Read-only demonstration. Four sanitised or hypothetical engineering projects. Each states its own validation status; nothing shown is engineer approved.

MECHANICAL — CFD AND ENERGY · CASE STUDY

Data Centre CFD Analysis — Models

NOT ENGINEERING VALIDATED — native CFD converged; validation gates partly failed

Models

CFD model set-up

Rack representation: 0 W solid blocks with face boundaries; exhaust temperature iterated from 30 °C (represented heat -16 %) to 32 °C (within 5 % of 10 kW)
Turbulence model: k-epsilon
Base grid: 0.1 m: 60 x 48 x 30 = 86,400 cells, aspect 1:1
Refined / coarse grids: 0.075 m: 196,560 cells / 0.133 m: 33,880 cells
Solver: inner iterations 3, false time step 0.0987, relaxation 1, termination residual 1e-5
Monitors: cell monitors 0.05 m in front of each inlet face at 0.35 / 1.05 / 1.75 m (A01, B01) and 1.05 m (A02, B02); extract-plane monitors at 2.85 m

Mesh size discrepancy

The case file lists a base cell size of 0.2 m (ASSUMED); the solved CFD models used 0.1 m. Results refer to the 0.1 m grid and the mesh-study grids.

Rack model distortion

With an imposed exhaust temperature, a rack breathing warmer air adds less heat, so recirculation is self-damped and hot-spot severity is understated. In DC-00 the effect on the comparison is below 1 % of rack heat; it would not be small in a design with strong recirculation.

Sanitised derivative of preserved evidence (cfd-DC00-20261024-r2, cfd-DC01-N1-DSM-20261024). Nothing was re-simulated. Screenshot crops are static images of the native viewer; plots and the report contain only values read from the evidence. · Pack cfd-data-centre-r2 (built 2026-10-25); every file is checked against its SHA-256 before it is shown.