Reverse-Return

Reexamined
Stephen W. Duda P.E., BEAP, HBDP, HFDP, Fellow Ashrae

T
A common perception is that a reverse-return hydronic piping o review, a direct-return system (Figure 1) is one in which
configuration uses more piping and, therefore, is more expensive the terminal nearest the supply source has both the
than its direct-return counterpart. For example, a hydronics primer shortest supply water path and shortest return water
recently published in ASHRAE Journal 1 briefly discusses direct path to and from the source, while the terminal most remote
versus reverse-return piping arrangements and quickly reaches that from the supply source has both the longest supply water path
and longest return water path. This can result in significantly
conclusion. While the cost disadvantage of reverse-return is true
different network piping losses from one terminal unit to another,
in some instances, this column presents a case that reverse-return
requiring some type of correction (e.g., balance valves, active
doesn’t always add piping length and system cost, depending on flow-limiting devices, or perhaps pressure-independent control
system configuration. In addition, this author has found reverse- valves) to keep the system balanced and piping losses equal.
return is sometimes overlooked or dismissed out-of-hand when it
offers tangible benefits and could easily have been implemented at Load
no net cost to the project. So, a goal of this column is to encourage (Typical)
pipe system designers to explore and consider reverse-return in
further detail. Source

Direct Return
Load
(Typical)

Source

Reverse Return
This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, August Figure 1 : Simplified direct- and reverse-return two-pipe systems.3
2015. Copyright 2015 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org.
By contrast, a reverse-return system is one in which the
This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically
terminal nearest the supply source has the shortest supply water
or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more
path but the longest return water path, while the terminal most
information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org
remote from the supply source has the longest supply water
path but shortest return water path. A reverse-return system
About the Author
means that the sum total of supply and return piping losses are
Stephen W. Duda, P.E., is senior mechanical engineer at Ross & Baruzzini, Inc. in
St. Louis. continued on page 52

50 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Journal September - October 2016

50
 Reverse-Return Reexamined
continued from page 50

1 1/2 in. f 1 1/4 in. f 1 in. f 3/4 in. f

1 1/2 in. f

2 in. f 2 in. f
Supply
1 1/4 in. f Supply Return 1 1/4 in. f Boiler
Room
Boiler 1 in. f
1 in. f 3/4 in. f Room
1 1/2 in. f 3/4 in. f 2 in. f
Return

Figure 2: Single-story office building using a direct-return piping Figure 3: Single-story office building using a reverse-return piping
arrangement arrangement
approximately the same length throughout the water system,
making for a more even water flow to all terminals without
additional correction. The reverse-return system is nearly self-
balancing because the hydraulic distance traveled by the fluid is
close to the same regardless of which terminal coil a given volume
of fluid flows through; or said another way, reverse-return creates Supply Return
approximately equal hydraulic resistance through each flow path.
Boiler
3/4 in. f 1 in. f Room
Benefits of Reverse-Return 1 1/4 in. f
The primary advantage of reverse-return is elimination of Supply
balance valves at each terminal coil (VAV reheat box, finned-tube Return
convectors, fan-coil unit, chilled beam, etc.) and the testing,
adjusting and balancing labor cost associated with that. Since the
material and labor cost of many balance valves and the labor cost
of manual balancing is eliminated, a small cost add for the reverse-
return piping can be offset by the reduction in balance valves and Figure 4: Single-story office building using two direct-return piping
paths
manual balancing, or a reduction in active flow-limiting devices,
or allow the use of standard control valves in lieu of the more Not convinced that reverse-return allows the elimination
expensive pressure-independent control valves. (The remainder of balance valves? See Taylor/Stein.2 In fact, that article argues
of this column will assume balance valves and manual balancing that in many cases balancing is not necessary in direct-return
for direct-return systems; but the reader can interpret these and systems either, and some engineering firms routinely don’t require
other forms of system balance correction as well.) balancing of direct-return systems. However, that concept makes
While reverse-return systems are close to self-balancing, they are other engineers and designers uncomfortable, and in this author’s
not exactly. Anything that creates a difference in the resistance of the experience, the majority of direct-return systems in design practice
supply or return piping from one flow path to another will change today still feature coil balance valves.
the resistance of that path relative to the others and affect the In any case, the Taylor/Stein article clearly demonstrates that
balance slightly, as would a different type of coil or differences in the minor differences in balance from leg to leg, such as that found
coil runout piping itself (length, type, number of bends, size, etc.). in reverse-return designs, do not warrant balance valves; so this
But, these differences are minor and are easily corrected by a column assumes balance valves in direct-return, but none in
standard coil control valve. If one coil path receives a little more reverse-return piping.
than its fair share of fluid flow, the control system will eventually In a building that is likely to be remodeled or reconfigured
correct for it by repositioning the coil control valve. It is only those several times over the life of the piping system, such as a
systems with large hydraulic differences from leg to leg, such as speculative office building with tenant turnover, elimination
those found in direct-return systems with some coils very near the of balance devices can be a significant advantage. In this case,
source and other coils very remote, that may exceed the pressure if the primary building HVAC system is conventional VAV with
range ability of the control valve to perform adequately. continued on page 54

52 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Journal September - October 2016

52
 Reverse-Return Reexamined
continued from page 52

1 1/2 in. f 2 in. f

Boiler Room 1st
Supply Return Boiler Room
Supply

3/4 in. f 1 in. f 1 1/4 in. f 1 1/4 in. f 1 in. f 3/4 in. f

Boiler Room 2nd Boiler Room

Supply Return Return

1 1/2 in. f 2 in. f

Figure 5 Two-story office building using a direct-return piping Figure 6 Two-story office building using a single reverse-return
arrangement per floor. piping network.
many reheat boxes, adding, subtracting, and relocating VAV
reheat boxes in a reverse-return system does not require manual
rebalance of the hydronic piping.
Building owners are reluctant to send technicians climbing
above ceilings in occupied portions of the building not
otherwise impacted by renovations, so a balanced direct-return
system may not stay that way; whereas a nearly self-balanced
reverse-return system will remain nearly so after even several
renovations.
For a two-pipe water-source heat pump system, with both
heating and cooling inputs to the loop, a reverse-return system
allows the heating and cooling source to be widely separated.
This can be useful with cooling towers on the roof and boilers in
the basement, in which case direct-return doesn’t work. Both the
heating and cooling sources need to be upstream of the supply
loop in direct-return. The heating and cooling sources can be Figure 7 Three-story H-shaped building poorly suited for reverse-
separated at two extremes of the distribution loop if they are return.
connected by the reverse-return leg. Case 1: Reverse-Return is Advantageous
Finally, there is a misconception that reverse-return adds If, for example, the piping system is designed to make a
total system head pressure because of the long return line, but a complete loop around the inside perimeter of one floor of a
closer examination will show that to be untrue. Using Figure 1 as building, starting and ending at a mechanical room or similar base
an example, in the direct-return system, the pump must push the point, the difference between direct and reverse-return piping
water to the farthest terminal and all the way back to the source quantities is zero to negligibly small. To illustrate, see Figure 2 and
again. Each of the other branches to the other terminals must Figure 3. It is envisioned in these figures that the piping is a hot
include some artificial means of increasing the pressure drop to water heating system and the terminals depicted are VAV reheat
simulate the losses of the longest run. boxes, but they could easily be finned-tube convectors, or fan-coil
In the reverse-return system, the longest run (or, any run units, or even chilled beams in a chilled water system.
through any of the terminals) is no longer than the longest It is also envisioned that the center core is “impenetrable” by pip-
run in the direct-return system. In fact, reverse-return usually ing (e.g., an open atrium, or courtyard, or banks of elevators and stair-
results in somewhat lower pump head than direct-return. This wells, etc.), forcing the hydronic piping to route around the perimeter.
is because (a) the reverse-return main is a large pipe and large Compare Figure 3 with Figure 2 and notice that overall system
piping usually will have lower friction rates than smaller piping, pressure drop (and pump head) is reduced with reverse-return
which is stepped down as flow reduces, keeping friction rates in this case. The worst hydraulic path—the path that determines
near design limits; and (b) because even a fully open balance overall system pressure drop and pump head—in Figure 2 (assuming
device has some pressure drop, which can be eliminated with all coils and branches are the same) is the last one in the string.
reverse-return. continued on page 56

54 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Journal September - October 2016

54
 Reverse-Return Reexamined
continued from page 54
Supply water flows about three-fourths of the circumference of return, (4) outbound chilled water supply, (5) outbound chilled water
building to the coil, then returns three-fourths of the circumference return, and (6) inbound chilled water return in each “arm” of the
of the building back again, for a total of 1.5 times the building H-shaped building. The RFP’s author could not be swayed otherwise,
circumference. In Figure 3, all possible hydraulic path pipe lengths but clearly this was a poor application for reverse-return.
equal about one circumference of the building. So reverse-return
will reduce total friction, reduce pumping energy, and eliminate Case 4: A Hybrid is Advantageous
balance valves, all while not increasing piping cost. Not to be overlooked is the case of a multistory building. Revisit
Figures 2 and 3 and now imagine they represent a 10-story building
Case 2: It’s a Toss-up—Further Study Needed consisting of a similar floor plan on each level. Instead of the boiler
This author has actually seen Figure 2 applied many times room found in Figures 2 and 3, imagine that location represents a
when clearly Figure 3 would have been advantageous. But there is vertical pipe shaft with a boiler either in the basement below or on
a third option, as the astute reader may have already anticipated— the roof above. In this case, the most advantageous design may be
splitting the full circumference of the building into two halves a hybrid, with reverse-return on each individual floor as depicted in
(Figure 4) and using two separate direct-return circuits. Now the Figure 3, but with direct-return on the main vertical riser.
reverse-return of Figure 3 is not quite as favorable because the Because the piping makes a complete loop around the
mains start and end larger than those of Figure 4. The reverse- inside perimeter, almost no difference exists between direct- and
return of Figure 3 still handles load diversity better than Figure 4 reverse-return piping quantities on the floor. But reverse-return on
and still offers the advantage of eliminating balance valves and the main vertical riser would require a large additional return pipe
balance labor, both present and future. to take flow from the 10th floor to the basement, so that portion
In another example, a long, narrow two-story building with a of the system remains direct-return.
mechanical room at one end can use reverse-return by traveling This author has used this hybrid design many times, using a single
outbound on the first floor and inbound on the second floor balance valve in only one location per floor (near the shaft) to balance
with only a small difference in piping cost (Figures 5 and 6). the flow to that floor, while allowing the self-balancing nature of
In smaller piping sizes, the cost of labor to install the piping, reverse-return to eliminate all the balance valves at individual coils. If
insulation, hangers, and so forth tends to dominate and lessen each floor has, say, 40 hydronic coils, this 10-story hybrid system reduces
the differences in pipe material cost by size, so the net cost after the number of balance valves from 400 to 10, while still retaining most
deducting balancing may be similar. Both of these examples— of the advantage mentioned earlier in terms of future renovations.
Figure 3 versus Figure 4 and Figure 5 versus Figure 6—merit a closer
look and neither should be dismissed out of hand. Conclusions
Reverse-return piping is a beneficial design option in some
Case 3: Direct-Return is Advantageous cases. Don’t automatically assume it adds first cost; it can be
Reverse-return piping is generally not a good choice when the cost-neutral in many applications and less expensive than some
distribution system dead-ends, such as in an elongated narrow (or balancing options such as pressure-independent control valves.
“long-and-skinny”) single-story system. In that case, the reverse- And don’t fall into the trap of thinking it adds system pressure
return piping requires a third pipe to carry the full system flow from drop and/or increases pump head; pump head will be the same
the far end back to the mechanical room or starting point. While this or lower. Engineers and designers laying out hydronic systems
arrangement still provides the self-balancing benefit, the addition of a should be familiar with reverse-return and consider applying
third pipe running the entire length of the system may add significant it when appropriate, as well as understand its limitations and
cost. On the other hand, if that building is two stories, reverse-return recognize applications where it is not beneficial.
may still be applied cost-effectively, as discussed in Case 2.
In some cases, reverse-return results in a significant increase in Acknowledgments
piping cost and would then be difficult to justify. An example of a The author thanks Cole Stirewalt, Student Member ASHRAE
hopelessly misapplied reverse-return system in this author’s recent and an undergraduate in mechanical engineering at the University
project experience is that of the H-shaped three-story building of Missouri. He prepared Figures 2 through 6 as part of a summer
(Figure 7). The request for proposal (RFP) on that project required a internship with the firm employing this author.
four-pipe fan-coil system room-by-room, and it insisted on reverse-
return. Making matters worse, the RFP required balance valves References
at every fan-coil unit even though reverse-return was specified, 1. Boldt, Jeff and Julia Keen. 2015. “Hydronics 101.” ASHRAE
eliminating the one potential saving grace of reverse-return. Journal 57(5).
The routing of the reverse-return lines was particularly convoluted 2. Taylor, S., J. Stein. 2002. “Balancing variable flow hydronic
due to the H-shape and the three stories, rendering the four-pipe systems.” ASHRAE Journal 44(10).
system to become essentially a “six-pipe” system: (1) outbound hot 3.  2012 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and Equipment,
water supply, (2) outbound hot water return, (3) inbound hot water Chapter 13, Figure 21.

56 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Journal September - October 2016

56