COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

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.
Daniel H. Nall

Rightsizing HVAC Equipment

BY DANIEL H. NALL, P.E., BEMP, HBDP, FAIA, FELLOW/ LIFE MEMBER ASHRAE

From reading the discussions of “rightsizing” in the “green building” literature, one
would infer that most HVAC engineers have large holdings in HVAC equipment manu-
facturer stock. Many of these texts, often intended for architects, warn their readers
to be on the lookout for maliciously oversized HVAC equipment, stating explicitly that
large first cost and energy cost savings can be accrued from detecting and correcting
this mischief. While oversizing of HVAC equipment may occur, it is rarely with intent
to line the pockets of vendors; rather, it is usually the result of efforts to protect both
the engineer and owner from inadequate capacity. Understanding the actual uncer-
tainties of load calculations and providing systems that can function effectively and
efficiently at part loads will help both the engineer and the building owner avoid the
unpleasantness of an undersized conditioning system.
Rightsizing Issues be predetermined by third parties or are informed
For many years, the proper method of sizing HVAC by market research or physical estimation, while oth-
equipment was to do a calculation, using very generous ers are mostly informed by the engineer’s or owner’s
estimates of load components, and then to add a little experience. Making use of the best resources and tech-
extra (10% or so) to make sure everything could never niques for establishing these values will make load cal-
be considered undersized. In today’s practice, sophisti- culations more exact and limit exposure to liability.
cated calculation methods, including the heat balance The engineer is given little guidance on how to estab-
method and the radiant time series method, are used lish and use techniques to deal with uncertainty in
to capture, more accurately, the heat transfer mecha- both the inputs and the resulting outputs of load cal-
nisms in the building. Computerized load calculation culations. The ASHRAE Load Calculation Applications
tools also capable of capturing the relative timing of Manual has little or no guidance on practical tech-
building shading, diurnal temperature variation, and niques for handling this uncertainty.1 The only men-
building occupancy schedules, so that loads can be cal- tion of these issues in ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard
culated based on the peak sum of coincident load com- 183-2007, Peak Cooling Load Calculations in Buildings Except
ponents, rather than the sum of non-coincident load Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is that “Diversity due to
component peaks. variations in actual occupancy, lighting, or equip-
In general, these techniques have made load cal- ment use shall be considered in determining system
culations more precise, but they have increased cooling loads.”2 Chapter 18 of the ASHRAE Handbook—
the importance of the estimation of parameters for Fundamentals states that “All load calculation inputs
load components that are not explicit in the design should be as accurate as reasonable, without using
documentation. These parameters include values for safety factors.” It goes on to recommend, however, that
occupant installed equipment, occupant density, and a safety allowance of 20% to 25% are often applied to
schedules for occupancy activities. In existing build- peak (steady-state) heating load calculations to accom-
ings, these parameters can also include performance modate morning warm-up.3 The most comprehensive
values for pre-existing building envelope systems, and
sometimes, lighting systems. Some of these values can Daniel H. Nall, P.E., FAIA, is vice president at Syska Hennessy Group, New York.

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


treatment of safety and diversity factors appears in
the literature on residential load calculations, includ-
ing the EERE Building Technologies Program “Strategy
Guideline: Accurate Heating and Cooling Load
Calculations.”4 The bottom line for a number of pub-
lications on this topic is: “use no safety factors at all.”
In 1985, Bill Coad published an article that addressed
the loss of “inherent safety factors” with the replace-
ment of simplified hand load calculations with detailed
and specific computerized calculations. As a result, he
advocated including “…known safety factors in design
when there is a reasonable anticipation that uncon-
trolled factors can render the design…inadequate.”5
Some seemingly discretionary load parameters can
be determined by market factors or third parties. In
a number of regions, including New York City, com-
mercial real estate brokers insist that high end space
for financial services tenants should have the ability to
power and cool 5 W/ft2 (53.82 W/m2) of tenant installed
equipment. Rarely, if ever, is this intensity of equip-
ment seen outside of a trading floor. Documented
average values for distributed equipment power den-
sity in office space are less than 1 W/ft2 (10.76 W/m2)
with another 1 W/ft2 (10.76 W/m2) often concentrated
in smaller rooms for servers or other IT equipment.
Using a load parameter less than the “market value,”
even for a build to suit tenant with a need for exit
strategy, should involve discussions with the owner on
the implications of meeting unrealistic market expec-
tations. Decisions of this type can be categorized as
programmatic assumptions, rather than engineering
assumptions. They should be arrived at mutually to
avoid the engineer bearing the entire risk of under-
estimating or overestimating their value. Inclusion of
overly robust and unrealistic “programmatic assump-
tions” may enable the engineer to scale down some of
the “strategic factor” multipliers discussed in the next
paragraph.
A part of the load calculation process is the identifica-
tion of strategic factors that will impact the load calcu-
lation process. These include:
•• Critical service requirements;
•• Safety factors;
•• Diversity assumptions; and
•• Redundancy factor.
The first strategic factor, critical service requirement,
refers to the selection of environmental design criteria
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
that are input to the load calculation. These include
both external and internal environmental conditions,
ventilation rates and other variables. As an example,
although standard practice may be to use the ASHRAE
2% design conditions for cooling load calculations, for
certain facility types, for which constant maintenance
of internal conditions is mandatory, using the 0.4%
design conditions may be more appropriate. Similarly,
although an interior dry-bulb temperature of 70°F
(21.1°C) may be a standard residential heating load cal-
culation input, a temperature of 76°F (24.4°C) may be
appropriate for housing for the aged. Critical service
requirements can have a significant impact on both
heating and cooling loads and should be addressed
specifically in the calculation rather than accommo-
dated by an arbitrary capacity increase.
The second strategic factor, safety factor, is an often
misused concept that inflates the value of the finished
derived load after all the calculations have been per-
formed. Instead, safety factors should be applied to
descriptive parameters for which some uncertainty
exists. These might include the U-value of a wall in
an existing building. Analysis might reveal a range
of U-values for a given wall, depending on the exact
material used, the exact dimensions and the quality of
the construction. For the load calculation, an informed
decision should be made about the likely “worst”
U-value that might result from this construction.
Safety factors may also be applied to parameter estima-
tions for future use and operation different form the
initial program. They may also be applied to diversity
assumptions described below.
As a general rule, safety factors should be applied
directly to parameters for which the designer has
uncertainty concerning the actual parameter value.
They should not be applied to calculations that use
those parameters, because they, then, multiplicatively
enlarge loads resulting from values for which the
engineer has great confidence. Safety factors should
also not be applied so that they serially expand previ-
ously applied safety factors. Applying safety factors at
the end of calculations can also result in larger central
equipment (e.g., chillers, boilers) but with no ability
to deliver that capacity to conditioned spaces. Safety
factors, then are better termed “uncertainty factors”
and they should be directed at minimizing the risk of
uncertainty for specific load parameters.
JAN UARY 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 49
COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK
The third strategic factor, diversity assumptions, is
more problematic. It includes both the spatial and
temporal aspects of diversity. Diversity factors, in gen-
eral reduce the magnitude of overall loads, because
they establish the extent to which peak load compo-
nent values are not applicable over the entire extent
of the building operation. As an example, in a theater,
both the hall and the lobby can have a certain maxi-
mum occupant density, but, they almost certainly
will not have maximum occupancy simultaneously.
Similarly, certain areas of an office building may have
equipment power densities as high as 3 or 4 W/ft2
(32.29 to 43.06 W/m2), but almost certainly, the entire
building will not.
Determination of these diversity factors is an exer-
cise that should involve the architect, engineer and
owner, to avoid future disagreement. Diversity factors
are independent of schedules and as such must be
reviewed with the schedules to ensure that the appro-
priate level of fluctuation is accounted for only once
(especially when the schedule is a percent of load type
of schedule). While agreed-upon schedules capture
known temporal variation of load components, diver-
sity factors capture the uncertain variance of these
components. Diversity assumptions, like safety factors,
should be applied to the actual parameters that are
diversely allocated rather than any value resultant to a
subsequent calculation.
Diversity factors may also be applied in sequence
as the fraction of the building area to which they are
applied becomes greater, because the likelihood that
all served areas will be operating at peak intensity
becomes less as the area grows larger. From a systems
standpoint, this approach may mean that no diver-
sity factor for plug loads is applied for single termi-
nal units, while a moderate diversity factor (90%) is
applied to sizing trunk ducts, a 70% plug load diversity
factor is applied for serving central air-handling units
and a 50% factor is used for sizing the chiller plant.
The fourth strategic factor, redundancy factor,
reflects the need to upsize components or distribution
systems to accommodate continued operation during
a planned or unplanned component outage. A typi-
cal application of a redundancy factor is a design that
meets the heating load requirement with two boilers
each sized at 75% of the calculated heating load. Even
if one of the boilers fails, the building will remain
50 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  JAN UARY 2015
comfortable throughout most weather conditions
and will be, at least, minimally habitable in the most
extreme conditions. Redundancy factors almost always
involve meeting capacity requirements with more than
one piece of equipment. If the capacity requirement
is met by a large number of units, as is often the case
with a modular boiler plant, a prudent redundancy
requirement may be met without upsizing the plant to
any extent or affecting operating efficiency. Meeting
the load with more, smaller units, furthermore, may
increase part-load operating efficiency. Once again,
this factor is determined in concert with the entire
project team, including the owner.
The pervasive claim is that oversizing results in sig-
nificant loss in energy efficiency, which is demonstra-
bly not always the case. Oversized ducts and pipes have
significantly reduced pressure drop at part loads and
potentially entail less transport energy. The key is to
ensure that systems can operate effectively and effi-
ciently at partial capacity at minimum expected loads.
Integral to this strategy is estimating the minimum
load at which components can be expected to operate.
Components and distribution systems should be inves-
tigated for their minimum part-load limits and design
revisions, if necessary, should be made to facilitate
meeting the minimum part loads. Detailed investiga-
tion of part-load operations strategies are beyond the
scope of this article, but some general strategies are
presented.
•• The first part-load strategy is usually available in
most systems designed currently through the ubiqui-
tous use of variable frequency drives. The minimum
part load of components that use VFDs is much lower
than that with other part load operating systems. Mini-
mum speed for VFDs serving “VFD-ready” motors can
be as low as 10%.
•• Another part-load strategy is to provide capacity
with multiple units instead of a single unit. This strate-
gy is consistent with the redundancy strategy described
above. The capacity can be provided with units of vari-
ous sizes, so that the minimum system part load will be
the minimum part load of the smallest component.
•• A third strategy is to make sure that sensors and
control elements are of sufficient quality and accuracy
to operate at low part loads. Even moderate oversiz-
ing of pressure-independent VAV terminals can result
in overcooled space, or excessive use of reheat, if flow
 COLUMN  ENGINEER’S NOTEBOOK

measurement components are ineffective at the low air
velocity entailed by part-load operation, or if selected
diffusers are ineffective at low airflows, or if sufficient
reheat is unavailable to accommodate minimum sys-
tem flow required for ventilation.6 Modulating valves
should be selected such that they operate appropriately
at the identified minimum flow. If a single valve cannot
span the range of flow required for the system, then
two valves of different sizes arranged in parallel can be
incorporated along with control sequences that use the
larger valve for higher flow rates and the smaller valve
for lower part-load flow.
The application of appropriate controls can allow
some chilled water systems to exploit the thermal
capacitance of the distribution system to meet very
low part loads by cycling the chiller compressor, while
maintaining a consistent chilled water temperature.
Other systems may require multiple chillers or vari-
able speed/capacity chillers to meet continuous cool-
ing requirements at very low part loads. Systems in
different projects may require different strategies, but
systems design should recognize the need for efficient
and effective operation at part loads. The only way to
ensure that outcome is to calculate the minimum part
load, using the same procedures that are used to calcu-
late the maximum design load and to employ measures
to allow the system to operate at that minimum load.
litigious clients is a detailed well thought out load cal-
culation, identifying assumptions and uncertainties,
applied factors to accommodate those uncertainties,
diversity and operational assumptions and factors,
and redundancy provisions and incorporating correct
arithmetic to arrive directly at required capacities for
both components and systems.
References
1. Spitler, J. 2009. Load Calculation Applications Manual, Atlanta:
ASHRAE.
2. ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 183-2007: Peak Cooling and Heating
Load Calculations in Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings.
3. 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, Chapter 18
4. Burdick, A. 2011. “Strategy Guidelines: Accurate Heating and
Cooling Load Calculations.” Building Technologies Program, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
5. Coad, W. 1985. “Safety factors in HVAC design.” Heating/Piping/Air
Conditioning, January.
6. Taylor, S. 2007. “Advanced Variable Air Volume Systems Design
Guide.” Energy Design Resources, Pacific Gas nad Electric
Company, pp. 71–75.

Summary and Conclusions

Two points are made in this column:
1. The first is to apply analytical techniques to the
calculation of systems and component loads. Iden- Advertisement formerly in this space.
tify those input parameters for which a good deal of
certainty exists, and identify those for which there
is significant uncertainty. Apply appropriate strate-
gic factors to the inputs and not to the outputs of the
calculations. Avoid compounding safety factors at
multiple levels that drastically oversize systems and
components.
2. The second point is to analyze minimum operating
loads with a similar level of technical precision and to
configure systems and components so that they can op-
erate efficiently and effectively at those minimum load
points. Remember that the system operates far more
hours at part load than it does at full load.
The bottom line is that the most effective defense
against both the “rightsizing police” and potentially

JAN UARY 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 51