Both localized power densities and overall power consumption within the data center continue to rise, following the same upward trend as the information technology (IT) equipment stored within the data center. Air cooling this increasing power has proved a significant challenge at both the IT equipment and data center level. In order to combat this challenge, computational fluid dynamics and heat transfer (CFD/HT) models have been employed as the dominant technique for the design and optimization of both new and existing data centers. This study is a continuation of earlier comparisons of CFD/HT models to experimentally measured temperature and flow fields in a small data center test cell. It compares an inviscid model, a laminar flow model, and three turbulence models to six sets of experimentally collected data. The six sets of data are from two different IT equipment rack power dissipations using three different layouts of perforated tiles. Insight into the location of the deviation between the different CFD/HT models and experimental data are discussed, along with the computational effort involved in running the models. A new grid analysis was performed on the different CFD/HT models in order to try to minimize computational effort. The inviscid model was able to run with a smaller grid size than the viscous models and even for the same size grid was found to run 30% faster than the fastest viscous model. Due to both the reduced grid size and computational effort (due to the simpler equation set), the inviscid model ran over thirty times faster than the next fastest model. The fact that the inviscid model ran the fastest is not surprising, however what was not expected is that the inviscid model was also found to have the smallest deviations from the experimental data for all six of the cases. This is most likely due to the arrangement of the data center test cell with the relatively few high velocity air jets and large open space around the IT equipment. More tightly packed data centers with higher air velocities and turbulent mixing conditions will certainly produce different results than those found in this study.

References

References
1.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
,
2012
,
Datacom Equipment Power Trends and Cooling Applications
,
2nd ed.
,
ASHRAE
,
Atlanta, GA
.
2.
Iyengar
,
M.
,
Schmidt
,
R. R.
,
Hamann
,
H.
, and
VanGilder
,
J.
,
2007
, “
Comparison Between Numerical and Experimental Temperature Distributions in a Small Data Center Test Cell
,”
Proceedings of IPACK’07
,
Vancouver, Canada
, July 8–12,
ASME
Paper No. IPACK2007-33508.10.1115/IPACK2007-33508
3.
Zhang
,
X.
,
VanGilder
,
J.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
, and
Schmidt
,
R.
,
2008
, “
Effect of Rack Modeling Detail on the Numerical Results of a Data Center Test Cell
,” Proceedings of the Inter Society Conference on Thermal Phenomena (
ITHERM2008
),
Orlando, FL
, May 28–31.10.1109/ITHERM.2008.4544395
4.
Cruz
,
E.
,
Joshi
,
Y.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
, and
Schmidt
,
R.
,
2009
, “
Comparison of Numerical Modeling to Experimental Data in a Small Data Center Test Cell
,”
Proceedings of IPACK’09
,
San Francisco, CA
, July 19–23,
ASME
Paper No. InterPACK2009-89306.10.1115/InterPACK2009-89306
5.
Cruz
,
E.
,
Joshi
,
Y.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
, and
Schmidt
,
R.
,
2009
, “
Comparison of Numerical Modeling to Experimental Data in a Small, Low Power Data Center Test Cell
,”
Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE)
,
Lake Buena Vista, FL
, November 13–19,
ASME
Paper No. IMECE2009-12860.10.1115/IMECE2009-12860
6.
Patel
,
C.
,
Bash
,
C.
, and
Belady
,
C.
,
2001
, “
Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling of High Compute Density Data Centers to Assure System Inlet Air Specifications
,”
Proceedings of IPACK’01
, Kauai, HI, July 8–13.
7.
Shrivastava
,
S.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
,
Sammakia
,
B.
,
Schmidt
,
R.
, and
VanGilder
,
J.
,
2006
, “
Experimental-Numerical Comparison for a High-Density Data Center: Hot Spot Heat Fluxes in Excess of 500 W/ft2
,” 10th Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronics Systems (
ITHERM'06
),
San Diego, CA
, May 30–June 2.10.1109/ITHERM.2006.1645371
8.
Rambo
,
J.
, and
Joshi
,
Y.
,
2007
, “
Modeling of Data Center Airflow and Heat Transfer: State of the Art and Future Trends
,”
Distrib. Parallel Databases
,
21
(
2–3
), pp.
193
225
.10.1007/s10619-006-7007-3
9.
Schmidt
,
R.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
, and
Caricari
,
J.
,
2007
, “
Data Center Housing the World's 3rd Fastest Supercomputer—Above Floor Thermal Measurements Compared to CFD Analysis
,”
Proceedings of IPACK’07
,
Vancouver, Canada
, July 8–12,
ASME
Paper No. IPACK2007-33899.10.1115/IPACK2007-33899
10.
Amemiya
,
Y.
,
Iyengar
,
M.
,
Herman
,
H.
,
O'Boyle
,
M.
,
Schappert
,
M.
,
Shen
,
J.
, and
van Kessel
,
T.
,
2007
, “
Comparison of Experimental Temperature Results With Numerical Modeling Predictions of a Real-World Compact Data Center Facility
,”
Proceedings of IPACK’07
,
Vancouver, Canada
, July 8–12,
ASME
Paper No. IPACK2007-33899.10.1115/IPACK2007-33899
11.
Hamann
,
H.
,
Lacey
,
J.
,
O'Boyle
,
M.
,
Schmidt
,
R.
, and
Iyengar
,
M.
,
2008
, “
Rapid Three Dimensional Thermal Characterization of Large Scale Computing Facilities
,”
IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol.
,
31
(
2
), pp.
444
448
.10.1109/TCAPT.2008.923629
12.
Toulouse
,
M.
,
Doljac
,
G.
,
Carey
,
V.
, and
Bash
,
C.
,
2009
, “
Exploration of a Potential-Flow-Based Compact Model of Air-Flow Transport in Data Centers
,” Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE2009),
Lake Buena Vista, FL
, November 13–19,
ASME
Paper No. IMECE2009-10806.10.1115/IMECE2009-10806
13.
ansys fluent
, 2013, Anysis Inc., Canonsburg, PA, www.ansys.com
14.
IBM IntelliStation
, 2013, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, www.ibm.com
You do not currently have access to this content.