Objective Explore why saving energy in Data Centers? Get a general - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
objective
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Objective Explore why saving energy in Data Centers? Get a general - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 10, 2023 584 likes •1.05k views

Saving Energy in Data Centers Low Cost Energy Efficiency Measures Case Studies September 2013 Rod Mahdavi, PE. LEED AP Building Technologies Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Slide 1 Objective Explore why saving energy in Data

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Slide 1

September 2013 Rod Mahdavi, PE. LEED AP Building Technologies Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)

Saving Energy in Data Centers

Low Cost Energy Efficiency Measures Case Studies

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Slide 2

Objective

  • Explore why saving energy in Data Centers?
  • Get a general idea of the best practices
  • Learn about low cost EEMs
  • Environmental conditions adjustments
  • Air management improvements
  • Chiller Plant
  • Examine three Case studies
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Slide 3

High Tech Buildings are Energy Hogs:

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Slide 4

US Data Center Electricity Use -

2000, 2005, and 2010

Source: Koomey 2011

2% of US Electricity consumption Potential to double in next 5 years

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Slide 5

Data Center Energy Efficiency = 15% (or less)

100 Units Source Energy

Typical Data Center Energy End Use

Server Load /Computing Operations

Cooling Equipment

Power Conversions & Distribution

33 Units Delivered 35 Units Power Generation

(Energy Efficiency = Useful computation / Total Source Energy)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Slide 6

Server Load/ Computing Operations Cooling Power Conversion & Distribution Alternative Power Generation

  • High voltage distribution
  • High efficiency UPS systems
  • Efficient redundancy strategies
  • Use of DC power
  • Server innovation
  • Virtualization
  • High efficiency

power supplies

  • Load management
  • Better air management
  • Move to liquid cooling
  • Optimized chilled-water plants
  • Use of free cooling
  • Heat recovery
  • On-site generation

Including fuel cells and renewable sources

  • CHP applications

(Waste heat for cooling)

Energy efficiency best practices

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Slide 7

7

DC Pro tools Data Center Energy Practitioner program Computing metrics development Federal consolidation guideline ESPC contract content Wireless assessment kit Compressor- less cooling

LBNL develops publically available resources

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Slide 8

  • Environmental conditions

adjustments

  • Air management

improvements

  • Chiller plant

Low Cost EEMs:

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Slide 9

  • Environmental conditions

adjustments

  • Air management

improvements

  • Chiller plant

Low Cost EEMs:

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Slide 10

ASHRAE 2011

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Slide 11 Temp RH Tdp Temp RH Tdp Mode AC 005 84.0 27.5 47.0 76 32.0 44.1 Cooling AC 006 81.8 28.5 46.1 55 51.0 37.2 Cooling & Dehumidification AC 007 72.8 38.5 46.1 70 47.0 48.9 Cooling AC 008 80.0 31.5 47.2 74 43.0 50.2 Cooling & Humidification AC 010 77.5 32.8 46.1 68 45.0 45.9 Cooling AC 011 78.9 31.4 46.1 70 43.0 46.6 Cooling & Humidification Min 72.8 27.5 46.1 55.0 32.0 37.2 Max 84.0 38.5 47.2 76.0 51.0 50.2 Avg 79.2 31.7 46.4 68.8 43.5 45.5 Visalia Probe CRAC Unit Panel

The Cost of Unnecessary Humidification

Humidity down 3% CRAC power down 28%

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Slide 12

  • Environmental conditions

adjustments

  • Air management

improvements

  • Chiller plant

Low Cost EEMs:

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Slide 13

Goal: Supply air directly to equipment intakes without mixing

13

Equip. Rack No Air Mixing No Air Mixing Cool Front Aisle Hot Rear Aisle

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Slide 14

By-pass air does no cooling

14

Misplaced perforated tiles Leaky cable penetrations Too much supply airflow Too high tile exit velocity

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Slide 15

Recirculated air causes localized cooling problems

Equip. Rack Recirculation Air

Lack of blanking panels Gaps between racks Too little air supply Short equipment rows

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Slide 16

Adding Air Curtains for Hot/Cold Isolation

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Slide 17

95-105ºF vs. 60-70ºF (35-41C vs. 16-21C) 70-80ºF vs. 45-55ºF (21-27C vs. 7-13C)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Slide 18

  • Environmental conditions

adjustments

  • Air management

improvements

  • Chiller Plant

Low Cost EEMs:

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Slide 19

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Chiller Efficiency (kW/ton) Chiller Load Factor

Chiller 4 Performance Sep 17 - 22, 2012

Maximum guaranteed efficiency at the chiller rated capacity of 2250 tons = 0.565 kW/ton, as per Drawing M-611 in the file "2010-01-10 NGA-NCE CUP Drawings (CONFORMED SET).pdf".

Maximum efficiency at the full capacity as provided by the manufacturer

Better efficiency of chiller with higher load factor

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Slide 20 40 50 60 70 80 90 9/16 9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24

Temperature (F)

Chiller 4 Condenser Water Temp and Outside Air Wetbulb Temp

CW Temp OA Wetbulb

Condenser water supply temperature

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Slide 21

Data center 1 5,000 sf 500 kW IT 8GWh

Tropical climate Air-cooled Chillers CRAHs

IT Equipment 53% UPS+PDU Losses 8% Lighting 1% CRAH Fans/Heater 8% Chillers 26% Pumps 1% UPS room cooling, Generator BH 3%

Federal Data centers Case studies

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Slide 22

Seal all floor leaks and those between and within the racks

Case studies

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Slide 23

Lesson learned: Seal the opening between the rack and floor

Supply Air temperature out

  • f the perf tiles

= 61.6degF

Case studies

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Slide 24

Air temperature between perf and rack pedestal= 89.1degF

Case studies

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Slide 25

Air temperature after space taped = 69.3degF

Case studies

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Slide 26

Replaced Perf tiles Redirect cold air from the CRAHs

Case studies

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Slide 27

Ceiling space as a plenum Case studies

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Slide 28

Before trials begin

Case studies

RAT increased from 74degF to 84degF

After

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Slide 29

Individual racks intake top temperature change during trials (60-72) Average rack exhaust temperature change during trials (75-87)

Case studies

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Slide 30

CRAHs Return Avg. Temperatures 64 to 83 CRAHs Supply Avg. Temperatures 53 to 62 Case studies

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Slide 31

Chillers Efficiency Improvement Case studies

40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 1 2 3 4 Chiller plant kW CHWST

CHWST sp degF 45 49 54 56 CHWST degF 46 49 55.1 56.8 CH1 kW 75 75 CH2 kW 75 75 100 75 CH3 kW 75 50 75 75

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Slide 32

Saved annually: 800MWh $240,000 utility cost 780 metric tons of GHG emission Case studies

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Slide 33

IT Load 56% UPS Loss 9% PDU/trans loss 2% Standby Gen 1% Lighting 2% Cooling 16% Fans 11% UPS cooling 3%

Data center 2 30,000 sf 1,850 kW IT 30GWh

Case studies

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Slide 34

Air management issues

Case studies

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Slide 35

Top rack intake temp after Top rack intake temp before shutting down 20%

  • f the CRAHs

Case studies

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Slide 36

Little rack intake temperature change after CRAHs shutdown

Case studies

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Slide 37

Saved annually: 850MWh $55,000 utility cost 820 metric tons of GHG emission Case studies

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 CURRENT POTENTIAL

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Slide 38

Data center 3 8,000 sf 800 kW IT 12GWh

Current IT Load 59% UPS Loss 3% PDU/trans loss 2% Standby Gen 1% Lighting 1% Cooling 28% Fans 6%

Case studies

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Slide 39

Case studies

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Slide 40

Rack Door HX Dry Cooler CENTRAL AIR HANDLERs Under raised floor supply air plenum hot aisle containment COIL Ceiling return air plenum TES

Case studies

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Slide 41

Case studies

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Slide 42

Case studies

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Slide 43 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80

Reduction of water flow to TES from 1,000 to 300 gpm Pump power reduced Chiller more efficient (higher delta T and load factor) PUE improved

Case studies

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Slide 44

Saved annually: 2,100MWh, $125,000 utility cost 2,000 metric tons of GHG emission Case studies

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Slide 45

Rod Mahdavi, PE. LEED AP rmahdavi@lbl.gov 510.495.2259

Questions?

Case studies