HVAC System Design

Taylor Engineering, LLC

Mark Hydeman, P.E., FASHRAE Taylor Engineering, LLC mhydeman@taylor-engineering.com

1

How do you effectively fight a fire?
it takes 2,000 to 3,000 times the volume of air to cool what you can with water! With air, or… with water?

Taylor Engineering, LLC

2

State of the present: with air

Taylor Engineering, LLC

3

Air system design overview
Data center layout  Airflow configurations

 Distribution:

overhead or underfloor  Control: constant or variable volume

Airflow issues  Economizers  Humidity control issues

Taylor Engineering, LLC 4

Inc.Data center layout Server airflow front to back or front to back and top are recommended Cold Aisle Hot Aisle © 2004. LLC 5 . Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. American Society of Heating. Taylor Engineering. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission.ashrae. (www. Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments.org).

Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments.ashrae.org).Data center layout Underfloor Supply Cold Aisle Hot Aisle Only 1 pressure zone for UF! © 2004. Inc. (www. LLC 6 . This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission. American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Taylor Engineering.

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. American Society of Heating. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission.Data center layout You can incorporate VAV on each branch Overhead Supply Cold Aisle Hot Aisle © 2004. Inc.org). LLC 7 . (www. Taylor Engineering. Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments.ashrae.

ASHRAE Symposium Paper DE-05-11-5. LLC 8 . 2005 Taylor Engineering. Sorell et al. “Comparison of Overhead and Underfloor Air Delivery Systems in a Data Center Environment Using CFD Modeling”. See for example V.Typical temperature profile with UF supply Too hot Too hot Just right Too cold Elevation at a cold aisle looking at racks There are numerous references in ASHRAE.

LLC 9 .Typical temperature profile with OH supply Too warm Too warm Just right Elevation at a cold aisle looking at racks Taylor Engineering.

This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission. American Society of Heating. LLC 10 .ashrae. Inc. Taylor Engineering. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.Hot aisle lid Aisle capping End cap Cold Aisle Caps © APC reprinted with permission Cold Aisle Hot Aisle © 2004. (www. Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments.org).

(www. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission. LLC 11 .org). Inc.ashrae. American Society of Heating. Taylor Engineering. Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments.Aisle capping LBNL has recently performed research on aisle capping Cold Aisle Caps Cold Aisle Hot Aisle © 2004. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.

Taylor Engineering. Control Temperature Control First Cost Energy Cost Aisle Capping Up to one pressure zone by branch. Underfloor (UF) Issue Capacity Balancing Overhead (OH) Supply Limited by space and aisle velocity. Commonly cold at bottom and hot at top.Overhead (OH) vs. Usually limited to incremental changes by diffuser type. Continuous on both outlet and branch. Underfloor (UF) Supply Limited by free area of floor tiles. Hot or cold aisle possible. Worst. can provide multiple temperature zones. Most uniform. Generally worse. Some tiles have balancing dampers. Hot or cold aisle possible. Also underfloor velocities can starve floor grilles! Only one pressure zone per floor. Best. LLC 12 . Best (if you eliminate the floor).

Airflow design disjoint IT departments select servers and racks  Engineers size the fans and cooling capacity  What’s missing in this picture?  Taylor Engineering. LLC 13 .

Airflow with constant volume systems    Hot spots Higher hot aisle temperature Possible equipment failure or degradation  Taylor Engineering. LLC V HVAC _ Supply   V Servers  14 .

LLC V HVAC _ Supply   V Servers  Least hot spots Higher air velocities Higher fan energy Reduced economizer effectiveness (due to lower return temperatures)  15 .Airflow with constant volume systems     Taylor Engineering.

LLC 16 .Airflow with constant volume systems Note most of these observations apply to overhead and underfloor distribution  With constant volume fans on the servers you can only be right at one condition of server loading!  The solution is to employ variable speed server and distribution fans…  Taylor Engineering.

LLC V HVAC _ Supply   V Servers   17 .Airflow with variable volume systems Partial flow condition  Best energy performance but difficult to control Taylor Engineering.

Taylor Engineering. Inc.html. LLC 18 . Used with permission from Innovative Research.com/Products/TileFlow/tileflow.inres.How Do You Balance Airflow?    Spreadsheet CFD Monitoring/Site Measurements Image from TileFlow http://www.

LLC 19 .Thermal report From ASHRAE’s Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments Taylor Engineering.

65 42 185 total CFM (min) 27 126 fan speed single speed variable 2 speed 2 speed fan control n/a inlet temp.260 max load / rack (kW) 13 10 14 12 Taylor Engineering.200 1.169 882 1.241 dT min config 13 3 dT max config 33 27 48 21 servers per rack 8 21 21 10 CFM/rack (hi inlet temp) 1.What’s the server airflow? SUN V490 SUN V240 DELL 2850 DELL 6850 num fans 9 3 n/a n/a total CFM (max) 150 55.599 480 651 1.850 CFM/rack (low inlet temp) 1.200 567 1.639 2.236 heat max (watts) 1. 77F inlet 77F inlet Form Factor (in U's) 5 2 2 4 heat min config (btuh) 798 454 heat max config (btuh) 5.222 4. LLC 20 .459 1.

Best air delivery practices   Arrange racks in hot aisle/cold aisle configuration Try to match or exceed server airflow by aisle  Get thermal report data from IT if possible  Plan for worst case   Get variable speed or two speed fans on servers if possible Provide variable airflow fans for AC unit supply  Also consider using air handlers rather than CRACs for improved performance (to be elaborated on later)      Use overhead supply where possible Provide aisle capping (preferably cold aisles. LLC 21 . refer to LBNL presentation for more details) Plug floor leaks and provide blank off plates in racks Draw return from as high as possible Use CFD to inform design and operation Taylor Engineering.

Air-side economizer Taylor Engineering. LLC 22 .

Air-Side Economizer issues   Hygroscopic dust  LBNL is doing some research on this Design humidity conditions  See following slides Taylor Engineering. LLC 23 .

Design conditions at the zone © 2005. American Society of Heating. LLC 24 . Taylor Engineering. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without ASHRAE’s permission. Reprinted by permission from ASHRAE Design Considerations for Data and Communications Equipment Centers. (www. Inc.org). Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.ashrae.

San Francisco 40 80 . .Recommend 25 % .007 45 % 70 50 .014 HUMIDITY RATIO .017 75 70 WE TB .handsdownsoftware. www.CU .FT.0 50% 40% NEBS.Recommend .904 in.019 .011 25 .003 30% 30 20% .008 A RY IR .020 75 .POUNDS MOISTURE PER POUND DRY AIR 16 FEET BAROMETRIC PRESSURE: 29.0 70 . LLC 25 .002 E HUMIDITY Lower Allowed Humidity Limit (20%RH) .com DRY BULB TEMPERATURE .009 PER D LB.005 35 40 13.006 Negligible time of possible concern for humidification 10 15 40 45 % 60 Class1.Allow 15% . 20 50 % 90 % 80 55 X Class1.010 Design Target 60 .012 San Francisco Climate Data Bins with Data Center Guideline Zones Weather Hours 360 to 321 320 to 281 280 to 241 240 to 201 200 to 161 160 to 121 120 to 81 80 to 41 40 to 1 55 60 65 UME VOL .001 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 10% RELATIV 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Chart by: HANDS DOWN SOFTWARE.015 TU R E- °F .°F Taylor Engineering. HG 30 65 Upper Allowed Humidity Limit 14.018 PSYCHROMETRIC CHART Normal Temperature I-P Units 35 .004 35 .013 .016 UL BT EM PE RA .

A RY IR 13.018 PSYCHROMETRIC CHART Normal Temperature I-P Units 35 70 .011 25 .020 80 75 .019 .handsdownsoftware.008 .017 75 WE TB .°F Taylor Engineering.005 35 40 NEBS.010 Design Target P .012 Los Angeles Climate Data Bins with Data Center Guideline Zones Weather Hours 396 to 353 352 to 309 308 to 265 264 to 221 220 to 177 176 to 133 132 to 89 88 to 45 44 to 1 55 65 .014 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE: 29.Recommend . LLC HUMIDITY RATIO .CU 60 .0 26 .015 RE -° F .POUNDS MOISTURE PER POUND DRY AIR 105 FEET 30 65 70 14.007 45 % 70 % 60 45 50% 40% 30% 20% 50 . www.006 Only a few hours of possible concern for humidification 10 15 40 Class1.013 .003 . HG Upper Allowed Humidity Limit 60 .0 UME VOL ER D LB.Recommend 25 % .FT.Allow 15% .com DRY BULB TEMPERATURE .016 UL BT EM PE RA TU . .002 10% RELATIV E HUMIDITY Lower Allowed Humidity Limit (20%RH) .Los Angeles 40 .808 in.001 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Chart by: HANDS DOWN SOFTWARE.004 35 30 .009 20 50 % 90 % 80 55 X Class1.

014 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE: 29.020 .017 75 WE T .006 Negligible time of possible concern for humidification 10 15 40 % 60 45 50% 40% Class1.0 27 .CU PER D LB. LLC HUMIDITY RATIO .015 UR E- °F .handsdownsoftware.0 70 .002 Lower Allowed Humidity Limit (20%RH) .893 in.Sacramento 40 80 75 .016 BU LB TE MP ER AT . HG Upper Allowed Humidity Limit 14.004 35 30 30% 20% 10% RELATIV E HUMIDITY .010 Design Target 60 .007 % 70 50 . .011 .FT.003 .001 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 30 35 40 45 50 55 Chart by: HANDS DOWN SOFTWARE.005 35 40 NEBS. A RY IR 13.009 20 50 % 90 % 80 45 55 X Class1.013 .POUNDS MOISTURE PER POUND DRY AIR 26 FEET 30 65 UME VOL .Recommend .Recommend 25 % .008 .Allow 15% .018 PSYCHROMETRIC CHART Normal Temperature I-P Units 35 70 .com DRY BULB TEMPERATURE . www.019 .°F Taylor Engineering.012 Sacramento Climate Data Bins with Data Center Guideline Zones Weather Hours 270 to 241 240 to 211 210 to 181 180 to 151 150 to 121 120 to 91 90 to 61 60 to 31 30 to 1 55 60 65 25 .

LLC .20 standard  Recommended equipment      Industry practices      Humidity controls are a point of failure and are hard to maintain Many data centers operate without humidification This needs more research Old technology not found in most data centers It is best to segregate these items rather than humidify the entire data center 28  And for some physical media (tape storage.Lower humidity limit  Mitigate electrostatic discharge (ESD)  Recommended procedures   Personnel grounding Cable grounding Grounding wrist straps on racks Grounded plate for cables Grounded flooring Servers rated for ESD resistance Telecom industry has no lower limit The Electrostatic Discharge Association has removed humidity control as a primary ESD control measure in their ESD/ANSI S20. printing and bursting)   Taylor Engineering.

LLC 29 . reprinted with permission Taylor Engineering.ESD control: floor grounding Image from Panduit.

Water-Side Economizer Integrated Heat Exchanger in series with chillers on CHW side .

Should be integrated to be most effective (see previous slide). Improves plant redundancy! Can work in conjunction with water-side economizers on data centers! Need to incorporate relief. May increase particulates (LBNL research indicates this is of little concern). LLC . Avoids increased particulates (and low humidity if that concerns you). Should be integrated to be most effective.Economizer Summary Air-Side Economizers  Water-Side Economizers       Provides free cooling when dry-bulb temperatures are below 78°F-80°F.     Provides low energy cooling when wet-bulb temperatures are below 55°F-60°F. Improves plant redundancy! Can work in conjunction with air-side economizers on data centers! 31 Both are proven technologies on data centers! Taylor Engineering.

LLC 32 .1 and 8.2  Both sections at ~30% build-out during monitoring Taylor Engineering.A case study of two designs    Collocation facility in the Bay Area Side by side designs in same facility over two phases Motivation for the second design was to reduce cost  Case study was developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)  Data Centers 8.

1)       Phase 2 Data Center (8.200 ft2 27 W/ft2 design Traditional under-floor design with CRAC units Air-cooled DX Humidity controls (45%-55%) 73.A tale of two designs: overview  Phase 1 Data Center (8. LLC 33 .2)       26.000 ft2 50 W/ft2 design Under-floor supply from central AHUs with CHW coils Water-cooled plant Air-side economizers No humidity controls Taylor Engineering.

1) Phase 2 Data Center (8.00 0.20 Normalized energy kWcooling _ systems kWservers ~1/4 of the normalized energy Phase 1 Data Center (8.2) 1.60 1.40 1.20 Computer Loads UPS Losses HVAC Lighting Data normalized to computer loads Taylor Engineering.40 0.A tale of two designs: a closer look Normalized efficiency metric: cooling  1. LLC 34 .60 0.80 0.

1)  Around 2x the HVAC installed cost ($/ft2)  Around 4x the energy bills (when normalized to server load)  Acoustical problems  Higher maintenance costs  Lost floor space in data center due to CRACs  Phase 2 Data Center (8.2)  Preferred by the facility operators and data center personnel Taylor Engineering. LLC 35 .A tale of two designs: results  Phase 1 Data Center (8.

LLC 36 .Two data centers: summary  What made the difference?  Airside economizers  No humidity controls  Water-cooled chilled water system  AHUs instead of CRAC units Taylor Engineering.

Custom CRAH Unit (Large) Taylor Engineering. LLC 37 .

000 50.8 0.5 ft 11.000 397.1 33.00 88.10 15.000 21 13 4 434.1 11.900 410.2 16.1 14F 20 20 66.1 23 122 122 122 35 36 72 76 156 168 ASHRAE 20% MERV 13 MERV 13 13.8 1.8 1.3 68.000 49.Example CRAH Unit Comparison Model Budget Cost Number of units net total cooling (btuh) net sensible (btuh) sensible (tons) CFM SAT airside dT Internal SP no.00 1.235 $ 23.80 44.500 25.000 841.30 59. fans fan type no.8 3 3 2 Centrifugal Plenum Plenum 1 3 2 15 5 15 15 15 30 15 4.90 59.403 924 66% 315 275 87% Taylor Engineering.5 15 14.00 25. motors HP/motor total HP BHP/motor Unit BHP unit width depth height filter type Water PD (ft) CHW dT GPM Total GPM Total BHP Option 1 Option 2 Std CRAC Custom Model 1 Custom Model 2 $ 16. LLC 38 .7 11.400 399.000 818.70 16.000 33.000 $ 41.00 2 0.

LLC 39 .Example CRAH Unit Comparison     34% less water flow 13% less fan energy  More if you consider the supply air temperature and airflow issues Excess fan capacity on new units 36% higher cost for units. but       Fewer piping connections Fewer electrical connections Fewer control panels No need for control gateway Can use the existing distribution piping and pumps (case study) Can use high quality sensors and place them where they make sense  Possibly less turbulence at discharge? Taylor Engineering.

Air cooling issues  Limitations on the data densities served (~200w/sf)   Air delivery limitations Real estate Hot aisles are approaching OSHA limits      Working conditions  Costly infrastructure High energy costs Management over time Reliability   Loss of power recovery Particulates Taylor Engineering. LLC 40 .

chillers and towers Refer to ASHRAE.or water-side economizers where possible Consider personal grounding in lieu of humidification Consider AHUs as an alternative to CRACs Consider VSDs on fans. pumps. LLC 41 . LBNL and Uptime Institute for more recommendations Taylor Engineering.Take Aways      Use air.

State of the future: cooling with liquid Taylor Engineering. LLC 42 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful