Prepare a Data Center Thermal-Fluid Scenario
Use this guide when a facilities or data center engineering team needs to compare airflow and temperature behavior for a reviewed operating scenario. Start with one explicit question, such as the effect of a layout change, a load distribution, a supply condition, or an equipment availability scenario.
Prerequisites
| Requirement | Review owner |
|---|---|
| Data hall and room scope | Facilities or data center operations owner |
| CAD and Model Asset versions | Digital twin or engineering owner |
| Rack and equipment load assumptions | IT and facilities owner |
| Supply, return, and operating conditions | Cooling-system owner |
| Acceptance and validation method | Engineering reviewer |
| Simulation permission | User with the configured thermal-fluid management role |
Scenario model
Prepare the room and equipment context
Include room boundaries, racks, cooling units, supply and return regions, doors or openings, containment, perforated or porous regions, and other geometry that materially changes airflow. Associate geometry with stable asset identities so that the result can be connected to current operations and maintenance evidence.
Record the operating state of cooling equipment and the relationship between each supply and return. Use reviewed flow, temperature, and load values with consistent units.
Define the scenario
| Area | Examples of reviewed input |
|---|---|
| Room | Dimensions, domain bounds, openings, leakage assumption |
| Cooling | Active units, supply direction, flow rate, supply temperature, return region |
| IT and equipment load | Rack location, heat load, active period, distribution |
| Geometry | CAD resource version, Model Asset version, component geometry |
| Baseline | Current reviewed state and its evidence checksum |
| Comparison | The single change being tested and the expected decision |
| Result regions | Rack inlets, aisles, return region, selected planes and probes |
Keep baseline and changed scenarios identical except for the intended comparison. If several inputs change together, record them as a named scenario package.
Validate before submission
- Confirm the room, rack, and cooling geometry visually.
- Check coordinate orientation and SI units.
- Confirm that supply and return faces are open and point in the intended direction.
- Review rack and equipment loads against the selected operating period.
- Confirm that the baseline, CAD, and Model Asset versions have stable checksums.
- Check the estimated cell count, runtime, and project limit.
- Assign the engineering reviewer and comparison criteria.
Failure handling
| Problem | Response |
|---|---|
| Room or equipment geometry is incomplete | Correct the CAD or Model Asset version and repeat the visual geometry review. |
| Supply or return direction is uncertain | Confirm face orientation and operating state with the cooling-system owner before estimating the run. |
| Rack load or temperature units are inconsistent | Normalize units and attach the source period used for each value. |
| Estimated cell count exceeds the project limit | Reduce the domain, remove immaterial detail, or use a reviewed coarser profile and estimate again. |
| Baseline and changed scenario differ in several uncontrolled inputs | Create a named scenario package and record every coordinated change. |
Expected output
The preparation workflow produces a scenario binding that identifies the baseline, CAD, Model Asset, component geometry, solver profile, selected inputs, and result regions. The binding can then be frozen and submitted through the governed FactSim workflow.