Distributed and Parallel Databases

, Volume 21, Issue 2–3, pp 167–192 | Cite as

Optimizing thermal design of data center cabinets with a new multi-objective genetic algorithm

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

There is an ever increasing need to use optimization methods for thermal design of data centers and the hardware populating them. Airflow simulations of cabinets and data centers are computationally intensive and this problem is exacerbated when the simulation model is integrated with a design optimization method. Generally speaking, thermal design of data center hardware can be posed as a constrained multi-objective optimization problem. A popular approach for solving this kind of problem is to use Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithms (MOGAs). However, the large number of simulation evaluations needed for MOGAs has been preventing their applications to realistic engineering design problems. In this paper, details of a substantially more efficient MOGA are formulated and demonstrated through a thermal analysis simulation model of a data center cabinet. First, a reduced-order model of the cabinet problem is constructed using the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD). The POD model is then used to form the objective and constraint functions of an optimization model. Next, this optimization model is integrated with the new MOGA. The new MOGA uses a “kriging” guided operation in addition to conventional genetic algorithm operations to search the design space for global optimal design solutions. This approach for optimal design is essential to handle complex multi-objective situations, where the optimal solutions may be non-obvious from simple analyses or intuition. It is shown that in optimizing the data center cabinet problem, the new MOGA outperforms a conventional MOGA by estimating the Pareto front using 50% fewer simulation calls, which makes its use very promising for complex thermal design problems.

Keywords

Data center Thermal design Multi-objective optimization Genetic algorithm Meta-modeling 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Abboud and M. Schoenauer, “Surrogate deterministic mutation: Preliminary results,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2310, pp. 104–116, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K.S. Anderson and Y. Hsu, “Genetic crossover strategy using an approximation concept,” in Proc. of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Washington DC IEEE, 1999, pp. 527–533.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.S. Arora, Introduction to Optimum Design, 2nd eds., Elsevier, New York, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASHRAE, Datacom Equipment Power Trends and Cooling Applications, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Technical Committee TC9.9, Atlanta, GA, 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.-F.M. Barthelemy and R.T. Haftka, “Approximation concepts for optimum structural design—A review,” Structural Optimization, vol. 5, pp. 129–144, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.S. Bazaraa, H.D. Sherali, and C.M. Shetty, Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.D. Belegundu and T.R. Chandrupatla, Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA,1999.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.A. Coello Coello, D.A. Van Veldhuizen, and G.B. Lamont, Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 2002.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.W. Coit, A.E. Smith, and D.M. Tate, “Adaptive penalty methods for genetic optimization of constrained combinatorial problems,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 8, pp. 173–182, 1996.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Deb, Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA—II,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.H. Ferziger and M. Peric, Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd edn., Springer, New York, 2002.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., USA, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, The University of Michigan Press, Michigan, USA, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Holmes, J.L. Lumley, and G. Berkooz, Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1996.MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Jin, “A comprehensive survey of fitness approximation in evolutionary computation,” Soft Computing, vol. 9, pp. 3–12, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.R. Jones, “A taxonomy of global optimization methods based on response surfaces,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 21, pp. 345–383, 2001.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Kurpati, S. Azarm, and J. Wu, “Constraint handling improvements for multi-objective genetic algorithms,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 204–213, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Rumsey Engineers, Inc., “Data center energy benchmarking case study,” 2003, available at: http://datacenters.lbl.gov/, accessed: March 24, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Li, S. Azarm, A. Farhang-Mehr, and A. Diaz, “Approximation of multi-response engineering simulations: a dependent meta-modeling approach,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 31, pp. 260–269, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Li, G. Li, and S. Azarm, “A kriging meta-model assisted multi-objective genetic algorithm for design optimization,” in Proc. of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Paper No. DETC2006-99316, Philadelphia, PA, Sept . 10–13. 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T.J. Mitchell and M.D. Morris, “The spatial correlation function approach to response surface estimation,” in Proc. of the 24th Winter Simulation Conference, Arlington, VA, USA, 1992, pp. 565–571.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    S. Narayanan and S. Azarm, “On improving multiobjective genetic algorithms for design optimization,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 18, pp. 146–155, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H.M. Park and O.Y. Kim, “Reduction of modes for the control of viscous flows,” International Journal of Engineering Science, vol. 39, pp. 177–200, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H.M. Park and W.J. Li, “Boundary optimal control of natural convection by means of mode reduction,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 124, pp. 47–54, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    P.Y. Papalambros and D.J. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design: Modeling and Computation, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2000.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C.D. Patel, C.E. Bash, C. Belady, L. Stahl, and D. Sullivan, “Computational fluid dynamics modeling of high compute density data centers to assure system inlet air specifications,” in Proc. of IPACK’01—The Pacific Rim/ASME International Electronics Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition Kauai, HI, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.D. Patel, R. Sharma, C.E. Bash, and A. Beitelmal, “Thermal considerations in cooling of large scale high compute density data centers,” in Proc. of ITHERM 2002—Eight Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems, San Diego, CA, 2002.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Rambo and Y. Joshi, “Thermal Performance Metrics for Arranging Forced Air Cooled Servers in a Data Processing Cabinet,” ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging, vol. 127, pp. 452–459, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Rambo, “Reduced-order modeling of multiscale turbulent convection: application to data center thermal management,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Rasheed, “Informed operators: Speeding up genetic-algorithm-based design optimization using reduced models,” in Proc. of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2000, pp. 628–635.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. Rasheed, X. Ni, and S. Vattam, “Comparison of methods for developing dynamic reduced models for design optimization,” Soft Computing, vol. 9, pp. 29–37, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S.S. Ravindran, “Control of flow separation over a forward-facing step by model reduction,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 191, pp. 1924–1942, 2002.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    N. Rolander, J. Rambo, Y. Joshi, and F. Mistree, “Towards Sustainable Design of Data Centers: Addressing the Lifecycle Mismatch Problem,” presented at IPACK’05—International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, 2005.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    W.J. Roux, N. Stander, and R.T. Haftka, “Response surface approximations for structural optimization,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 42, pp. 517–534, 1998.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Ruzika and M.M. Wiecek, “A survey of approximation methods in multiobjective programming,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 473–501, 2003.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Sacks, W.J. Welch, T.J. Mitchell, and H.P. Wynn, “Design and analysis of computer experiments,” Statistical Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 409–435, 1989.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Shan and G.G. Wang, “An efficient Pareto set identification approach for multiobjective optimization on black-box functions,” Transaction on ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 127, pp. 866–874, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    T.W. Simpson, A.J. Booker, D. Ghosh, A.A. Giunta, P.N. Koch, and R.-J. Yang, “Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 302–313, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    US Army Corps of Engineers Internet Publishing Group: “Engineering and design—Practical aspects of applying geostatistics at hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste sites,” Technical Letter, ETL 1110-1-175, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E. Zitzler and L. Thiele, “Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the Strength Pareto approach,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257–271, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Shell Global SolutionsHoustonUSA
  3. 3.G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations