Rittal White Paper 506:

Cold Aisle Containment for Improved

Data Center Cooling Efficiency
By: Daniel Kennedy

Executive Summary

Increasing power requirements for new servers have created the need to support higher density
computing platforms in existing data centers. With kW per rack averages increasing from 3kW/rack to,
in some extreme cases, more than 30kW/rack, the need for providing more efficient ways of cooling IT
equipment is imperative.

A number of rack manufacturers, and data center operators alike, are now advocating the use of “air
containment” systems for meeting this challenge. By preventing the mixing of hot and cold air streams,
data center cooling can be made more efficient and Computer Room Air Conditioner (CRAC)
performance can be significantly improved. When deployed in well-designed and operated facilities,
these containment systems look promising.

This report documents the testing of a cold aisle containment system in a “live” data center. The goal of
the test program was to benchmark the performance of Rittal’s Cold Aisle Containment (CAC) system
by comparing data collected in the same data center operating under identical conditions with and
without containment.
Overview of Test

The testing of the Rittal Cold Aisle Containment (CAC) system was conducted in the Dallas-
Metro region of Texas in an operational data center with a 24” raised plenum floor. A separate
test area, approximately 5,500 square feet, was isolated from the main data center by using
insulated walls placed from the subfloor, through the raised floor and up to the drop ceiling—
preventing any air from mixing with main data center spaces. The test setup consisted of 10
Rittal TS8 server racks placed in two facing rows of 5 racks each with a four-foot cold aisle
between them. The individual racks were 24” wide and 48” deep, providing 42U of mounting
space, and each one was isolated from the adjacent racks with an internal partition wall. Row
ends were secured with sidewalls. The racks were configured with a standard 64% perforated
single door on the front, split perforated rear doors and a perforated roof. Leveling feet and
vertical air baffles were installed on the front 19” component mounting rails to ensure proper
airflow and prevent any internal cabinet air recirculation and mixing.

The cold aisle was fully contained on the aisle ends with 180º-hinged double doors. The top of
the aisle was covered and sealed with clear polycarbonate panels. Ten perforated floor tiles
were installed in the contained cold aisle to provide cold air supply from the raised floor plenum.
Numerous tests were performed utilizing perforated tiles with 25%, 65% and 80% open surface
area. Nine (9) 2.4kW load banks were installed in each test rack, each occupying 4U of space,
which allowed for a test range of up to 20kW per rack, or 200kW for the entire contained area.
The load banks were designed to mimic server airflow patterns with a nominal ΔT (temperature
change) of 45ºF (as expected with newer, high density servers) and with fans that could deliver
300 CFM (Cubic Feet per Minute) per load bank.

Space cooling was provided by three (3) 20-Ton nominal, direct expansion Liebert CRAC units.
Two of the units were Deluxe System 3 models (15 years old) and the third was a DS 077 unit
(2 years old). See Figure 1 for the test layout.

Power was provided from a 225 KVA Power Distribution Unit (PDU). All equipment and ambient
room spaces were instrumented, providing a complete array of temperature and environmental
sensors to ensure accurate data collection. Measured points included:

• Three (3) points at the inlet of each rack

• Two (2) points at the exhaust of each rack
• Relative humidity at four (4) locations (two in the cold aisle at opposite ends, one
in the hot aisle and one in the room ambient)
• One (1) ambient room temperature point
• Hot aisle temperature measured 3 feet from the rear of the racks
• CRAC supply and return temperatures, power consumption (amps), condenser
head pressure, return airflow and fan RPM (Revolutions Per Minute)
• CFM at the return to the CRAC
• CFM to the cold aisle containment
• Pressure differential between the cold aisle and room ambient
• Pressure differential between the cold aisle and rack inlet
• Outside air temperature
• Load Draw – kW
• Pressure in the cold aisle containment area

2
Figure 1 - Test Layout

Impact of Floor Tile Perforation Percentage on System Performance

During the first week of testing, steady state comparisons for the cold aisle containment system
were measured to determine the operational capacity. Tests were completed with 25% and
65% perforated floor tiles. 80% perforated floor tiles were tested early in the second week.
CFM data for each tile configuration was recorded to determine the total airflow in the CAC
area. (See Figure 2) Average inlet air temperatures, outlet air temperatures, room ambient
temperatures and hot aisle temperatures were recorded to capture steady state operation for all
three scenarios. (See Figure 3)

Key Point: Note that the increase in floor tile open surface area reduced all temperatures when
operating under the same load conditions, in this particular case, 20kW per rack.

3
 Impact of Tile Perforation on CFM

25000

23000

21000

19000

17000
25%
CFM

15000 65%
80%
13000

11000

9000

7000

5000
Perforation Comparison

Figure 2 - Comparison of Air flow versus open percentage of tiles

Tile Comparison vs. Temperature

140

120

100
Temperature

80 25%
65%

60 80%

40

20

0
Inlet Temperature Outlet Temperature Room Ambient Temperature Hot Aisle Temperature
Temperature Reading Location

Figure 3 - Temperature Comparisons at 20kW Load per Rack

4
Maximum Load Achievement with Various Floor Tiles
During the test, a maximum allowable ΔT of 45ºF was established. Since newer, high density
servers have much higher outlet air temperatures than older servers, testing with the higher Δ is
desirable. This is illustrated simply by comparing a variety of new 1U and blade server chassis,
which can have ΔT’s as high as 52ºF (Dell, 2008, Capacity Planner). Using this guideline,
Figure 4 was created.

Key Point: Note the positive impact on ΔT achieved with 80% perforated tiles, and that
acceptable results were also reached using 65% perforated tiles.

Maximum Load Allowable per Rack with Differing Open Area

Perforated Tiles

120

100
Load in kW and Temperature in F

80

25%
60 65%
80%

40

20

0
Load per Rack Inlet Temperature Outlet Temperature Delta T - 45F Maximum
Allowed

Figure 4 - Maximum Allowable Load

5
 Operation with 25% Perforated Tiles

Since 25% perforated floor tiles continue to be deployed in data centers, a base line of data
using these tiles was considered desirable. (Figure 5) During testing, the CRAC units were
turned on as required until all three units were running at full capacity. The noticeable dips in
test data show the points where CRAC’s were turned on. Inlet temperature increased slowly as
the CRAC units were loaded, but more importantly, the ΔT in many cases was deemed
unacceptable. During lower load testing, a single CRAC unit was unable to maintain the ΔT
within an acceptable range. This was apparently the result of the high pressure drop caused by
the 25% perforated tiles. Running multiple CRAC units simultaneously would have alleviated
this issue, but, as will be shown, increased floor tile perforation percentage showed a reduced
pressure drop without the added cost of operating additional CRAC units.

25% Peforated Tile Performance Data

140

120

100
Temperature in F

80 Inlet Temperature
Outlet Temperature
60 Delta T

40

20

0
4.7 7.1 7.1 9.5 11.7 11.7 13.8 16.2 18.5 20
Load Per Rack

Figure 5 - Performance with 25% Perforated Tiles

6
Operation with 65% Perforated Tiles

65% perforated Tile Performance Data

140

120

100
Temperature in F

80 Inlet Temperature
Outlet Temperature
60 Delta T

40

20

0
4.8 7.1 9.4 9.4 11.6 14 16.2 18.3 20.1
Load Per Rack

Figure 6 - Performance with 65% Perforated Tiles

65% Perforated tiles were chosen as an operational standard. The majority of testing
conducted during both weeks utilized 65% tiles. See Figure 7 for details of system operation
clearly showing the ΔT values reduced to acceptable levels. Figure 7 also shows the steady
state operation of the system. Each rack was set to a 20kW load with all 3 CRAC units
operated at full capacity. Each CRAC unit brought all of its compressors online to handle the
maximum load, with steady state operation achieved after approximately one hour. Peak
temperature increases were not noted until the full thermal capacities of the CRAC units were
reached, at which time the load was reduced. The average ΔT was approximately 30ºF, not the
worst-case scenario of 45ºF as described earlier.

7
 20kW Per Rack Steady State
110
Average Cold
Temperature in F

100 Air Temperature

Average Hot Air

90 Temperature

80 Average CRAC
Return
Temperature
70 Average CRAC
Supply
Temperature
60
50
10:01:30
10:10:00
10:18:30
10:27:00
10:35:30
10:44:00
10:52:30
11:01:00
11:09:30
11:18:00
11:26:30
11:35:00
9:44:30
9:53:00

Time

Figure 7 – Steady State – 65% Perforated Tiles 20kW Per Rack

Operation with 80% Perforated Tiles

Testing with 80% perforated tiles was conducted only at a 20kW/rack load after determining that
the 65% perforated tiles had performed adequately at all test load points. The purpose of the
80% perforation testing was to see if any significant improvement in the ΔT numbers over the
65% perforated tile testing could be realized. Figure 8 shows the steady state comparison.
Note that the ΔT remains very similar, averaging in the 30ºF range, when compared to the 65%
perforated tiles. This indicates that the load banks received sufficient air volume when using the
65% perforated tiles. The greater volume of airflow utilizing the 80% perforated tiles did,
however, reduce the peak temperatures noted during the test shown previously in Figure 4.
With ΔT considered a greater concern than peak temperature (provided the peak temperatures
were deemed acceptable), the tests demonstrated that the 65% perforated tiles performed as
well as the 80% perforated tiles.

8
 80% Perforated Tiles Steady State - 20kW Per
Rack

110
100
Temperature in F

Average Cold Air

Temperature
90
Average Hot Air

80
Temperature

Average CRAC Return

70 Temperature

Average CRAC Supply

60 Temperature

50
12:08:00
12:11:20
12:14:40
12:18:00
12:21:20
12:24:40
12:28:00
12:31:20
12:34:40
12:38:00
12:41:20
12:44:40
12:48:00
Time

Figure 8 - 80% Steady State Averages - 20kW Per Rack

Key Point: A lack of stratification of cold air temperatures delivered to the load banks in the CAC
was observed during all tests. During the 80% testing, the standard temperature deviation
averaged 1.87ºF, considered excellent given typical readings taken in most data centers.

9
Removal of Cold Aisle Containment
Data centers are not typically built with any means to separate and/or contain the cold or hot air
streams in data center spaces. Recirculation and mixing occur, reducing the overall ability of
the mechanical system to reject the heat from IT loads. Comparing data with containment to
data without containment was one goal of the test and considered necessary to determine the
true load capacity of the mechanical cooling system. This comparative data illustrates the gains
achieved by using a cold aisle containment system.

To demonstrate this, the doors and roof panels of the cold aisle containment system were
removed and the aisle was fitted with standard 65% perforated tiles. The system was started
with a single CRAC unit operating, with additional CRAC’s brought online to prevent server
temperature runaway as additional load was added. (See Figure 9)

Testing Without Cold Aisle Containment

140

120
kW per Rack and Temperature in F

100

80 Inlet Temperature
Outlet Temperature
60 Delta T

40

20

0
4.7 6.9 9.2
Load Per Rack in kW

Figure 9 - Load Testing Without Cold Aisle Containment

Please note that for all testing above 6.9kW per rack, the ΔT observed was found to be
unacceptable. Even assuming high ΔT servers, the maximum load achieved during testing
without containment was 11.5kW per rack. The maximum load was determined when the load
banks went into thermal overload, much like a typical server would. It is clear from the data that
cold aisle containment resulted in significant performance improvements over the non-contained
aisle testing. This is assumed to be a result of the complete elimination of air mixing and the
slight pressurization of the cold aisle when the containment system was utilized.

10
Comparing Cold Aisle Containment to Traditional Open Systems
Further analyses of collected data are necessary for IT and facility personnel to determine
whether or not a data center architecture utilizing a cold aisle containment system is suitable for
their needs. There are two easy ways to compare the systems. First, to employ PUE (Power
Usage Effectiveness). This is simply comparing the ratio of energy consumed by the entire
system, to the power consumed by the IT load. Figure 10 illustrates this.

Figure 11 illustrates the impact on a second important efficiency number from a cooling
perspective—kW/Ton, which is the number of kW required to provide a given ton of cooling.

20kW Load - 65% Perf Tile - PUE Comparison - Lower is Better

2.5

1.5

With Containment
PUE

Without Containment

0.5

0
4.8 7.1 9.4 11.6 14 16.2 18.3 20.1
kW per Rack

Figure 10 - Impact of Cold Aisle Containment on PUE

11
 Efficiency Comparison With/Without Cold Aisle Containment

3.5

2.5

2
Kw/Ton

Without Containment
With Containment
1.5

0.5

0
4.7 7.1 9.4 11. 14 16. 18. 20.
Kw/Capacity

Figure 11 - kW/Ton Comparison

12
Failure Analysis: What happens when something goes wrong?

Typical data centers operate with some level of facility, system and component redundancy.
The ability to overcome unforeseen failure events is critical for any data center. During the
second week of testing, a number of failure scenarios were simulated to determine the impact of
the cold aisle containment on different fault condition scenarios.

Generator Startup / UPS Fail Over

Most data centers are designed with a UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) system that
provides emergency power to IT loads during a loss of utility power. Usually, these systems
supply power only to the IT load when utility is lost, resulting in the loss of cooling. To replicate
this failure during the cold aisle containment testing, a steady state load consisting of 10 racks
at 20kW apiece was established. All CRAC units in the test setup were running. At precisely
the same instant, all of the CRAC units were de-energized at their disconnects, resulting in the
total loss of air flow to the cold aisle containment system. After approximately 30 seconds (to
simulate emergency generator start up) the CRAC units were restarted and began to supply air
to the equipment. Power requirements of the load were monitored at all times to ensure that no
single load bank was lost on a thermal overload. Figure 12 shows the impact on the
temperatures in the data center.

30 Second Generator Start Impact

115
105
Temperature

95 Hot Aisle
85
Room Ambient
75
65 Average Front
55 Temperature
Average Back
Temperature
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0
:0
00
00
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
05
06
0:

Time

Figure 12 - 30 Second Generator Start Impact

As seen in Figure 12, the generator restart resulted in a temporary increase in the hot aisle
temperature, as was expected due to the loss of airflow. The shutdown also impacted the cold
air temperature; undoubtedly due to the extra thermal energy that the CRAC units were required
to dissipate after restart.

13
 Impact of Opening the Cold Aisle Containment Doors

Impact of One End of CAC Open

120
100
Temperature

80 Hot Aisle
60
Room Ambient
40
20 Average Front
0 Temperature
Average Back
0:00:00
0:02:30
0:05:00
0:07:30
0:10:00
0:12:30
0:15:00
0:17:30
0:20:00
0:22:30
0:25:00
0:27:30
0:30:00
0:32:30
Temperature

Time

Figure 13 - Impact of One End of Cold Aisle Containment Open

Personnel activity is a normal, day-to-day reality in a data center. Unfortunately, these

movements can disturb the air paths that are required to maintain a sealed cold aisle
containment system. These impacts are usually momentary, but what if a row end door of the
cold aisle containment space was opened for over 30 minutes when running at 20kW per rack?
Figure 13 illustrates the impact of this condition. As can be seen, room ambient temperature, as
well as hot aisle temperature, increased due to the short cycling of air from the cold aisle back
to the CRAC units. This did reduce cold aisle temperature due to the lower temperature of air
being cycled directly to the CRAC units. Even in this state, however, the air temperature to the
servers was maintained within the normal operating range, and although the ΔT rose due to
lower air volumes being provided to the servers, the ΔT was still within established guidelines.

Impact of Losing a Single CRAC Unit

The system that was tested would be considered an “N” redundant solution since all CRAC
units were required to be operational to support the 20kW/rack IT test load. Although many
data centers operate in at least an N+1 redundant configuration, what if this weren’t the case?
During the second week of testing, the system was operated at a steady state of 20kW/rack,
and then a single CRAC unit was shut down. The results are shown in Figure 14.

14
 Impact of One CRAC Unit Loss

125
115
Temperature

105 Hot Aisle

95
85 Room Ambient
75
65 Average Front
55 Temperature
0: :30 Average Back

0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0
0: :00

0: :30
0: :00

0: :00
0: :30
0: :00
0: :30
0: :00

Temperature

:0
38
42
31
35
00

17
21
24
28
03
07
10
14
0:

Time

Figure 14 - Loss of a single CRAC unit

Notice that the ΔT increased quite rapidly, and inlet temperature to the load banks was affected
over time. The two remaining CRAC units were rated for a theoretical 70kW capacity each, but
with the loss of one of the CRAC units, the remaining two units were able to support 100kW
each. By the end of the test, it was determined that the load was indeed stable at these
conditions, allowing sufficient time for repair of the “failed” CRAC.

Impact of Losing Two CRAC Units

In the above scenario, it was shown that the loss of a single CRAC unit did not cause a failure of
the system and that the test load was supported. If a second CRAC unit were lost after the two
units had initially stabilized the load, what would the impact be? This scenario was simulated
and the results are shown in Figure 15. As can be seen, the system quickly goes to a critical
thermal runaway resulting in the loss of the IT hardware within only a few minutes.

15
 Loss of CRAC 1, then CRAC 3

135
125 Hot Aisle
Temperature 115
Room Ambient
105
95
Average Front
85
Temperature
75
Average Back
65 Temperature
55
0:00:00
0:03:20
0:06:40
0:10:00
0:13:20
0:16:40
0:20:00
0:23:20
0:26:40
0:30:00
0:33:20
0:36:40
0:40:00
0:43:20
0:46:40
Time

Figure 15 - Loss of CRAC Unit 1 than CRAC unit 3

Impact of losing two CRAC units simultaneously

In this failure scenario, the load was brought to a stable point of 20kW/rack, and then two CRAC
units were shut down simultaneously. As shown in Figure 16, the temperature rise was steady,
but the load was not lost for approximately 14 minutes. This, and the previous scenario,
illustrate the necessity of redundant CRAC units to support various failure conditions.

Impact of Loss of 2 CRAC Units

145
135 Hot Aisle
125
Temperature

115 Room Ambient

105
95 Average Front
85 Temperature
75 Average Back
65 Temperature
55
0: :00
0: :10
0: :20
0: :30
0: :40

0: :00
0: :10
0: :50

0: :20

0: :40
0: :50
0: :30

0
:0
00
01
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
10
11
12
14
0:

Time

Figure 16 - Loss of Two CRAC units

16
 Loss of All CRAC Units, Various Loads
A worst-case condition of complete failure of the mechanical cooling system was also
considered. What would happen if the data center or cold aisle containment system were to
lose all CRAC units at once and they were not restored? Figures 17-20 show the impact of this
condition under various rack loads.

Loss of CRAC Units - 8kW Loss of CRAC Units at 12kW

Estimated
Estimated Loss of 125
115 Load Loss
Load
105 115 Average Front
105 Temperature
Temperature

Temperature
95 Average Front Average Back
Temperature 95 Temperature
85
Average Back 85 Average Front
75 Temperature Temperature
75 Average Back
65 Temperature
65
55 55
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0

0
0: :30
0: :40
0: :50
0: :20
0: :30
0: :40
0: :50
0: :00
0: :10
0: :20
0: :00
0: :10
:4

:0
00
01
02
04
05
06
08
09
10
12
13
14

11
12
14
04
05
07
08
09
10
00
01
02
03
0:

0:
Time Time

Loss of CRAC Units at 20kW Loss of CRAC Units at 16kW

Estimated
Estimated
Load Loss
115 115 Load Loss

105 105
Temperature

Temperature

95 Average Front 95 Average Front

Temperature Temperature
85 85
Average Back Average Back
75 Temperature 75 Temperature
65 65
55 55
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0

0: 10
0: 0

0: 30

0: 40
0
0: 00
0: 10

0: 20
0: 30

0: 0
0: 50

0: 00
:4

:2

:5
:4

:
:
:

:
:

:
00
01
02
04
05
06
08
09
10
12
13
14

08
09

10
11

12
03
04

05
07
00

01
02
0:

0:

Time Time

Figure 17-20 - Loss of CRAC units at various loads.

17
Removal of Tiles Throughout the Data Center
Another possible failure scenario that could occur would be the removal of multiple tiles in the
data center for under-floor work such as running cable. These types of intrusions into the raised
floor are important to understand, as the loss of cold air from the raised floor may result in a
reduction of air supplied to the cold aisle. Figures 21-26 show the impact of this scenario on
both supply and return air temperatures.

20kW Tiles Removed by CRAC Units 20kW Tiles Removed in the Hot Aisle

115 115

105 105

95

Temperature
95
Temperature

Average Front Average Front

Temperature Temperature
85 85
Average Back Average Back
Temperature Temperature
75 75

65 65

55 55
0: 00

0: 0

0: 00

0: 0

0: 00

0: 00

0: 0

0: 00

0: 00

0: 00
0

0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0: :00
0: :20
0: :40
0
:0

:0

:0

:0

:0
:

:
00

01

02

03

04

05

06

10
07

08

09

00
01
02
04
05
06
08
09
10
12
13
14
16
0:

0:
Time Time

12kW Tiles Removed in Hot Aisle 12kW Tiles Removed by CRAC Unit

105 95
100 90
95
85
90
Temperature
Temperature

85 Average Front 80 Average Front

Temperature Temperature
80 75
Average Back Average Back
75 Temperature 70 Temperature
70
65
65
60 60
55 55
0:00:00
0:00:50
0:01:40
0:02:30
0:03:20
0:04:10
0:05:00
0:05:50
0:06:40
0:07:30
0:08:20
0:09:10
0:10:00
0:10:50
0: :00
0: :40
0: :20
0: :00
0: :40
0: :20
0: :00
0: :40
0: :20
0: :00
0: :40
0: :20
0
:0
00
01

05
03

06
08
10
11

15
16
18
20
13
0:

Time Time

8kW Tiles Removed by Entrance to Testing Area 8kW Tiles Removed in Hot Aisle

90 90

85 85
Te
80 mp 80
Temperature

Average Front era Average Front

75 Temperature tur 75 Temperature
70 Average Back e
70 Average Back
Temperature Temperature
65 65

60 60

55 55 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1
0:0 1:2 2:4 4:0 5:2 6:4 8:0 9:2 0:4 2:0 3:2 4:4 6:0 7:2 8:4
0
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00
0: :00

:0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12
07
08
09
10
11
05
06
00
01
02
03
04
0:

Time Time

Figure 21-26 - Impact of Tile Removal

18
Impact of Outdoor Ambient Temperature
While not often considered, this subject is important to address when considering the use of DX
(Direct Expansion) type air-cooled CRAC units (as used in this test program). During part of the

Impact of Outdoor Temperature on CAC Performance

135 Actual Data Point -

20kW Load - 65%
130
Actual Data Point - Perf. 101F Outdoor
125 20kW Load - 65% Estimated Data Point -
Perf. 79F Outdoor 20kW Load - 65%
120 Perf. 110F Outdoor
Cold Aisle Temperature
115
110 Estimated Data Point - Rack Discharge Temperature
105 20kW Load - 65% Perf.
Temperature

105F Outdoor
100 Outdoor Temperature
95
Expon. (Outdoor Temperature)
90
85 Expon. (Rack Discharge
80 Temperature)
Expon. (Cold Aisle Temperature)
75
70
65
60
55

Figure 27 - Effect of Outdoor Ambient Temperature on CAC

testing, the outdoor ambient temperature was approximately 79ºF, but in the first week of testing
reached 101ºF. The data showed a noticeable trend suggesting a link to the outdoor
temperature. A worst-case outdoor temperature in the Dallas-Metro area was expected to be
110ºF. This temperature point, as can be seen in Figure 27, was expected to result in cold air
temperatures of up to 71ºF and hot air temperatures of up to 120ºF based on the values
recorded earlier. These are expected to be maximum worst-case values. Average values
would be reflective of the same temperature rise, but overall the operation of the installed
equipment would be unaffected.

Cost Savings Analysis: CapEx and OpEx

Although the preceding data is valuable in understanding the operation of a cold aisle
containment system, potential operational and installation cost savings are also important to
explore. Table 1 illustrates the CapEx (Capital Expenditure) and OpEx (Operational
Expenditure) savings that can be realized from a relatively small cold aisle containment system.

The operational efficiencies data seen in Table 1 show that, on average, when considering a
load of 10kW/rack, a single 20-Ton CRAC unit has the effective capacity of 50kW when used
without containment and a capacity of 70kW per unit with containment. This improvement
results in a reduction of the total CRAC units required Day 1, thereby reducing CapEx costs and
reducing overall costs throughout the year by virtue of lower OpEx.

19
Cold Aisle Containment Analysis of DX Air Conditioners
Without containment With containment Savings One time
50KW per 20 Ton Unit 70KW per 20 Ton unit Less AC's Annual Energy Purchase & install
Number of Cabs KW Per Cab Total KW Number of CRAC units Number of CRAC units Required benefits benefits
4.8 48 1.0 0.7 0 $ - $ -
10 7.1 71 1.4 1.0 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
9.4 94 1.9 1.3 0 $ - $ -
4 80 1.6 1.1 0 $ - $ -
6 120 2.4 1.7 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
20
8 160 3.2 2.3 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
10 200 4 2.9 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
4 160 3.2 2.3 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
6 240 4.8 3.4 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
40
8 320 6.4 4.6 2 $ 57,222.00 $ 99,000.00
10 400 8 5.7 2 $ 57,222.00 $ 99,000.00
4 240 4.8 3.4 1 $ 28,611.00 $ 49,500.00
6 360 7.2 5.1 2 $ 57,222.00 $ 99,000.00
60
8 480 9.6 6.9 3 $ 85,833.00 $ 148,500.00
10 600 12 8.6 3 $ 85,833.00 $ 148,500.00
4 320 6.4 4.6 2 $ 57,222.00 $ 99,000.00
6 480 9.6 6.9 3 $ 85,833.00 $ 148,500.00
80
8 640 12.8 9.1 3 $ 85,833.00 $ 148,500.00
10 800 16 11.4 4 $ 114,444.00 $ 198,000.00

Actual readings

Air Conditioner
Annual Energy (KW) $ 28,611.00
Purchase $ 30,000.00
Install $ 19,500.00

Table 1 - CapEx and OpEx Comparison

20
Conclusions
A key strategy to increase cooling efficiency that is currently being deployed in operational data
centers and discussed by the IT market at large, is to maximize the separation of cold and hot
air flow paths. Aisle containment has emerged as a relatively low cost and easy to implement
solution. The testing of the Rittal Cold Aisle Containment system validated the assumption that
utilizing a cold aisle containment system enables the data center environment to support higher
density loads while providing a more efficient use of the environmental equipment. Increased
efficiencies of up to 40% were achieved utilizing cold aisle containment in comparison to
environments without containment. The CRAC units were able to support ΔT’s (supply/return)
ranging from 75 – 100ºF, depending on load conditions.

Environments can be built within existing data centers, utilizing cold aisle containment, to
support 20kW/rack loads while most of today’s data centers (without CAC) only support load
densities of approximately 3-5kW per individual rack. These significant improvements can help
extend the lifespan of many operational data centers. As a result, a reduction of the capital
expenditure needed to maintain a company’s computing environments is made possible by
postponing the build-out of new data center space.

Although highly effective in existing data center spaces, when employed in the design of new
data centers, Cold Aisle Containment can also help to maximize energy efficiency potentials
and reduce both capital and operational expenses. In either case, Cold Aisle Containment
provides a viable option to meet increasing computing demands in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.

About the Author

Daniel Kennedy is Rittal Corporation’s RimatriX Solution Center Coordinator and has been with
the company since 2003. He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering and is the lead engineer
for the design, implementation, and support of high density IT deployments in North America.

The Rittal Corporation is the U.S. subsidiary of Rittal GmbH & Co. KG and manufactures the world’s leading industrial and IT enclosures, racks
and accessories, including climate control and power management systems for industrial, data center, outdoor and hybrid applications.

1 Rittal Place • Urbana, OH 43078 • Toll free: 800-477-4000 • Website: www.rittal-corp.com

1/09 • WP506
21