooling with outdoor air are vir- coil leaving air temperature ap-
weather, heat recovery systems are tually nonexistent. Very few com- proach to tower water temperature
generally not cost effective, and fort HVAC systems in this area would have to be 5 F or less. This is
HVAC systems
generally not possible even with an
oversized tower and coils. (With
both air- and water-side econo-
mizers, we have found that it is
generally cost effective to reset
supply air temperatures upwards in
these mild weather conditions to
prolong the time during which the
economizer can meet 100 percent of
the load, as well as to reduce zonal
reheat losses, despite the resulting
increase in fan energy. A side bene-
fit is an increase in air circulation
rates, which can be uncomfortably
low with VAV systems at part load.)
The energy performance of the
water economizer is very dependent
on system component design and
sizing and on how well the water
side of the system is maintained.
The tower should be oversized com-
pared to normal air conditioning
duty to provide as close an ap-
proach to wet bulb temperatures as
economically possible. The tower
should be the type using propeller
fans (either draw-through or blow-
through) rather than centrifugal
blowers, unless absolutely pre-
cluded by acoustical concerns.
Propeller fans generally require
half the horsepower of blower fans
in tower applications due to the low
static pressures required.
Coil selection is also critical. In-
creased economizer coil heat-trans-
fer effectiveness, which improves
economizer cooling performance,
must be balanced against increased
air-side pressure drop, which in-
creases parasitic fan energy. Since
an open-circuit tower is generally
used for highest cooling efficiency,
it is generally advisable to use me-
chanically cleanable economizer
coils for ease in maintenance, and
an automatic, well-maintained wa-
ter treatment system is essential.
Besides reduced energy costs,
air-side economizers offer an addi-
tional advantage over water-side
economizers: increased outside air
intake. During more than 85 per-
cent of the building's operating
hours in the typical Bay area cli-
mate, the air economizer controls
will cause introduction of more
than code-minimum amounts of
outside air. This reduces the like-
lihood of tight building syndrome, a
building malady caused by in-
creased concentrations of indoor air
contaminants that is becoming in-
creasingly more common in today's
energy-efficient buildings. The
causes of TBS are not generally
known, but the cure almost always
involves increasing outdoor air
ventilation levels. This increase is
essentially built into systems with
air-side economizers. In addition,
the efficiency of air filters is typi-
cally higher for central systems be-
cause space constraints usually
preclude the use of bag filters on
floor-by-floor systems. (To be fair,
it should be noted that we have yet
to have a "sick" building even
among those with code-minimum
outside air supplies and pleated fil-
ters, but the added outside air in-
take capability of the air econo-
mizer and the high-efficiency fil-
tering typical of central systems
certainly minimizes the likelihood
of air quality problems and in-
creases our design liability comfort
level.)
A factor often overlooked in cal-
culations of floor-by-floor system
energy usage is the use of hot gas
bypass, found as a standard feature
of most units, to ensure frost-free,
stable, low-load operation. This
control essentially causes the unit's
energy demand to be constant at
the lowest step of unloading, even
when much lower coil loads are ex-
perienced. For this reason, units
with more steps of unloading will be
more efficient at low loads. In-
credibly, some air conditioning
units found on the market have
large compressors with only one or
two steps of unloading, resulting in
extremely inefficient part-load
operation. On the other extreme,
recently introduced units using
scroll compressors instead of recip-
rocating compressors are able to
operate at low loads without the use
of hot gas bypass, resulting in al-
most linear part-load performance,
degraded only by cycling losses.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize pre-
dicted energy use of the two case
study buildings, with both floor-
by-floor DX and central systems
simulated using the DOE-2.1C
program along with a custom plant
program used to model the water-
side economizer (which the DOE
program cannot do). The central
system outperforms the floor-by-
floor system primarily due to the
superior performance of the air-side
economizer.
Off-hour energy costs
In the past, central systems were
very inefficient at serving a par-
tially occupied building. If only a
few floors were occupied, say during
late hours or over the weekend, the
system would have to condition the
entire building. Floor-by-floor sys-
tems are inherently more efficient
in this regard since they may serve
each floor independently.
To improve the efficiency of off-
hour central system operation, vir-
tually all of our recent central sys-
tem designs have included the abil-
ity to shut off air supply to unoccu-
pied areas or floors. (This capabil-
ity is required under the latest draft
of ASHRAE Standard 90.IP.) In
most of our designs, this is accom-
plished by using smoke dampers at
supply duct shaft penetrations at
each floor. In some jurisdictions,
such dampers are required for life-
safety purposes, and we have been
allowed to use them for off-hour
floor isolation, provided the fire-
men's control of the dampers takes
precedence over any automatic
controls. For those buildings where
smoke dampers are not required,
the cost to convert shaft fire damp-
ers (which are almost always re-
quired in buildings over two stories)
to combination fire/smoke dampers
(without end switches and fire-
men's override controls, which
should not be required in this case)
is typically very small. An alterna-
tive approach for these buildings is
to use normally closed VAV boxes
and control air EP switches to shut
off air to unoccupied areas. New
VAV boxes with DDC controls al-
low this type of off-hour control in
software without additional hard-
ware expenditures.
The central system with off-hour
isolation capability must be able to
operate stably at the very low loads
that might occur when only one
floor or area is being served. Of
primary concern are the fan system,
which may be forced to operate in
unstable or surge portions of its
characteristic fan curve, and the
central water chillers, which may
short cycle or shut off on safety
devices if operated for long periods
at low loads.
Fan stability is a function of fan
type as well as the VAV duct pres-
sure control device. If large airfoil
centrifugal fans are used, inlet
vanes should not be used for pres-
sure control. Vanes leak signifi-
cantly at low loads, causing over-
pressurization of (and sometimes
significant damage to) duct sys-
tems. In addition, at low loads the
fan will almost certainly be forced
to operate in an unstable region of
its fan curve, often causing an an-
noying pulsating rumble and vibra-
tion. For airfoil centrifugal fans, we
have successfully used variable
speed drives as well as variable
scroll dampers, both of which have
proved to allow stable low-load
operation.
Variable speed drives offer the
additional advantages of very en-
ergy-efficient and incredibly quiet
part-load operation. Although the
fan technically operates in surge at
low loads, we have found it difficult
to detect in practice. (Our primary
fan supplier believes that this sta-
bility will occur provided the fan
static pressure control set point is
less than about 1.5 in. WG.) The cost
of variable speed drives has fallen to
the point that they are easily life-
cycle cost justified (less than 2 yr
payback periods) versus inlet vanes
for large fan systems (50 hp and
greater) and may be so for smaller
system's as well.
Variable scroll dampers do not
provide the very efficient part-load
operation of variable speed drives,
but they do offer the advantage of
100 percent fan shut-off, which may
serve as an effective b a c k d r a f t
damper for parallel fan systems.
The problem of chiller low-load
stability can often be solved by us-
ing multiple chillers staged as re-
quired by the load, provided the
minimum stable-load capability of
the single chiller is on the order of
expected off-hour loads. Where
lower loads can be expected for long
periods of time, hot gas bypass
should be installed (typically on
only one compressor to reduce first
costs).
Central systems with off-hour
isolation capability, especially
those with variable speed fan
drives, can be very efficient at serv-
ing even a single floor at a time. It is
often difficult to convince owners
and tenants of this, however—they
c a n n o t imagine how t h e huge
supply fans could not always re-
quire huge amounts of electricity.
In fact, the central system can be
more efficient than the floor-by-
floor system in the off-hour mode.
This is partly due to the superior
performance of the air economizer
but is also due to the energy con-
sumed by floor-by-floor system
cooling tower fans and pumps.
While they may comprise only 3 to 5
percent of the total connected cool-
ing equipment full-load electrical
demand, the pumps are generally
constant volume, which means
constant energy demand, and the
tower fans run frequently to main-
tain cold water for economizer oper-
ation. When serving only one floor
of, say, a 20-story building, pumps
and tower fans may use more energy
than the floor air handler and com-
pressor.
On projects where a significant
amount of off-hour operation is ex-
pected, it may be cost effective to
install an automatic shut-off valve
at each floor-by-floor air condi-
tioning unit, interlocked to shut off
flow to the unit when the unit is off.
Pumps may then "ride the pump
curve" (i.e., run wild), or they may
be staged, variable speed driven, or
a combination of the two to reduce
energy usage.
The energy cost estimates in Ta-
bles 1 and 2 assume 10 percent of
the office floors operate after hours
each weeknight from 6 to 10 PM and
on Saturdays from 9 AM to 2 PM to
account approximately for system
off-hour efficiency.
Maintenance costs
The central system has several
large-expense maintenance items.
The chillers require both regular
maintenance and a more extensive
regular inspection or teardown.
Repair or replacement of one of the
major pieces of equipment, such as
fans or chillers, due to a total failure
can be extremely expensive.
The higher-efficiency bag filters
we typically use on central systems
are much more expensive than the
pleated filters used in the floor-by-
floor systems. However, they need
to be replaced less frequently and,
as some filter manufacturers claim,
may actually cost less to maintain
when labor costs are included.
The floor-by-floor system main-
tenance and repair costs center
upon the packaged water-cooled
units (as well as the cooling tower,
which is common to both central
and floor-by-floor systems). Com-
pressor failures and control failures
are all too common in our experi-
ence. On some of our more recent
projects, we have started using
screw and scroll compressor floor-
by-floor units and are optimistic
that they will prove to be more
reliable t h a n traditional recip-
rocating compressor units. Despite
the increased likelihood of equip-
ment failure with floor-by-floor
equipment, the impact of a failure is
generally less severe than that for a
central system failure because only
one floor would be affected. This
problem with central systems can
be mitigated by using multiple or
r e d u n d a n t primary equipment,
such as multiple fans, chillers, and
pumps. Despite the higher risk of
catastrophic failure of primary
central system equipment, the
overall life-cycle maintenance and
replacement costs of the central
system are usually less than those of
the floor-by-floor system.
The maintenance/repair costs (or
HVAC systems
guaranteed maintenance costs)
shown in Tables 1 and 2 are based
on our experiences with current
projects. Obviously, it is difficult to
predict the exact repair costs or the
time when a piece of equipment
must be replaced. The annual costs
shown are those expected for the
first few years of service; repair ex-
penses will increase as the system
ages and repairs and replacement
become more frequent. The costs
assume maintenance by an in-
house engineering staff, with major
repairs and inspections by an out-
side service company.
Subjective factors
Owner and general market per-
ceptions of the relative merits of
floor-by-floor and central systems
can be more significant in system
selection than the results of rig-
orous design and cost studies. A
chilled-water system is generally
perceived to be of significantly
higher quality and reliability than a
direct expansion system. We have
seen cases where major prospective
tenants did not want to rent space
in a building because of potential
reliability and noise problems
associated with packaged DX re-
frigeration systems. (The improved
reliability and lower noise of the
new screw and scroll compressors
may eventually change this percep-
tion, however.)
A floor-by-floor system is gener-
ally perceived to be easier and more
efficient to use on weekends and
after hours—a key feature in mar-
keting the building to increasingly
energy-conscious tenants. But this
perception may not be correct if the
central system includes the capa-
bility for off-hour isolation of floors
and is properly designed for low-
load operation. However, reality
does not change the perception, and
this perception is often a factor in
the decision to use a floor-by-floor
system.
The floor-by-floor system is also
perceived to reduce exposure to
equipment failure because failure of
a single component is unlikely to
affect more than one floor of the
Copyright© 1 9 8 9 by Penton Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio 4 4 1 1 4
building. But this perception ig-
nores the fact that large central
system equipment is generally in-
herently more reliable, making
failure less likely. A properly de-
signed central system will also have
redundant equipment to minimize
the impact of equipment failure.
This redundancy is impractical
with floor-by-floor systems, for
which equipment failure generally
means the entire loss of cooling for a
given floor.
Conclusions
As with many design options, the
choice between a floor-by-floor and
a central system requires weighing
advantages and disadvantages of
each system with the requirements
of the specific project. The system
choice can have a major impact on
the building's appearance, first
costs, operating costs, and leas-
ability.
While each project is different,
we have identified the following
trends for high-rise offices in our
area:
• The overall building costs of a
central system will be less than
those of a floor-by-floor system for
buildings 8 to 10 stories and less.
Above about 15 stories, cost con-
siderations generally favor floor-
by-floor systems.
• The ideal floor size for a floor-
by-floor system is between 15,000
and 25,000 sq ft. Outside of this
range, a central system will proba-
bly be less expensive.
• Central systems are usually
less expensive to operate and main-
tain than are floor-by-floor sys-
tems.
• Central systems with off-hour
floor isolation capability should be
as efficient to operate as floor-by-
floor systems for partial occupancy
operation.
• The choice between a central
and a floor-by-floor system more
often than not is based on subjec-
tive factors, such as biases of the
design team or perceived tenant
preferences, rather than on the re-
sults of rigorous design and cost
studies.