Review and Publish Data Center Simulation Evidence
Use this guide when a Data Center Operations FactSim run reaches Ready for report. The review connects the thermal-fluid result to its frozen inputs, engineering question, audit evidence, and approved record.
Review flow
Confirm identity and completion
Before interpreting the field, confirm:
- the selected project and scenario;
- baseline, CAD, Model Asset, and component versions;
- binding and result checksums;
- solver profile and runtime contract;
- completion of CAD preparation, thermal-fluid execution, and the audit gate;
- the expected run time window and result reference.
Review the engineering result
Available fields depend on the admitted profile and report template. A useful review commonly includes:
| Area | Review focus |
|---|---|
| Air distribution | Supply and return paths, recirculation, blockage, bypass, stagnant regions |
| Temperature | Hot regions, gradients, equipment inlet conditions, return temperature |
| Pressure relationship | Relative pressure, supply and return behavior, unexpected resistance |
| Heat movement | Heat-source response, transport path, heat removal, accumulated energy |
| Scenario comparison | Baseline and changed values over the same domain and review window |
| Validation | Flow and energy balance, convergence, sensitivity, measured or reference comparison |
Use stable color ranges, probes, slices, and time windows across scenarios. Preserve the engineering assumptions with the result.
The workflow supports reviewed scenario comparison and evidence preparation. Facilities owners remain responsible for operating limits, equipment safety, commissioning requirements, and approval of field changes.
Render the report
- Confirm that the run state is Ready for report.
- Add reviewer notes, decision context, and required validation findings.
- Choose Render report.
- Confirm that the report includes the result checksum and frozen input identity.
- Review the generated report before distribution.
The rendered report is a versioned resource. If the engineering decision changes, create a new review record rather than editing the evidence behind an accepted report.
Publish to ECM
Publish the reviewed report to Enterprise Content Management (ECM) when it needs controlled retention, permissions, version history, or workflow approval.
Confirm the ECM document ID, version, reference, checksum, publication time, and access policy. Link the document to the engineering review, change request, maintenance action, or operating record that uses it.
Failure handling
| Problem | Response |
|---|---|
| The run has not reached Ready for report | Review the incomplete execution stage and its evidence before rendering the report. |
| The result checksum differs from the report identity | Stop publication, confirm the frozen binding and result reference, and generate a report from the matching run. |
| Required validation evidence is missing | Keep the review in draft, assign the missing measurement or engineering check, and record the owner. |
| ECM publication is rejected | Verify the target workspace, access policy, required metadata, and document permission, then retry with the same approved report version. |
Validation checklist
- The report resolves to the expected project, scenario, and run.
- Frozen resource versions and checksums are present.
- Mass and energy balance findings are recorded.
- Baseline and changed scenarios use the same comparison scope.
- Important assumptions and uncertainty are visible.
- Measurements or reference comparisons are attached when required.
- The responsible facilities or engineering owner approved the decision.
- ECM permissions match the intended audience.