Data centers are no longer defined only by uptime and PUE. The real difference shows up in how long they keep operating under stress: power loss, extreme heat, wind-driven recirculation, and future climate conditions that exceed today’s design assumptions. At Alkazar we design and evaluate data centers as physical systems exposed to a changing climate, bringing together engineering precision, regulatory compliance and financial risk intelligence in one flow, from CFD-validated airflow to forward-looking climate resilience metrics.
In short: we deliver end-to-end CFD and thermal safety analytics for hyperscale data centers, from external airflow to white space cooling, grey space thermal safety and transient resilience. Boundary conditions are calibrated with site-specific climate data, the solver is chosen from the client’s approved software list, and the result is delivered in a decision-ready format.
What problem are we solving?
Behind a design that looks “compliant” on paper, the same pattern of gaps tends to surface once the facility is operating:
- Cooling systems sized for historical weather, not future extremes
- Bypass and recirculation risks invisible in 2D design tools
- Undefined system behaviour during grid outages and transient events
- Investment decisions made without quantified climate exposure
We turn these unknowns into measurable, decision-ready outputs.
Four CFD services
We organise data center CFD work into four service lines. Each has its own scenario group (numbered in the Scenario Library below) and can be commissioned on its own or as part of an integrated package.
1. External Flow & Façade (E)
A meaningful share of cooling performance is lost outside the building. By modelling building geometry and rooftop layout, the exhaust behaviour of generators, dry-coolers, chillers and IEC units, the prevailing wind directions and site-specific meteorology together, external flow CFD shows whether generator exhaust re-enters the fresh air intake, whether the condenser is ingesting its own hot air, and what wind load the façade and roof equipment are exposed to.
- Prevailing and worst-case wind directions
- Exhaust plume dispersion and re-ingestion ratio
- Contaminant concentration at intake louvres
- Façade/roof wind loading (VDI 3783-12)
- Pedestrian-level comfort mapping
We cover the method and example outputs for this service on a dedicated page: Data Center Exhaust Dispersion Analysis.
2. White Space / Data Hall (I1–I3)
We model IT halls with high-resolution CFD: rack-level airflow and temperature uniformity, CRAH/CRAC/IEC/In-Row system interactions, LV switchboards, and verification of N, N+1 and N+2 redundancy scenarios.
- Full-load normal operation baseline
- AHU failure (N+1 test) and chiller/CHW-loop failure
- Rack inlet temperature (SIT) tracking, max 35/40°C
- Layout optimisation iterations
Outcome: verified thermal compliance with hidden hot-spots eliminated, under both steady-state and failure conditions.
3. Grey Space / Electrical Rooms (I4–I5)
Thermal safety in LV switchboard, UPS, battery, transformer and chiller rooms is just as critical as in the white space; a temperature peak in these volumes directly shortens equipment life. The summer peak load (ASHRAE design day + full load) and the battery-room thermal safety envelope are the focus of this service.
- Summer peak combination and ventilation fan failure scenario
- Battery room 15–30°C envelope
- Louvre/vent airflow adequacy
- Manufacturer-specific equipment tolerances
4. Transient / Resilience (T1)
A steady-state analysis shows the equilibrium reached at the design point, but the critical moment is the transition. Using time-dependent (transient) CFD we simulate grid outages, compressor shutdown/restart sequences, fan-only operation windows, and the full generator failure chain (utility fail → three restart attempts → catcher generator).
Transient Resilience Window™: the exact duration during which rack surface temperatures remain within SLA limits (e.g. ≤27°C) after a power loss. This turns resilience from an assumption into a measurable performance indicator.
- Three-attempt restart rule
- UPS-supported fan + CHW pump behaviour
- Thermal Energy Storage (TES) effect
- Continuous-cooling exemption assessment
- Conjugate Heat Transfer (CHT) modelling
Scenario library: E1–E5 / I1–I5 / T1
A thorough CFD review needs a complete scenario set. We organise every standard scenario under one roof; each is structured as a mini-package that can be priced per unit and combined according to the site’s classification (Hybrid / Core / Edge / Electrical Rooms).
External flow scenarios (E1–E5)
| Code | Scenario | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| E1 | Prevailing wind, exhaust dispersion | Exhaust plume dispersion at the most frequent wind direction and speed |
| E2 | Worst-case direction, re-ingestion | The most critical angle for intake louvres; re-ingestion ratio and intake concentration |
| E3 | Contaminant concentration map | Spatial mapping of NOₓ, CO and particulate dispersion |
| E4 | Façade & roof wind loading | Equipment surface pressure (ESP) values per VDI 3783-12 |
| E5 | Pedestrian comfort & safety | Pedestrian-level wind comfort criteria |
Internal flow, steady state (I1–I5)
| Code | Scenario | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| I1 | Full-load normal operation | Thermal baseline distribution with all systems at design load |
| I2 | AHU failure (N+1 test) | Rack inlet temperatures with one cooling unit offline |
| I3 | Layout optimisation | Iteration of rack / layout arrangement |
| I3.a | Mitigation recommendations (optional) | Additional iteration for identified hotspots |
| I4 | Summer peak + full load | Full load under ASHRAE n=50 design-day conditions |
| I5 | Grey space thermal safety | Temperature envelope in UPS, battery and transformer rooms |
Transient & add-on items (T1+)
| Code | Scenario | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Generator failure chain | Utility failure → three restart attempts → catcher generator; time-dependent thermal response |
| Optional | Additional hall / electrical room | Repeatable per project scale, priced per unit |
| Optional | Re-run after layout change | Repeat run after a design iteration, priced per unit |
Boundary condition chain: from climate to CFD input
The reliability of a CFD result is only as strong as the meteorological data beneath it. A four-step chain produces a location-specific, statistically representative wind / temperature / humidity regime for every project and feeds it directly to the solver.
- Reanalysis data (ERA5, 1979+). Hourly ECMWF ERA5 data from 1979 to the present is used for the location; the wind rose, atmospheric stability classes, and temperature/humidity distribution are derived from this record.
- Station-to-site correction. A bias correction is applied against the measured gap to the nearest weather station; topography and urban roughness effects are factored in separately.
- ASHRAE design-day envelope (n=50). The ASHRAE Fundamentals n=50 temperature envelope is applied to define summer and winter extremes and safety-margined thermal loads.
- Calibrated atmospheric boundary-layer profiles. The resulting statistics are converted, per scenario, into an atmospheric boundary-layer profile, turbulence intensity and surface roughness (z₀), and fed to the solver as CFD input.
Why this chain cannot be reduced to a single row of a standard table is shown with numbers in our technical review of ASHRAE design conditions: at the example site, the heating design temperature comes out 2.1 K optimistic when based on only the latest 25-year window, and the free-cooling window differs by 454 to 557 hours per year. The station-to-site correction in step two follows the same logic, carrying the measured night/day gap across separately.
Tool-agnostic solver policy
We do not sell software licences. That has two practical consequences: our tool recommendation is not tied to a sales interest, and where a client has an approved software list, delivery can be made in that environment. For contractors working inside hyperscaler and colocation supply chains this removes a procurement obstacle; for operators who already hold a CFD licence but lack capacity, the model is handed over ready to run in their own environment.
The solver is chosen per project according to the scenario type (external / internal / transient) and the client’s Approved Software List. Solvers we work with, depending on the project, include Cadence 6SigmaDC, ANSYS Fluent, OpenFOAM, Simcenter STAR-CCM+, Cradle SC Stream and TileFlo; if you do not have a corporate solver standard, we recommend the most suitable tool for the project.
Regardless of the tool chosen, every final report documents the same information: tool selection, mesh summary, turbulence model, convergence criteria and monitoring probe locations. The result is delivered at the same level of auditability whichever solver produced it.
Reference standards
All deliverables are assessed against the following reference standards, with acceptance criteria locked with the client before the run starts:
- ASHRAE TC 9.9 (A1–A2) temperature envelope
- Maximum SIT (rack inlet temperature) limits of 35/40°C
- VDI 3783-12 atmospheric dispersion protocol
- ASHRAE 62.1 and ASHRAE Fundamentals
- EN 16798-3 and ISO 16817 ventilation standards
Deliverables
The output is not a pretty picture; it is an engineering report that points to a direction.
| Deliverable | Scope |
|---|---|
| Interim & final report (PDF) | Specification-aligned report covering the mesh summary, turbulence model, convergence record, results and acceptance criteria |
| Native CFD model (optional) | Delivered in the native file format of the solver used, ready for future revision in the client’s own environment |
| Management presentation | Summary slide deck for non-technical stakeholders; risk map and decision recommendations |
| Mitigation recommendations + unit-priced re-run | Layout/equipment recommendations for critical hotspots; a repeat run available on request at a unit price |
Timeline
The sequence imposed by client specifications runs external flow + baseline, then internal flow / layout optimisation, and transient last. We lock this sequence at the start of the project and close out proposal risk early with a 15-day pre-analysis checkpoint. Typical total duration is 10–11 weeks.
| Week | Phase | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | Input & kickoff | Specification lock, geometry, heat-load list, climate data delivery |
| 3–5 | External flow + baseline | E1–E5 & I1–I2 run in parallel; 15-day checkpoint with the client |
| 6–7 | Layout & mitigation | I3 / I3.a / I4 / I5 iterations; two-way design negotiation |
| 8–9 | Transient | T1: utility fail → 3-restart → catcher generator; continuous-cooling exemption assessment |
| 10–11 | Final & close-out | Final deliverables, presentation, acceptance & sign-off |
From CFD to investment decisions: climate intelligence and decision-ready outputs
Every physical model we build can be linked to our UrClimate Tailor platform. This lets the same digital twin be tested under future climate scenarios out to 2100, SSP-based warming pathways, and extreme heat, drought, wind, storm and compound-event conditions. You then know not only today’s performance but how safety margins narrow or hold up over the decades ahead. This link shares the same data foundation as our meteorology and climate data infrastructure and our energy modeling service.
We translate engineering results into investment and operating decisions: CAPEX justification (N+1 vs N+2), OPEX projections under hotter climates, and outputs usable by banks, insurers and ESG auditors. The climate exposure computed for the same site feeds risk quantification through UrClimate Score, and from there into TSRS climate risk reporting. The team that validates the cooling design and the team that reports the site’s climate exposure are the same.
Why Alkazar
- Deep CFD expertise proven across telecom, defense, banking, and hyperscale facilities
- EN 50600-aligned engineering workflows, not generic simulations
- Climate-ready by design, not retrofitted later
- One partner from physics → climate → finance
Related calculator: try our bypass/recirculation loss calculation tool.
Frequently asked questions
- At which stage should data center CFD analysis be carried out?
- It returns most value at concept and scheme design, while layout, air distribution strategy and outdoor unit positions can still change. During construction it is used for verification and pre-commissioning risk reduction. In existing facilities it is run before a capacity uplift.
- How is rack inlet compliance demonstrated?
- An inlet temperature distribution is produced for every cabinet and compared against the recommended range of the target class. The deliverable is not a single average but the list of cabinets in breach together with the cause: bypass, recirculation or insufficient flow.
- Why does generator exhaust re-ingestion need a separate analysis?
- When exhaust returns to a fresh air intake or a condenser intake, two risks appear: a loss of cooling capacity and degradation of the generator’s own intake air. This cannot be seen in an internal model; it requires an external flow model that includes surrounding buildings and the prevailing wind directions.
- Why run a transient analysis instead of a steady-state one?
- A steady-state analysis shows the equilibrium reached at the design point. The critical moment is the transition: once utility power is lost, the thermal inertia of the system governs behaviour until the compressors restart. We call this window the Transient Resilience Window™; it can only be measured with a time-dependent analysis.
- Which software do you work with?
- Because we do not sell licences, the tool is chosen by the requirements of the project and by the client’s approved solver list. If you have a corporate solver standard, delivery can be made in that environment; if not, we recommend the most suitable tool for the project.
- How is the scenario set priced?
- Each of E1–E5, I1–I5, T1 and the optional items is structured as a mini-package that can be priced per unit. Which scenarios are required is defined together based on the site’s classification (Hybrid / Core / Edge / Electrical Rooms).
- How long does the process typically take?
- Following the sequence the specification imposes (input → external flow + baseline → layout & mitigation → transient → final), it typically takes 10–11 weeks. A 15-day pre-analysis checkpoint at the start closes out proposal risk early.
- How do CFD results connect to climate risk reporting?
- The climate exposure computed for the same site feeds risk quantification through UrClimate Score, and from there into TSRS climate risk reporting. The team that validates the cooling design and the team that reports the site’s climate exposure are the same.
Related content
- Data Center Exhaust Dispersion Analysis: The detailed method behind the E1–E5 scenarios.
- Meteorology & Climate Data: The observation and climate data infrastructure behind the boundary conditions.
- Energy Modeling: The energy simulation service behind the OPEX projections.
- TSRS Climate Risk Reporting: Where CFD and climate exposure results connect to audit-ready reporting.
- UrClimate Score: Site-level climate risk quantification product.
