18 MW South Central Data Center — A Robust Exterior Layout · Exterior CFD Survey · Resolved Analytics

← Survey overview · Case Study 07 · Updated June 2026

18 MW Data Center — South Central US

A robust exterior layout: a ground-level heat-rejection plant that keeps generator exhaust clear of the chiller intakes across a range of wind directions — with one localized item to watch. Public-source inputs. Screening-level.

Exterior CFD result showing ground-level generator exhaust carried clear of the chiller intakes across most of the site under a southeasterly 20 mph wind at 92 degrees ambient, with one localized warm area on the eastern chiller bank
Exterior CFD output: wind from the southeast (135°) at 20 mph, 92°F ambient, all generators and all chillers running. Streamlines trace the ground-level generator exhaust; across most of the site it carries clear of the chiller intakes. One localized warm area appears on the eastern chiller bank.

What this page covers

This page presents a screening-level exterior CFD analysis of an 18 MW data center in the South Central United States, developed by a major operator and engineered by a national firm with a dedicated mission-critical practice. Unlike most facilities in the cohort, it keeps its heat-rejection plant at grade — a ground-level arrangement of air-cooled chillers, cooling towers, and packaged units, with the rooftop carrying only exhaust fans. Backup generators sit in a fenced perimeter yard on the west side.

The headline is a favorable one. The exterior layout holds up well across a range of wind conditions, keeping chiller intakes within range in most cases. This page presents the one direction that produced a localized exception — and documents the robustness alongside it.

Facility context

The facts below are derived entirely from cited public sources: published facility and provider materials, aerial and street-level imagery, and public terrain data. No proprietary drawings, specifications, or operational data are used. Identifying details are withheld; the facility is described by type and configuration only.

Region.
South Central United States.
Owner-operator.
A major data-center operator. Not identified here.
Engineer of record.
A national engineering firm with a dedicated mission-critical practice. Not identified here.
Critical IT capacity.
18 MW critical UPS load; approximately 1,500 W/SF density; ~1.3 PUE.
Building.
~261,000 SF, single-story, purpose-built, 24-ft ceilings, pressurized raised floor.
Cooling.
Ground-level plant: air-cooled chillers, cooling towers, and packaged units on a closed-loop condenser-water system with free-cooling. Rooftop carries exhaust fans only.
Backup power.
9 diesel generators in a fenced perimeter yard on the west side, in a northwest and a southwest group, with stack and radiator discharge.

Scenario presented

Wind and ambient.

Wind from the southeast (135°) at 20 mph, 92°F ambient. Of the directions screened, this is the one that produced a localized exception at the eastern chiller bank.

Operating scenario.

All generators and all chillers running at full load — the on-generator condition that maximizes both the exhaust source and the heat-rejection demand together.

This case was isolated by a directional sweep across the full compass — not the standard four-point (N/S/E/W) check — which is the only way a narrow, specific vector like this one surfaces at all. The layout held up across the other directions screened; the full matrix is available to the owner's team on request.

What the model shows

The observations below are qualitative readings of the presented scenario. Quantitative outputs — per-unit intake temperatures, recirculation magnitudes — are shared with the owner's team on request.

  1. The exterior layout is robust. Across the wind directions screened, the site keeps generator exhaust largely clear of the chiller intakes. The at-grade separation between the west-side generator yard and the cooling plant, combined with the building massing, disperses exhaust before it reaches most of the heat-rejection equipment. This is a favorable result, and worth documenting as such.
  2. One localized exception, under a southeasterly wind. With wind from the southeast, a single area on the eastern chiller bank sees elevated local intake temperature. The effect is localized and modest — a small item rather than a systemic one — but it is the kind of edge case a directional screening exists to surface.
  3. Ground-level heat rejection changes the exposure. With chillers at grade rather than on the roof, the recirculation question is grade-to-grade: whether the generator yard's exhaust reaches the cooling plant across the site, rather than lofting onto a roof. This layout handles that well in most directions, which is itself a useful design data point.
  4. A documented baseline — and a question for the next build. For a facility that performs well, an independent exterior model is on-the-record confirmation of thermal robustness — and it pinpoints the one direction and location worth watching should the design or load ever change. It also frames the question worth putting to the engineering team on every future project: were the adverse, non-standard wind vectors modeled explicitly, or only the standard design-day condition?
Plan view of the ground-level layout with streamlines under the southeasterly case, exhaust dispersing across most of the site with one localized warm area on the eastern chiller bank
Plan view. Ground-level layout with streamlines under the southeasterly case. Exhaust from the west-side generator yard disperses across most of the site; the one localized warm area sits on the eastern chiller bank.
Elevation view showing the generator exhaust plume rising and dispersing over the single-story building rather than pooling at the cooling plant
Elevation view. Same case, side elevation. The exhaust plume from the west-side yard rises and disperses over the single-story building rather than pooling at the cooling plant.

Methodology

The methodology applied here is the same standardized exterior CFD approach applied to every facility in the cohort — cylindrical far-field domain, logarithmic atmospheric boundary layer inlet, polyhedral mesh in Siemens STAR-CCM+, realizable k-ε RANS baseline. The presented case uses a 92°F ambient. Full domain setup, boundary conditions, solver choices, and stated limitations are documented at the Methodology page. Key terms are defined at the Key Terms and FAQ page.

Why developers mandate independent validation Resolved Analytics engineers the macro-environmental physics outside of data centers — the wind, plume, and ambient behavior that decides whether those systems ever reach their design condition. Portfolio-level scrutiny of external thermal conditions varies with whichever engineering partner holds the scope, so developers bring in RA as the constant. We find and run the pessimistic scenarios — N+R conditions, elevated ambient, adverse non-standard wind vectors — alongside the engineering team from the 30% design stage, so the owner gets a facility that holds up in the conditions standard screening skips. This case is what that looks like when a design holds up well: robust across the compass, with a single localized item to watch. An independent exterior model documents that robustness on the record — and still frames the question worth carrying into your next design review: were complex plume recirculation and adverse, non-standard wind vectors modeled explicitly — or only the standard design-day condition? Contact stewart@resolvedanalytics.com and reference Case Study 07.
About the author Stewart Bible, Principal, Resolved Analytics. Resolved Analytics is a Computational Fluid Dynamics consulting practice and authorized Siemens STAR-CCM+ reseller, with a long-standing service line in mission-critical facility exterior analysis. Contact: stewart@resolvedanalytics.com.

Disclosure. This is independent research conducted by Resolved Analytics. All inputs are derived from cited public sources; no proprietary drawings, specifications, or operational data are used. The facility is described by type and configuration only and is not identified. Results represent idealized exterior conditions and do not represent the actual as-built performance of any facility. No claims are made regarding life-safety, code compliance, or operational performance. This material is not engineering services rendered to any party.