Document

Report
FAC 8.5 Passive RDHx as a
Cost Effective Alternative
to CRAH Air Cooling
Jeremiah Stikeleather
Applications Engineer
1
FAC 8.5 Passive RDHx as a Cost Effective Alternative
to CRAH Air Cooling
While CRAH cooling has been a common data center
cooling solution, OPEX for RDHx cooling can be better
at minimizing today’s energy consumption and operating
costs. This will have increasing significance as we look
to the future and interest in sustainability grows.
2
Agenda
• Benefits of the Passive Rear Door Heat Exchanger
• The Study: Comparing 3 Cooling Designs
o Traditional CRAH Units
o RDHx’s with a Primary Piping Manifold
o RDHx’s with CDU’s and a Secondary Water Loop
• Summary of the 3 Design Alternatives
3
Benefits of the Water-Cooled Passive Rear Door Heat
Exchanger (RDHx)
•
•
•
•
Replaces rear door on the server enclosure
Air-to-Water Heat Exchanger
Close-coupled cooling solution
Removes the heat at the source
Rear of
Enclosure
Front of
Enclosure
4
Benefits of the Water-Cooled Passive Rear Door Heat
Exchanger (RDHx)
•
•
•
•
Significant energy reduction versus a typical CRAH solution
Heat exchange process occurs at rear of the rack
Water thermal capacity is 3400 times greater than air
Significant reduction in maintenance costs
91°F
93°F
73°F
72°F
5
The Study: 3 Cooling Designs
Designs Compared:
• Design 1 – Traditional 30-Ton CRAH Units
• Design 2 – RDHx’s with a primary piping manifold system
• Design 3 – RDHx’s with Coolant Distribution Units
and secondary water loop
Study includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
All aspects of deploying solutions in a 1 MW Data Center
Supply and installation of cooling system
Electrical connections, valves, piping
Building monitoring integration system
Leak detection, smoke/fire detection
Condensate removal
6
The Data Center Configuration:
•
•
•
•
•
1 MW of IT power in a raised floor environment
5,000 sq. ft. white space
Planned deployment of 177 IT enclosures
Infrastructure for a space loading of 200 watts /ft2
28 ft2 per IT enclosure (assume 5.7 kW / rack)
7
The Benchmark Air Cooling System:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chilled water Computer Room Air Handlers (CRAHs).
(12) 30-Ton operating units around perimeter
CRAH unit air discharge temperature 68°F to 70°F
Two additional CRAH units installed for redundancy
Cold air discharged under an 18 inch raised floor
Hot aisle-cold aisle arrangement
8
The Benchmark Air Cooling System:
•
•
•
•
CRAH running at a reduced load of 80% (4.6 kW)
Chilled water for the CRAHs (100% water, no glycol)
Branch connected from a main chilled water loop running external to
the white space
Chiller, water supply, and related energy costs not included in any of
the cooling designs
9
Design 1 – Traditional CRAH Units
Fourteen 30-Ton CRAH units
•
12 active, 2 standby
Assume 25% CRAH performance reduction
•
•
•
Large area with unpredictable airflow
Obstructions (columns, cable runs, etc.) alter airflow
Wasted air (openings in tiles that do not provide direct access for rack
intake)
White space consumption and the required
service clearance is factored in
•
Footprint required by CRAH system complicates future expansion of IT
enclosures
10
Design 1 Summary – Traditional CRAH Units
Cost includes:
•
Supply and installation of CRAH units
•
Space fit-out
•
Fire protection/suppression systems required for access and CRAH footprint
De-rating published sensible cooling by 25% considered conservative due to the
built-in inefficiencies of CRAH based air cooling systems
Power consumption much higher due to fans, humidification, and reheat functions
Increased rack power density will force a change in cooling infrastructure –
more CRAHs, supplemental cooling, hot aisle/cold aisle containment
11
Design 1 – Traditional CRAH Units
Cost Summary
12
Design 2 – RDHx with manifold system
•
Dedicated chiller
•
177 RDHx
•
Chilled water distribution from prefabricated manifold system
•
2 CRAH units for humidification control and room cooling backup
•
CAPEX reduced by not using additional pumps or plate-and-frame heat
exchangers
13
Design 2 – RDHx with manifold system
Piping manifold alternatives:
•
•
Manifold and pump tapping into bypass/mixing line
•
(Manifold return water discharges back into the bypass)
Manifold and three-way valve tapping into supply and return lines
•
(Mixing building return water with supply water to achieve higher supply water
temperatures for the RDHx)
Similar to methods used in the radiant piping industry
14
Design 2 – RDHx with manifold system
Controls for the proposed system rely on supply air temperature sensors
for the racks and their corresponding RDHx that is connected to the
manifold, and a modulating control valve or circuit setter at the manifold
return
15
Design 2 Summary – RDHx with manifold
CAPEX comparable to CRAH design (Design 1)
OPEX for RDHx is minimal
(About 3% of the total power consumed by CRAH units)
RDHx units are passive
Small RDHx whitespace footprint
•
•
•
Reduce overall building footprint
Greenfield project savings
Construction savings for future expansion
RDHx ROI within first year of operation
Over 3x IT expansion, 5.7 kW to 18 kW / rack
(RDHx nominal cooling capacity 18 kW)
16
Design 2 – RDHx with manifold system Cost
Summary
17
Design 3 – RDHx with CDU and secondary water loop
• 4 Coolant Distribution Units (CDU’s)
• CDU is floor-mounted device – heat exchanger, pumps,
controls, distribution manifold
• CDU connects to water from chiller (or cooling tower)
• 2 CRAH units (Humidity control and room cooling backup)
• No condensate (Temperature/humidity
sensor regulates secondary loop
temperature 2 degrees above dew point)
• The RDHx water loop is isolated from
primary water loop
• CDU power consumption 3.7 kW each
18
Design 3 Summary – RDHx with CDU
• CDU increases CAPEX
• Low OPEX cost
CDU pumps use 15% of power for CRAH units
• Break-even point is in Year 3
• Design 2 and 3 are “future proof”
5.7 kW racks can grow up to 18 kW
19
Design 3 – RDHx with CDU
Cost Summary
20
Summary
•
At 5 kW per rack, CAPEX for RDHx and CRAH cooling approximately equal
(CAPEX could be further reduced by implementing alternating RDHx’s – CAPEX savings up to 25% compared to populating each rack
with an RDHx)
•
OPEX is significantly reduced with RDHx designs
•
Reduced energy consumption
•
Reduced demand charges
•
Reduced maintenance costs
•
RDHx allows for future growth without new construction costs
•
RDHx performs well with elevated water temperatures
•
Minimizing chiller energy usage
•
Reducing chiller OPEX
21
Summary
• OPEX savings increased using waterside economizers
(Free cooling window is increased using elevated water temperatures)
• Hybrid system including some CRAH units with RDHx adds
redundancy for greater system availability
• Increasing rack density to 18 kW can minimize infrastructure space
(CAPEX savings 30-40%)
22
Study Conclusions
• A common misconception that liquid cooling is too
expensive to deploy disproved
• CAPEX for liquid cooling and traditional air cooling is
approximately the same at 5 kW / rack
• Increasing energy costs encourage data center owners
and operators to consider liquid cooling
• Passive liquid cooling enables expansion and flexibility at a
lower, incremental, capital expenditure
23
Future Considerations
• A similar study done by a 3rd party consulting engineering
firm is comparing RDHx’s to IRC’s
• 4 MW Data Center, 5000 sq. ft.
• IRC CAPEX $4.5M, 6 MW cooling capacity
• RDHx CAPEX $2.5M, 7.5 MW cooling capacity
24
Thank You
Jeremiah Stikeleather
Applications Engineer
Coolcentric
[email protected]
(603) 765-8305
25

similar documents