Quantitative Analysis of a

Prefabricated vs. Traditional

Data Center
White Paper 218
Revision 0

by Wendy Torell
Mercedes Cortes
James Luntz

Executive summary
Prefabricated modular data centers offer many
advantages over traditionally built data centers,
including flexibility, improved predictability, and faster
speed of deployment. Cost , however, is sometimes
stated as a barrier to deploying these designs. In this
paper, we focus on quantifying the capital cost differ-
ences of a prefabricated vs. traditional 440 kW data
center, both built with the same power and cooling
architecture, in order to highlight the key cost drivers,
and to demonstrate that prefabrication does not come
at a capex premium . The analysis was completed and
validated with Romonet’s Cloud-based Analytics
Platform, a vendor-neutral industry resource.

by Schneider Electric White Papers are now part of the Schneider Electric
white paper library produced by Schneider Electric’s Data Center Science Center
[email protected]
 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Introduction Choosing a prefabricated data center rather than a traditional “stick built” one is often based
on the anticipated benefits of quicker deployment, greater reliability, and improved predicta-
bility. White Paper 163, Prefabricated Power and Cooling Modules for Data Centers,
discusses these benefits in greater detail.

When it comes to cost implications, however, some believe prefabrication comes at a

savings, while others believe it to be at a premium. This tells us there is confusion over the
real cost implications of choosing this design approach.

Cost can be more complex to understand, as there are many variables and assumptions that
impact the cost differences of a prefabricated vs. a traditional stick-built data center. In White
Paper 164, TCO Analysis of a Traditional Data Center vs. a Scalable, Prefabricated Data
Center, we demonstrate how prefabrication offers flexibility to scale and optimize a data
center design, which can result in significant cost and energy savings compared to building
an oversized traditional data center.

In this paper, we quantify the capital cost differences of two data centers with the same
capacity, the same cooling and power architectures, the same levels of redundancy, the
same density, and the same number of racks. This allows us to isolate the cost differences
of the data center approach (prefab vs. stick-built). The analysis is based off of a Schneider
Electric reference design (#26) which is described in detail in the following section.

Capital costs in this analysis include material costs, design costs, site prep costs, installation,
and commissioning costs. For this particular design, the capital cost savings of the prefabri-
cated approach was 2% (roughly equal in cost to the traditional approach). Figure 1 illus-
trates the breakdown by cost type. As the chart illustrates, the materials are more costly for
prefabricated data centers, however, this is countered by significantly lower space costs
(outdoor vs. building), and lower labor (onsite work) costs. In the Findings section, this is
discussed in detail. Romonet’s Cloud-based Analytics Platform 1 was used to complete and
validate this analysis.

$5.51M $5.39M

Figure 1
Cost analysis results show
roughly same cost for
traditional & prefabricated 2%
data center savings

1
Romonet is discussed further in the Methodology section. http://www.romonet.com/

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 2

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Architectures We analyzed two 440 kW data centers – a prefabricated data center consisting of power,
cooling, and IT modules, and a “stick built” data center using a traditional brick and mortar
analyzed building to house all of the indoor equipment. Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual layout of
the 2 approaches. The top diagram shows the prefabricated data center, with outdoor power,
hydronics (cooling), and IT modules placed throughout an outdoor yard along with data
center equipment generally placed outdoors (i.e. generators, chillers). The bottom shows a
traditional building with space allocated for IT room, mechanical room, and electrical room,
What is a reference and some equipment placed outdoors like chillers and generators. Table 1 provides a
design? summary of the two data centers compared, including tier level, power, cooling, and rack
Reference designs are tested, design details.
validated, and documented
plans for building data centers.
They include one-line diagrams,
These data centers are based on a documented Schneider Electric reference design, which
floor layouts, piping diagrams, can be accessed at http://designportal.apc.com/dcrd/resources/pdf/en/RD26DSR1.pdf. See
and equipment lists. the sidebar for an overview of the value of reference designs, as well as White Paper 147,
Data Center Projects: Advantages of Using a Reference Design, for greater detail. The two
They are valuable as a starting
point for project teams because designs use the same major components (i.e. same UPS, chillers, rack PDUs, racks, etc.).
they:
• Simplify planning
• Reduce time to have Prefabricated spatial view
buildable plans
• Reduce risk, with predictable
performance

Schneider Electric designs can

be found at:
http://designportal.apc.com/dcrd/
pages/filter.html

Figure 2
Conceptual layouts of
Stick built spatial view
prefabricated and stick-
built designs analyzed

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 3

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Attribute Prefabricated “Stick built”

Design load 440 kW 440 kW

Target availability Tier III Tier III

2N power; (2) 500 kW power

2N power; (2) 500 kW power modules with 5
Power architecture min backup time, 2N backup generators
systems with 5 min backup time, 2N
Table 1 backup generators

Architectures compared N+1 packaged chiller, water-side

N+1 packaged chiller, water-side economiz-
Cooling architecture er, hydronics module, N+1 row-based CRAH
economizer, mechanical room, N+1
row-based CRAH

44 racks, 10 kW/rack average, (2) dual bay 44 racks, 10 kW/rack average, IT

IT configuration modules room

Purpose-built, pre-assembled infrastructure Traditional building with dedicated IT

Structure housed in insulated and weather-proof room, on-site assembly of
enclosures infrastructure

725 sq m (7800 sq ft) of building

Site size 910 sq m (9800 sq ft) of outdoor space
space*

* Note, our analysis did not consider the additional outdoor space surrounding the building.

Facility power
The data center we analyzed has redundant utility feeds and redundant generators, each
feeding a 1200A 480V switchgear bus, 500 kW UPS, and then distributed out to the IT
modules via a combination of LV panelboards and 175 kW power distribution units (PDUs).
Power is also fed to the mechanicals with separate N+1 UPSs (each 32 kW in capacity).
Figure 3 illustrates the one-line diagram of the power.

Utility A G Utility B G

1200A, 480V, 65kA 1200A, 480V, 65kA

3x DX 500kW 3x DX 500kW
Cooler SSW Cooler SSW
SYPX SYPX

800A, 480V, 65kA 800A, 480V, 65kA

Figure 3
IT Module 1 IT Module 2
Power architecture
400A, 480V, 65kA 400A, 480V, 65kA

400A, 480V, 65kA

2x DX
UPS UPS UPS
Cooler

VFD VFD VFD

P P P

Chiller Chiller Chiller

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 4

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Facility cooling
The cooling design of the data centers we analyzed were comprised of three packaged
chillers, each 275 kW, in an N+1 configuration. Each chiller has an integrated dry cooler for
economizer mode. In the case of the prefabricated design, there is a hydronics module
which includes the pumps, valves, controls, and instrumentation needed. In the case of the
stick-built design, this equipment is located in a mechanical room within the building. Figure
4 illustrates the piping architecture and pump configuration for the data centers. They are
designed to feed row-based CRAHs in the IT space.

Supply
to IT
Chiller
275 kW VFD
Return
from IT
Exp. Tank
VFD
Chiller
275 kW
Figure 4 Exp. Tank
VFD
Cooling architecture Return
Dirt/Air from IT
Chiller Sep.
275 kW Glycol feeder
Supply
to IT

Thermal Storage
Tank

IT space
In both designs, the IT space consists of 44 IT racks, each capable of supporting an average
of 10 kW/rack of IT load. Redundant (2N) PDUs with isolation transformers feed redundant
metered rack-mount PDUs within each rack. Hot aisle containment is used to optimize
airflow in the space, and N+1 row-based CRAHs are placed throughout the rows of racks.

The exact arrangement of racks, coolers, and PDUs varies between the two designs. In the
case of the prefabricated data center, the IT room is made up of two dual-bay IT modules.
Figure 5 illustrates both dual-bay modules. In the stick built design, one larger IT room is
assumed, with all 44 racks and supporting equipment.

Figure 5
IT space in the
prefabricated data
center

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 5

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Methodology We used a 3rd party data center modeling software by Romonet to perform this capital cost
comparison. Figure 6 shows the logical layout of the modeled data center. This model
describes the energy flow through the data center power and cooling infrastructure. Blue
connection arrows indicate a power connection; red arrows indicate a cooling connection.
The modeling software is also capable of analyzing energy costs, but for this analysis, since
the subsystems used were identical in both designs (and therefore energy differences would
be negligible), we focused only on the capex portion of the tool.

Each block represents a data center subsystem, and for each of these blocks, cost data
including the capital cost of the materials as well as the installation cost, was applied. Each
block is also configured to match the redundancies of the designs, as described above.
The shaded areas represent the rooms or modules where the subsystems are located. The
components without shading are located outdoors.

Romonet experts reviewed and validated the model.

Figure 6
Model of data center analyzed in Romonet’s Analytics Platform

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 6

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Assumptions
The main assumptions we used in the financial analysis are as follows:

• 440 kW data center equipment installed on day 1, per description and diagrams above
• Data centers are installed in the US with average US labor rates
• Cost for land is $269/m2 ($25/sq ft)
• Cost for finished building space is $1,615/m2 ($150/sq ft)
• Prefabricated data center is 865 m2 (9310 sq ft) of total outdoor space required (inclu-
sive of clearance space around modules)
• Prefabricated modules are all placed outdoors
• Stick built data center has a building size of 727 m2 (7829 sq ft)

Data Sources
Our Schneider Electric Data Center Capital Cost Calculator was used as a primary source of
subsystem material and installation costs. This tool is based off of actual project costs of
varying data center sizes. Figure 7 is a screenshot of the Schneider Electric tool. In
addition, installation cost data from three recent prefabricated data center project implemen-
tations were used. General, non-vendor specific cost data provided by Romonet was used as
a means of validation.

Figure 7
Data Center Capital
Cost Calculator

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 7

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Findings Figure 1 summarizes the differences between the two designs at a high level and shows a
(negligible) 2% cost savings for the prefabricated reference design over its equivalent stick
built data center. Below in Figure 8, we show a further breakdown of the costs, by subsys-
tem category and by cost type.

The chart illustrates that the prefabricated systems (materials) come at a capex premium over
the traditional systems. Since the prefabricated modules are shipped with the physical
infrastructure preassembled, the “materials” cost includes the physical housing (i.e. contain-
ers) as well as the factory integration work. The largest material premium for the prefabricat-
ed design was for the IT room gear, followed by the cooling system.

The degree of onsite labor (both electrical and mechanical) is reduced for prefabricated
designs, since integration work done in the factory results in less field work.

The space cost (cost of the land, building, site prep work) represents the biggest savings
opportunity in this analysis. This is based on the building and land costs as stated in the
assumptions section.

Figure 8
Breakdown of cost categories for capex comparison

Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there are two key variables that determine whether
traditional or prefabricated is the lower capex approach.

• Building cost
• Average power density / rack

We chose a “typical” building cost in our analysis, but actual costs vary significantly from
country to country, and site to site. In addition, the level of finished space within a building
needs to be factored into the cost of building construction. In general, prefabricated designs
become more cost effective when compared to a traditional data center within a more
expensive building or space. Likewise, the traditional approach becomes more economical if
there is a low cost space available.

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 8

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Average power density impacts the cost of the IT space because as density decreases, the
number of racks and rack PDUs increases, but more importantly the size of the building
and/or containers also increases. A sensitivity analysis was done to illustrate this impact and
is presented in the following section.

Impact of rack The above analysis assumed an average of 10kW/rack in the IT space, or 44 IT racks.
Average density, however, is a significant driver to the cost-effectiveness of prefabricated IT
density spaces. At higher densities, the savings over a traditional IT room increases since more load
can be housed in the same fixed module space. As density decreases, more modules
(containers) are needed to house the same IT load, and this represents additional material
overhead that diminishes the savings, and may even swing the results in favor of traditional
as densities continue to drop. Figure 9 illustrates the impact of IT density on the cost of
typical prefabricated IT room modules.

Figure 9
Impact of average
density per rack on
capex

The graph shows how costs are higher at lower densities. Think about the layout in Figure 5
which showed the two dual-bay shells. If density was now cut in half to 5 kW/rack, the
number of racks doubles and therefore the number of shells doubles. Keep in mind though,
that in the traditional design, the racks and associated equipment also doubles. Schneider
Electric White Paper 156, Choosing the Optimal Power Density, includes a more detailed cost
analysis of data centers at varying densities. Based on the cost analysis findings, the natural
break points of rack PDUs, current IT technology trends, and the design complexities that
exist for extreme densities, the majority of data centers should design around a peak of
11-11.5 kW/rack.

Conclusion When challenged with finding suitable space to build a new, or expand an existing data
center, prefabricated data centers offer clear benefits. We analyzed two data centers, one
prefabricated and one “stick built”, with the same physical infrastructure architecture and
components (UPSs, packaged chiller, PDUs, racks, etc.) and concluded that the cost of both
approaches are approximately the same. The bottom line is that cost alone generally does
not provide a strong case to shift to a prefabricated design approach.

We identified two key cost drivers that influence the comparison – space costs & average
power density. The greater the brick & mortar shell cost and the higher the average density
requirement, the more likely it is that the prefabricated approach offers financial (capex)

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 9

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

benefits. On the contrary, if you had a building with existing vacant space (i.e. no new
building shell cost), the cost analysis would clearly favor the traditional approach.

The discussion around cost comparisons of traditional data centers versus prefabrication
can’t be reduced to the just building construction costs. Other business drivers need to be
considered when evaluating a site. For example, available space that could be used to
expand a data center in a hospital, university, or factory should be financially weighed against
the potential for revenue generation within the same space. In this case it may make more
sense to build a new space outside of the existing building.

The size, location, or business model of the data center will have an impact on the type of
solution that fits best - not all data centers are created equal. The specific example in this
paper was based on a total capacity of 440 kW at an average of 10 kW per rack with no
discussion about the type of building or business it is supporting. If we consider an example
of a large service provider (i.e. colocation data center) where 100% of the business is
operating a data center, the focus will likely be directly on optimizing the capital cost per rack
or kW and minimizing operating costs. An automobile factory, on the other hand, may have a
different perspective, where the focus is on adding a smaller amount of data center capacity,
and the simplicity and speed of a drop-in-place solution is a key decision criteria.

The decision to pursue a prefabricated data center approach is not as straightforward as

simply comparing implementation costs versus a traditional installation. Other factors falling
into broad categories of time, space, and data center growth can significantly impact busi-
ness results over the life of the data center. Most customers who have deployed a prefabri-
cated data center now enjoy the benefits of that solution because this approach met specific
challenges in the present while allowing for future flexibility.

About the authors

Wendy Torell is a Senior Research Analyst at Schneider Electric’s Data Center Science
Center. In this role, she researches best practices in data center design and operation,
publishes white papers & articles, and develops TradeOff Tools to help clients optimize the
availability, efficiency, and cost of their data center environments. She also consults with
clients on availability science approaches and design practices to help them meet their data
center performance objectives. She received her Bachelors of Mechanical Engineering
degree from Union College in Schenectady, NY and her MBA from University of Rhode
Island. Wendy is an ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer.

Mercedes Cortes is a Senior Systems Design Engineer at Schneider Electric. In this role,
she develops reference designs for data centers and supports R&D, marketing and sales
through her research and analysis of alternative applications for the data center solution
portfolio. She has prior experience with mechanical design for a consulting engineering firm
and strategic planning for a telecommunications company. She has a Bachelor’s degree in
Mechanical Engineering from Universidad Simon Bolivar in Venezuela and a Master’s degree
in Energy Management and Policy from Penn State University.

James Luntz is a Senior Mechanical Engineer for the Prefabricated Data Center group of
Schneider Electric. He is a lead engineer in creating custom designed prefabricated solutions
for a wide range of businesses, from small and rugged military customers to large internet
giants and colocation data center service providers. James earned a Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering with a Minor in Business Management.

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 10

 Quantitative Analysis of a Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center

Resources

Prefabricated Power and Cooling Modules for Data Centers

White Paper 163

TCO Analysis of a Traditional Data Center vs.

a Scalable, Prefabricated Data Center
White Paper 164

Data Center Projects: Advantages of Using a Reference Design

White Paper 147

Practical Considerations for Implementing Prefabricated Data Centers

White Paper 166

Choosing the Optimal Data Center Power Density

White Paper 156

Browse all
white papers
whitepapers.apc.com

Prefabricated vs. Traditional Data Center Cost Calculator

TradeOff Tool 17

Browse all
TradeOff Tools™
tools.apc.com

Contact us
© 2015 Schneider Electric. All rights reserved.

For feedback and comments about the content of this white paper:

Data Center Science Center

[email protected]

If you are a customer and have questions specific to your data center project:

Contact your Schneider Electric representative at

www.apc.com/support/contact/index.cfm

Schneider Electric – Data Center Science Center Rev 0 11