DATA CENTERS

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, April 2013. Copyright 2013 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Standard 127-2012

Testing CRAC & CRAH

By Donald L. Beaty, P.E., Fellow ASHRAE

ver the past 25 years, but particularly in the past 10, there has
been a significant evolution in environmental conditions for data

centers. One of the ways this change can be observed is by analyzing

the evolution of one of ASHRAEs standards, Standard 127, Method

of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners, to see how design conditions have changed between the
initial version of Standard 127 (in 1988), and the version that was
recently released, Standard 127-2012.
The types of units covered by this
standard usually are: computer room
air conditioner (CRAC), which uses
dedicated compressors and refrigerant
cooling coils rather than chilled-water
coils; or computer room air handler
(CRAH), which uses chilled-water coils
for cooling rather than dedicated compressors. Ratings for both types of units
are covered in this standard.
Some baby steps between 1988 and 2007
have turned into giant strides between the
2007 and 2012 revisions of this standard,
and will be highlighted in this column.

Early History of Standard 127

The title of Standard 127, Method of
Testing for Rating Computer and Data
Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners, acknowledges that most data centers
are different from spaces that must be
comfort cooled, and as a result, a unique
class of equipment has evolved to condition these spaces.
For many years, there was no standard
rating system for this equipment, which
led to difficulty in comparing ratings
between manufacturers, or even in know54

ASHRAE Journal

ing if the rating of a single manufacturer

applied to ones own data center. This
vacuum led to the creation of Standard
127, whose purpose is to establish a
uniform set of requirements for rating
computer and data processing room unitary air conditioners (CDPR).
While Standard 127 uses CDPR as
its primary definition for rated equipment, this acronym was never widely
adopted by the HVAC industry. Instead,
CRAH and CRAC have become the
popular nomenclature.
While it is difficult to list all of the
differences between a data center and a
comfort cooling space that resulted in the
evolution of a unique product line, among
the most important are:
a. Significantly higher internal heat
density (resulting in much higher duty
cycles on a 24/7 basis);
b. Lower external static pressure
(there is usually an underfloor plenum
air distribution system with minimal
pressure drop, and often no return ductwork at all);
c. Higher sensible heat ratios on the
coils (lower latent cooling capability);

d. A legacy requirement for close

temperature and relative humidity conditions; and
e. Acknowledgement that computers are not people, and thus may have
significantly different environmental
requirements.
In looking at todays data centers, (a)
through (c) are still true, with equipment
density still on the increase,1 while (d) and
(e) are rapidly changing, mostly in an effort to reduce energy costs. The relaxation
of tight temperature control, along with
alignment with ASHRAEs book Thermal
Guidelines for Data Processing Environments, have driven most of the changes to
Standard 127, especially the latest revision.

Changes in 2007
The design conditions for data centers
in the 1999 ASHRAE HandbookHVAC
Applications, Chapter 16, Data Processing and Electronic Office Areas, listed
the recommended temperature at 70F to
74F (21.1C to 23.3C), and the recommended humidity range at 45% to 55%
RH. When ASHRAE Standard 127 was
reissued in 2001, it aligned reasonably
well with the HandbookHVAC Applications, and the rating point for air entering
and surrounding the indoor portion of the
unit was set at 71.6F (22C) dry bulb
and 60.8F (16C) wet bulb, corresponding to 54% relative humidity.
Probably not without coincidence,
this design point also falls within the
range of ASHRAE Standard 55, Thermal
Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy, allowing for both adequate
cooling of the data center spaces and for
human comfort, since legacy data centers
had more human occupancy than todays
data centers.
The 2007 version of Standard 127 still
listed a single return air design point, but

a s h r a e . o r g

April 2013

Advertisement formerly in this space.

DATA CENTERS
the dry-bulb temperature was slightly
higher, and the entering dew-point temperature was slightly lower, reflecting the
fact that since all of the heat released by
ITE is sensible, CRAC and CRAH unit
ratings should be increasingly weighed
toward sensible cooling loads (i.e., a
higher sensible heat ratio).
The 2007 rated return air design condition 75F (23.9C) dry bulb and 45%
RH8 still fell within the zone typically
considered comfortable by ASHRAE
Standard 55.

Alignment with Thermal Guidelines

Changes to Standard 127 have not
been occurring in a vacuum. The technical committee cognizant for Standard
127, ASHRAE Technical Committee
9.9, Mission Critical Facilities, Data Figure 1: Standard 127-2012, return air standard rating conditions (by class).
Centers, Technology Spaces, and Electronic Equipment, has been working on changes to the recomThese changes are discussed in great detail in ASHRAEs
mended and allowable environmental envelopes for ITE since Thermal Guidelines for Data Processing Environments, so they
its inception in 2003.
will not be repeated in detail here. It is fair to say that the changes

Advertisement formerly in this space.

56

Advertisement formerly in this space.

A S H R A E J o u r n a l

April 2013

in the rating standard have, to a large degree, been driven by

changes in these publications. Several changes have occurred.
First, IT equipment has been found to be resilient to a wider
range of environmental conditions than previously believed, and
the recommended envelope for ITE inlet conditions, also shown
in the Figure 1 psychrometric chart, is no longer a little box, but
rather a comfortably large envelope, with an inlet temperature
range of 64.4F to 80.6F (18C to 27C) and 41.9F (5.5C)
dew point to 60% RH and 59F (15C)
dew point.2
This envelope no longer requires extremely tight control, so the days of adjacent CRAC units fighting each other are
now hopefully only for the history books.
Second, there has been an increasing trend toward the use of hot and
cold aisles, and also of containment to
segregate the cold and hot airstreams.
Both of these trends tend to raise the
return air temperature to CRAC and
CRAH units.
The 2007 standard, with its single return
air rating point of 75F (23.9C)/45% RH,
was out of sync with regard to changes
both to ASHRAEs Thermal Guidelines
for Data Processing Environments, and
to alignment with the industrys evolving
containment practices.

Major Change to 2012 Ratings

As data center techs have known for some time, the t-shirt
has replaced the sweater as the most comfortable clothing for
working in most of todays modern data centers.

Impact to the Industry and the Environment

If a data center could be designed with a return air temperature
of 105F (40.6C) instead of 75F (23.9C), the impact on the
cooling system and its energy efficiency would obviously be

Advertisement formerly in this space.

Standard 127-2012 covers four product

application classifications for CRAC
and CRAH units, rather than just one in
the previous (2007) standard. The rating points for the new Classes 2, 3 and
4 are shown in Figure 1, along with the
legacy design points for the 19882001
standards (essentially unchanged during
this period), and the 2007 standard.
The 2007 version of the standard uses
a return air temperature of 75F (23.9C)
as the basis for rating, while the 2012
version has four application classes. The
return air temperatures of these classes
range between 75F (23.9C) for Class 1
to 105F (40.5C) for Class 4, all at 52F
(11.1C) dew-point temperature.
The new standard thus recognizes that
return air temperatures are as much as
30F (16.7C) warmer than in the previous revision of the standard. As Figure 1
shows, the Class 2, 3 and 4 rating conditions are significantly outside both the
ITE inlet recommended conditions and
the Standard 55 comfort zones.
April 2013

ASHRAE Journal

57

DATA CENTERS

Advertisement formerly in this space.

dramatic. If for instance, large air-side

and (as applicable) water-side DTs can be
obtained, much more cooling can be done
with the same size of CRAH unit, and
less fan and pump power will be needed.
The number of hours of economizer
operation will also increase dramatically,
and in some climates, vapor-compression
cycles can be eliminated. The combination of high DT and compressor-less
heat rejection technologies could have a
dramatic impact on capital costs, in addition to the energy cost impact.
On the downside, there is an increased
risk of IT equipment failure with higher
inlet temperatures, but this risk can now
be quantified. In many climates, the elevated temperatures only occur for a few
hours per year, and the increased risk of
these short-term thermal excursions can
be offset by providing lower temperatures
at other times of the year.2

Chilled Water Supply Temperature

Chilled water conditions were adjusted
in Standard 127-2012 to emphasize the
higher system efficiency that typically occurs when higher temperatures are used.
The 2007 standard used a temperature
of 45F (7.2C) as the basis for rating,
and 50F (10C) as the basis for energy
calculations at part-load conditions. The
2012 standard assumes that the 50F
(10C) entering chilled water is used for
the design rating, as well as the energy
ratings.
When referencing only the Class 1
return air condition, a given CRAH unit
will have a reduced capacity when rated
per Standard 127-2012 than when rated
per Standard 127-2007. However, when
referencing the same units capacity at
Classes 2, 3, and 4 (assuming that the
same model can operate at these higher
return air temperatures), the units rated
capacity will be greater than the Standard
127-2007 rating.
This increase in capacity occurs
because the differential temperature
between the supply water temperature
and the return air temperature will be significantly greater, allowing for increased
air-side DT. For both the 2007 and the
2012 standards, the chilled water DT for
rating purposes is set at 12F (6.7C), but
58

most manufacturers can provide ratings at

higher water-side DT if desired.

iNSenCOP, Weighted Metric

A new normalized or weighted
efficiency rating was created to provide
a single efficiency number, thus simplifying the comparison of similar units. The
raw numbers were retained, however, so
engineers could continue to calculate
the units efficiency at any geographic
location.
The new rating is called the Integrated
Net Sensible Rating (iNSenCOP). The
calculation of the iNSenCOP for each
type of equipment is, in turn, a function
of the efficiency of the unit (NSenCOP)
at specific ambient conditions.
The general form of the equation for
the calculation of the iNSenCOP is:
iNSenCOP = (0.134 Test A NSenCOP)
+ (0.271 Test B NSenCOP) + (0.381
Test C NSenCOP) + (0.215 Test D
NSenCOP)
For instance, per Table 1 of the 2012
standard, for equipment with a remote aircooled condenser, the iNSenCOP would
take the following form:
iNSenCOP = (0.134 NSenCOP at
95F) + (0.271 NSenCOP at 80F) +
(0.381 NSenCOP at 65F) + (0.215
NSenCOP at 40F)

Normalization of Ancillary Equipment

Normalized values were provided for
fluid coolers, fluid cooler pumps, and
chilled-water-loop pumps, so all technologies could be more easily compared.
For instance, pump power is now added to
unit total consumption for chilled water
air-handling units.

Future Work for Standard 127

The changes incorporated in the 2012
revision to Standard 127 are reflective of
return air conditions corresponding to the
recommended and allowable ranges of
the 2009 edition of Thermal Guidelines
for Data Processing Environments for
ITE Classes 1 and 2. Since that time,
changes have continued to occur:
As indicated previously, new A3
and A4 ITE Equipment Classes have
allowable inlet conditions as high as

A S H R A E J o u r n a l

April 2013


104F and 113F (45C and 40C),2 and
these equipment classes are marketed by
several ITE manufacturers. Future revisions to Standard 127 will likely have
to address accepting even higher return
air temperatures from these new ITE
Classes, (which were announced after
Standard 127-2012 was substantially
complete).
CRAC unit manufacturers are finding it difficult to develop heat transfer
equipment that provides for good performance with 40% propylene glycol
at 35F (Test D for glycol cooled units
in Standard 127-2012). The term molasses is frequently used to describe
fluid flow with glycol at this condition.
Manufacturers will likely be weighing in
on this issue as the next set of revisions
is considered.
There are a number of relatively new
types of data center cooling equipment
for which rating standards have not yet
been developed. Future revisions of the
standard may want to consider whether
and how to incorporate these newcomers
to the field of IT cooling.
A new standards committee, SPC
90.4P, has been formed to develop an
energy standard specifically for data
centers.
It would serve the industry well to
provide standard methods of testing for
rating equipment to these higher temperatures, to rate these new types of data
center cooling equipment, and to align
with any new requirements promulgated
by the SPC 90.4P committee.
Due to the recent rate-of-change in
design conditions acceptable for ITE, the
bigger question may be: should Standard
127 to be transformed into a continuous
maintenance standard?

Advertisement formerly in this space.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

References
1. ASHRAE. 2012. Datacom Equipment
Power Trends and Cooling Applications,
Second Edition.
2. ASHRAE. 2012. Thermal Guidelines
for Data Processing Environments, Third
Edition.

Donald L. Beaty, P.E., is president of

DLB Associates Consulting Engineers, in
Eatontown, N.J. He is the current publications chair of ASHRAE TC 9.9.
April 2013

ASHRAE Journal

59