Verizon SMARTS Data Center Design Phase 1 Conceptual Study Report Ms. Leah Zabarenko Verizon Business 2606A Carsins Run Road Aberdeen, MD 21001

Transcription

1 Verizon SMARTS Data Center Design Phase 1 Conceptual Study Report Ms. Leah Zabarenko Verizon Business 2606A Carsins Run Road Aberdeen, MD Presented by: Liberty Engineering, LLP 1609 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC ISSUE FOR BID & PERMIT 31 JULY 2014

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 4 METHODOLOGY... 4 ASSUMPTIONS... 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS... 5 SMARTS PROJECT... 5 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS... 6 Option 1 CRAH Units... 6 Option 2 IRC Units... 6 ANALYSIS... 6 OPTION OPTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICIES APPENDIX 1 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 1 Normal Operation APPENDIX 2 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 1 Failure Operation APPENDIX 3 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 2 Normal Operation APPENDIX 4 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 2 Failure Operation APPENDIX 5 Conceptual Floorplan of Equipment Racks APPENDIX 6 Calculations APPENDIX 7 CAD Drawings July 2014 Page 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Verizon Business requested Liberty Engineering, LLP to perform a conceptual study to compare two (2) mechanical design options for providing the required heat removal for the addition of proposed equipment associated with the SMARTS project. This project will add rack mounted technology equipment in the CPU Room in the Perryman Data Center in Aberdeen, MD. The study utilized Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling of the two (2) options to evaluate the effectiveness in meeting the new equipment thermal requirements. Additionally, a ROM cost comparison of the two options was developed for comparison purposes. From this study Verizon will select a preferred option to implement as the final design for the HVAC system modification. The study utilized two different options to evaluate the required cooling capacity needed within the space and determine if any hotspots existed. Each option has been thermally modeled in a three dimensional CFD program to simulate the HVAC performance of the mechanical system and rack layout. The two options are: Option #1 The addition of two CRAH units. Option #2 The addition of twelve In-Row Cooling (IRC) units. These results were compared against one another to analyze the air temperature distribution throughout the area in the CPU Room where equipment is being added. The temperature distribution throughout the room was analyzed to determine which of the two options best supported the addition of new equipment. Each room layout accounts for 31 racks at 10 kw of load each and 4 racks at 3 kw each. Each rack was modeled with all server positions filled and an equal distribution of load across the frame. The racks are configured with a front intake, rear discharge air distribution, with 8 existing racks having an additional top discharge. The equipment load calculated has a sensible cooling requirement of approximately 98 Tons. The data center is modeled using Liebert CW181 CRAH units that supply cool air at 56.7 F DB with a relative humidity of 95% in Option 1. In Option 2, the data center is modeled using Liebert CR040RC In Row Cooling units that supply cool air at 56.9 F DB with a relative humidity of 95%. A total of two 60.9-Ton CRAH with N+1 redundancy with new and existing supply and return grilles comprise Option 1. In Option 2, twelve IRC s with N+2 redundancy and new and existing supply and return grilles are provided. Using the program 6Sigma, a CFD computer program, both models were created to determine which concept was most effective. Results showed that Option 1, provides more effective heat removal. This option was able to handle an outage much more successfully than the IRC option. Additionally, Option 1 is estimated to produce a savings of $320,017 versus Option 2. For the reasons stated above, Liberty Engineering recommends Option 1, to be implemented in the final design. 31 July 2014 Page 3

4 INTRODUCTION Verizon is planning to install a new technology deployment project named "SMARTS" that will add new equipment to the CPU Room of the Perryman Data Center (PDC) located in Aberdeen, MD which will require utility infrastructure modifications to meet the equipment requirements. This will include upgrades to both the mechanical HVAC and electrical power systems. To identify the required mechanical system modifications, Verizon has requested Liberty Engineering to perform a conceptual study of two different options to provide heat removal for the SMARTS equipment. Option 1 utilizes Computer Room Air Handling (CRAH) units and Option 2 utilizes In Row Cooling (IRC) units, both fed from the existing chilled water system. This report provides an analysis and recommendations of the two (2) options to allow Verizon to select which one will be implemented for the final design. The report is presented as follows. First a description of the methodology and key assumptions used to create the report is provided followed by a description of the existing conditions and the proposed SMARTS project. Then a description of the two conceptual mechanical design options, an analysis of the options under specific operating scenarios, and a summary of the analysis with recommendations are provided. Supporting documentation is included in an Appendix for reference to the different sections. METHODOLOGY To create the requested report, Liberty performed a site survey to assess the existing conditions of the facility. Liberty then reviewed the proposed SMARTS equipment provided by Verizon to identify the mechanical design requirements. The owner provided SMARTS equipment included a conceptual floor plan layout of the equipment racks, their associated heat load, and air distribution configuration (see Appendix 5 for reference). From this, two conceptual design options for the required heat removal were developed to address the SMART equipment requirements within the constraints of the existing data center. The concept designs developed included the location and sizes of the required HVAC equipment, the air distribution system, and the chilled water hydronic system. The conceptual layouts are included in Appendix 7 with supporting design calculations and equipment selections included in Appendix 6. The concept designs were then modeled using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling software to assess their heat removal effectiveness under two operating scenarios: NORMAL and FAILURE. Normal operation is defined as having all HVAC equipment available at the design heat load of the data center equipment. Failure operation is defined as only having the non-redundant mechanical equipment available at the full design load conditions. The CFD results for each option under the two operating scenarios were then analyzed and compared to each other utilizing recommended operating temperature criteria for technology equipment as defined by ASHRAE. A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate was created for each option for comparison, as well. The comparative analysis was then summarized with Liberty's recommendations as a conclusion to the report. The program utilized for the analysis of each option, 6Sigma (Release 8), is a computational fluid dynamic computer program that three-dimensionally simulates air temperature, velocity, airflow path and pressures within the model. At any location, the user can graphically and numerically see the temperature, humidity, and velocity to validate if the proposed design solution meets the design criteria. The program is specifically created for the analysis of data centers and provides highly detailed output data. It has the ability to analyze actual manufacturers of equipment and different models to account for unique aerodynamic shapes, thermal properties of materials and their variance in heat exchange. The Racks, CRAHs, IRCs, and PDUs were not available in the program s library, so general 31 July 2014 Page 4

5 equipment was modified to match the dimension and capacity of the existing units and units used in the design. ASSUMPTIONS 1. During Normal Operation, the inlet temperature to the equipment will be compared to a mean inlet temperature of 64.4 F to 80.6 F, the recommended temperature range per ASHRAE TC The maximum allowable inlet temperature to the racks is 90 F during a failure condition, which is the maximum acceptable temperature per ASHRAE TC Failure Operation for Option 1 will be defined as one (1) CRAH unit being unavailable. 4. Failure Operation for Option 2 will be defined as three (3) in-row coolers being unavailable. 5. The rack configuration is based on customer provided information. 6. Racks are assumed to be 10kW unless otherwise noted in configuration provided by customer. 7. The Liebert CRAH unit s mode of operation is a constant supply temperature of 56.7 F. 8. The Liebert IRC unit s mode of operation is a constant supply temperature of 56.9 F of the new racks will operate at 10kW of the new racks will operate at 3kW 11. Racks are front inlet and rear outlet, with units in Row 79 having an additional top outlet. 12. Failure analysis includes failure of a single power distribution path. 13. Racks, cooling equipment plan south of column line four (4) do not impact the build out, and do not need to be modeled. 14. There is a wall added at column line 4, since the area beyond it is not modeled. 15. There is cold aisle containment in the aisle between Row 83 and Row 87. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing conditions are based on the information provided by the customer, as well as information gathered from site surveys. There is a 30 inch raised floor, and a drop ceiling 8 feet above the raised floor. There are 31 existing storage racks, and 1 existing network rack. Existing racks are found in Rows 96, 95, 83, and 79. Racks are arranged to create hot and cold aisles. The area has two (2) 30 Ton, two (2) 40 Ton, and two (2) 28 Ton CRAHs. All the CRAH units have plenums to the drop ceiling, which allows them to draw air from hot aisles through the return grilles in the drop ceiling. The average height of the return plenum above the ceiling ranges, but all are between 1-9 to 2-1/2. Vented floor tiles are placed throughout the area in cold aisles. Cold aisle containment is in place in 2 areas: the cold aisle for a portion of Row 79, and the area north of Row 96. There are also 8 PDUs. 4 Panelboards are in the space being modeled, but they are not the only ones utilized to power the equipment shown. The chilled water system being utilized is a below floor redundant pipe loop distributed from the 3000 Ton chiller plant. The variable flow distribution system is a primary chilled water system with 3 pumps. The system operates with a 50 F supply and 64 F return temperature per the design. There are pathways present for power and network cabling in the form of below floor conduits, troughs, and cable trays below the drop ceiling. SMARTS PROJECT The SMARTS project calls for the addition of 35 new racks, 31 at 10kW, and 4 at 3kW. 22 of the 10kW racks will be in an area with cold aisle containment. The remaining racks will not have cold aisle 31 July 2014 Page 5

6 containment. To support this extra heat load, additional heat removal must be installed. Two concept design are provided as options for this required heat removal for the scope of this study. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS Option 1 CRAH Units The concept behind Option 1 is to utilize four (4) existing to remain CRAH units, and add two (2) Liebert CW181 units. The new CRAHs are chilled water hydronic units. The two (2) units will provide N+1 redundancy, and will be powered from different panels to match the redundancy. All CRAH units will supply air to the racks through perforated tiles, via the raised floor. All CRAH units will have a plenum connecting to the drop ceiling and will draw hot air from aisles through return grilles. Under Normal Operation, all CRAH units will be cooling the area. During Failure Operation, one of the two new CRAH units is assumed to fail. See Figure 1 for Option 1 Layout. Option 2 IRC Units Option 2 will utilize four (4) existing to remain CRAH units, and add twelve (12) Liebert CR040RC IRCs. IRCs will be placed strategically in the rack rows to provide cold air effectively to the new racks being added. Due to the units being in-row, racks will need to be relocated to accommodate the units. There is a redundancy of N+2 for these units, and they will be fed from 4 different panels to match the redundancy. During Normal Operation, all cooling units will run as designed. Failure Operation is modeled as 3 IRCs unavailable. See Figure 4 for Option 2 Layout. ANALYSIS There were two scenarios used for each of the options, a Normal Operation and Failure Operation. Normal Operation is defined as having all cooling systems available. Failure Operation for Option 1 removes one CRAH unit from operation, and removes 3 IRC from operation for option 2. For Option 1, rack locations were preserved, and CRAH units were placed advantageously near the new racks. Each output from the CFD simulation was analyzed to determine if the operating conditions met the acceptance criteria provided by the customer for satisfactory operation. Under normal operating conditions, with all units enabled, the allowable mean rack inlet temperature is 64.4 F to 80.6 F, as recommended by ASHRAE TC 9.9 guidelines. During Failure Operation, the maximum allowable rack inlet temperature is 90 F, as recommended by ASHRAE TC 9.9 guidelines. The CFD simulation produced three outputs that were found to be useful during the analysis process: the median rack inlet temperature under Normal Operation, the maximum rack inlet temperature under Failure Operations, and the air temperature at half-rack elevation (40 AFF). The first output, the median rack inlet temperatures under Normal Operation, illustrates rack inlet temperatures ranging from 64.4 F to 80.6 F depicted by a color gradient. This output was utilized as one of two determining factors for whether an option passed or failed in regards to heat removal effectiveness. The second output, the maximum rack inlet temperatures under failure operation, illustrates rack inlet temperatures ranging from 64.4 F to 90.0 F depicted by a color gradient. This output was utilized as the 31 July 2014 Page 6

7 second of the two determining factors for whether an option passed or failed in regards to heat removal effectiveness. The third output exhibiting the air temperature distribution is a two-dimensional image showing the air temperature throughout the CPU Room at 40 AFF. Air temperatures range from 64.4 F to 90 F and were characterized by a color scale. This output was useful to identify hot spots, recognize recirculation issues, and visualize the direction of airflow in each area. The expanded rack layout provided by the customer has a total power consumption of 347kW, or 98 Tons of cooling. Accounting for the additional lighting, skin loads, and existing racks, the total heat load of the room is calculated to be kw, or Tons. Based on the overall loads and capacities, the CRAHs in option 1 will operate with N+1 redundancy. For Option 2, the IRCs will provide Tons of cooling each, but are most effective in close proximity to the racks. 31 July 2014 Page 7

8 OPTION 1 The design for Option 1 incorporates the addition of two (2) CRAH units to offset the additional load being added by the new racks. This cold air is distributed through the space by 2 x2 56% open perforated floor tiles via the raised floor. Returns grilles are placed in the drop ceiling above the hot aisles, to return the exhaust air to the CRAHs and minimize recirculation. Figure 1, below, shows the design concept for Option 1: Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 1 Option 1 Layout 31 July 2014 Page 8

9 The median rack inlet temperatures for Option 1 during Normal Operation are shown in Figure 2. To see additional room condition results from the CFD modeling for Option 1 during Normal Operation, see Appendix 1. Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 2 Option 1 Normal Operation Mean Rack Inlet Temperatures Observations for Option 1 Normal Operation: During Normal Operation, 4 racks in Row 95 exceed the maximum recommended temperature of 80.6 F. 2 Racks in Row 79 exceed the maximum recommended temperature of 80.6 F. Since racks in Row 79 are not new, this may be an error due to a wall being placed south of these racks for the purposes of this simulation. During Normal Operation, Only 1 rack, 10.95, exceeds the maximum allowable temperature of 90 F. 31 July 2014 Page 9

10 For the Failure Operation of Option 1, one of the new CRAH units is removed from operation. There were no other changes to the model. Maximum rack inlet temperatures for this model can be found in Figure 3. Other CFD outputs for Option 1 s failure operation, including the Air Temperature at 40 AFF, can be found in Appendix 2. Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 3 Option 1 Failure Operation Maximum Rack Inlet Temperatures Observations for Option 1 Failure Operation: During Failure Operation, 4 racks in Row 79 exceed the maximum allowable temperature of 90.0 F. 3 racks in Row 95 exceed the maximum allowable temperature of 90 F during Failure Operation. Other than the racks in Rows 79 and 95, racks are operating within the acceptable 64.4 F to 90 F temperature range during Failure Operation. Since racks in Row 79 are not new, this may be an error due to a wall being placed south of these racks for the purposes of this simulation. Option 1 Summary of Observations: During Normal Operation, 6 racks exceed the maximum recommended temperature, and only 1 rack exceeds the maximum allowable temperature. During Failure Operation, 7 racks exceed the maximum allowable temperature. 31 July 2014 Page 10

11 OPTION 2 Option 2 utilizes IRCs being placed in Rows 83, 87, 91, 95. The IRCs are intended to be the sole source of cooling in those aisles, therefore perforated tiles and return grilles are not added. The cold aisle between Row 83 and Row 87 will have containment installed. The design concept for option 2 is shown in Figure 4. Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 4 Option 2 Layout 31 July 2014 Page 11

12 The locations of the new IRCs are selected to maximize the impact of the units on the racks. In the design, there are no more than four (4) racks between each IRC. The existing to remain CRAHs have minimal impact on the new racks in this option affecting them only through the return grilles already in place at the hot aisles. Median rack inlet temperatures for this model can be found in Figure 5. Other CFD outputs for Option 2, including the Air Temperature at 40 AFF, can be found in Appendix 3. Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 5 Option 2 Normal Operation Median Rack Inlet Temperatures Observations for Option 2 Normal Operation: During Normal Operation, 3 racks in Row 95 exceed the recommended median rack inlet temperature. During Normal Operation, 3 racks in Row 83 exceed the recommended median rack inlet temperature. 3 Racks in Row 79 exceed the recommended median rack inlet temperature during Normal Operation. Since racks in Row 79 are not new, this may be an error due to a wall being placed south of these racks for the purposes of this simulation. All racks are within the maximum allowable inlet temperature. Other than Rack and racks in Row 79, racks are operating within the acceptable 64.4 F to 80.6 F temperature range. 31 July 2014 Page 12

13 For the Failure Operation of Option 2, 3 IRCs are removed from operation, 1 in Row 83, 1 in Row 87, and 1 in Row 91. There were no other changes made to the model. Maximum rack inlet temperatures for this model can be found below, in Figure 6. Other CFD outputs for Option 2 s failure mode, including the Air Temperature at 40 AFF, can be found in Appendix 4. Row 99 Row 96 Row 95 Row 91 Row 91 Row 87 Row 83 Row 79 Figure 6 Option 2 Failure Operation Maximum Rack Inlet Temperatures Observations for Option 2 Failure Operation: During Failure Operation, the majority of racks exceed the acceptable 64.4 F to 90 F temperature range. Summary of Observations for Option 2: During Normal Operation, 9 racks exceed the maximum recommended temperature, none of which exceeded the maximum allowable temperature. During Failure operation, all but 14 racks exceed the maximum allowable temperature. 31 July 2014 Page 13

14 COST ESTIMATE A rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate was developed for each option based on the concept design to provide additional comparison. Option 1 is estimated to cost $423,902, including installation costs. Option 2 is estimated to cost $743,919, including installation. Option 1 yields a savings of $320,017 when compared to Option 2. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Normal Operation of Option 1 yields 8 racks which exceed the maximum recommended mean inlet temperature. However, there is only one rack, Rack 10.95, which exceeds the maximum allowable temperature. One possible reason for units in row 95 exceeding the temperature range is the trough approximately 3 feet plan south of Row 95 underneath the raised floor. This trough obstructs a portion of the perforated tiles in place, preventing them from reaching their maximum airflow. One possible solution is to add additional vented floor tiles and ceiling returns in the cold and hot aisles respectively or the addition of containment for this row. The existing racks in Row 79 are shown to exceed recommended temperatures from the modeling, but this is assumed to be inaccurate due to the approximation of this model for the simulation which imposes a wall to cut off available units in the remainder of the room. Option 1 during Failure Operation supports the majority of new racks being added. Only 2 new racks, and 09.95, are at risk during Failure operation. One possible reason for this is the trough approximately 3 feet plan south of Row 95, underneath the raised floor. This trough obstructs a portion of the perforated tiles in place, preventing them from reaching their maximum airflow. One possible solution is to add containment for this row. Normal Operation of Option 2 yields 5 racks which exceed the allowable temperature; all of these units are existing. Again, the units in Row 79 which are at risk cannot efficiently draw air from the nearby perforated tiles. This may be due to containment observed to be separating the perforated tiles from the racks at risk. Possible solutions are adding additional perforated tiles to serve those racks, and expanding the containment area to include those racks. Failure operation of Option 2 yields 4 racks which remain within the allowable temperature region. Racks which were seemingly unaffected by the failure exceed the permitted temperature range as well. This is unacceptable, and it is unlikely to be remedied by containment or additional perforated tiles. Given the results of the CFD simulations and the comparative cost estimate, Liberty recommends Option 1. Given failure rate shown in both options, Option 1 cools the racks most effectively. With the possible solutions stated above, Option 1 can potentially be tailored to fit the customer s needs. Additionally, Option 2 is estimated approximately $320,000 times expensive than Option July 2014 Page 14

15 APPENDICIES APPENDIX 1 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 1 Normal Operation 31 July 2014 Page 15

16 APPENDIX 2 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 1 Failure Operation 31 July 2014 Page 16

17 APPENDIX 3 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 2 Normal Operation 31 July 2014 Page 17

18 APPENDIX 4 Air Temperature at 40 AFF For Option 2 Failure Operation 31 July 2014 Page 18

19 SMARTS MEP SCOPE - Liberty Comments 2014 Mar 31

20 SMARTS MEP SCOPE - Liberty Comments - In Row Option 2014 APR 09

21 PROJECT: VZ SMARTS Phase II PROJECT NUMBER: BUILDING/AREA: Cooling Load Calculation DATE: 25 June 2014 PREPARED BY: N. Jabs PAGE #: 1 of 2 Purpose: 1. Determine the total heat load for the SMARTS data center area. Assumptions: 1. Rack equipment heat load is based upon: Rack quantity and size 2. Lighting load is assumed to be 1 watt per square foot in accordance with ASHRAE Building exterior wall heat transfer coefficient is assumed to be: 0.09 BTU/(hr F ft²) 4. Building roof heat transfer coefficient is assumed to be: 0.05 BTU/(hr F ft²) 5. Weather data is based upon ASHRAE conditions listed for Baltimore, MD; Outdoor Design Weather Conditions: 94 F dry bulb 74.9 F wet bulb 6. Solar load through roof is assumed to be an additional 20 degrees added to space; Design Criteria: 1. Rack Equipment Information 31 rack positions (South) 10 kw per rack 4 rack positions (North) 3 kw per rack 2. Space Information 3265 square feet of area 14 feet of exterior wall height 67 linear feet of exterior wall 75 F dry bulb setpoint Equations: Rack Equipment Load: [(Rack Quantity)*(Rack kw)]* Lighting Load: (Space Area)*(Lighting Watts/SF)* Wall Skin Load: (Wall U factor)*(wall Height)*(Wall Length)*(Outdoor Temp Space Temp) 1000 Calculations: Heat Load Roof Skin Load: (Roof U factor)*(space Area)*(Outdoor Temp + 20 Space Temp) 1000 This document is the property of Liberty Engineering, LLP and is not to be distributed to parties without the prior written consent of Liberty Engineering, LLP. CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY

22 PROJECT: VZ SMARTS Phase II PROJECT NUMBER: BUILDING/AREA: Cooling Load Calculation Cooling Load (MBH) Sensible Latent Rack Load n/a Lighting Load 11.1 n/a Wall Skin Load 1.6 n/a Roof Skin Load 6.4 n/a CRAH unit fans 0.0 n/a Space Total: DATE: 25 June 2014 PREPARED BY: N. Jabs PAGE #: 2 of 2 CRAH Fans load already accounted for in capacity This document is the property of Liberty Engineering, LLP and is not to be distributed to parties without the prior written consent of Liberty Engineering, LLP. CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY

23

24

25

26