Filter Solutions Last 4 Times Longer Than Competitor in a Virginia Data Center

Overview:

Data center construction has skyrocketed in recent years, which in turn has pushed electrical demand on local grids to their capacity. Cooling, ventilation, and filtration are among the primary drivers behind data center electricity consumption, making up over half of their total energy bill.

Problem:

In addition to energy costs, data centers with inadequate filtration experience prolonged downtime, which costs businesses hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in service disruptions. This was the case with a data center located in Northern Virginia who wanted to save more energy, reduce downtime, and lower labor costs associated with repairing damaged equipment and constantly replacing low-quality filters. To help them find a tailor-made indoor air quality solution, we conducted a four-month trial to test the effectiveness of Camfil’s air filters, and the results didn’t disappoint.

Solution:

This evaluation consisted of two trials: One testing filter performance in the data center’s Computer Room Air Handler Units (CRAH), and another testing filter performance on the data center’s Roof Top Units (RTU). However, since the CRAH evaluation is expected to run for 1-2 years, this report focuses solely on the RTUs. In the RTU trial, we compared filter performance in two identical RTUs in close proximity with the same Cubic Feet per Minute (CFM) and filter counts. Further, each unit contained 12x24x2 prefilters and 12x24x4 final filters. The only variables we changed were the brand of filters used. One unit contained Camfil filters while the other one contained a leading competitor.

Result:

Prefilter performance showed the most significant change over time. As expected, initial pressure drops were similar at lower airflow rates; however, at design conditions (higher airflow), competing MERV 10 filters started with a slightly higher pressure drop due to lower media density. Throughout the trial, the competing filters increased to .60″ wg from .45″ while Camfil’s only increased to .46″ from .40″. This result confirms that Camfil Dual 9A has a 3-4 times longer lifespan. Critically, the .10″ wg higher pressure drop in the competitor’s filters translates to an estimated $35-40 annual energy penalty per filter hole (at .08-.10/kWh), meaning energy savings with Camfil will likely pay for the initial cost of the filter within 3-4 months.