skip to main content
10.1145/3563357.3564050acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessensysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reducio: model reduction for data center predictive digital twins via physics-guided machine learning

Published:08 December 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The digital twin, as a digital counterpart of a physical entity, has shown great potential in data center prototyping and predictive thermal management. In this regard, Computational Fluid Dynamics/Heat Transfer (CFD/HT) models have been widely adopted. However, the computing time of the CFD/HT simulation is prohibitively long in practice. The Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD) has been explored to approximate the CFD/HT simulation by a linear combination of POD modes and coefficients. Existing approaches to calculating the POD coefficients use either the black-box interpolation or the simplified physical model, leading to unsatisfactory generalization ability. To advance existing approaches, this paper proposes Reducio, a physics-guided model reduction approach based on the POD to predict the temperature field by following two key phases of i) offline POD modes calculation and coefficients interpolation and ii) online coefficients extrapolation supervised by the principle of energy balance. To extrapolate the coefficients with limited training data, we adopt the Gaussian Process (GP) model to learn a nonlinear map between the boundary conditions and POD coefficients. We conduct two case studies in two data centers with different scales. Evaluation results in the edge data center show that Reducio achieves sub-1°C mean absolute error (MAE) in temperature field prediction compared with the CFD/HT simulation result, outperforming the existing method based on the simplified physical model by 1.5 °C. When evaluating in the industry-grade hyper-scale data center with the sensor measurements, around 1°C temperature prediction MAE is observed. Furthermore, Reducio can predict the full-fledged temperature field in real-time, making it a strong candidate for building data center predictive digital twins.

References

  1. Jayati Athavale, Minami Yoda, and Yogendra Joshi. 2019. Comparison of data driven modeling approaches for temperature prediction in data centers. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 135 (2019), 1039--1052.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Zhiwei Cao, Xin Zhou, Han Hu, Zhi Wang, and Yonggang Wen. 2022. Toward a Systematic Survey for Carbon Neutral Data Centers. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 24, 2 (2022), 895--936. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Drury B Crawley, Linda K Lawrie, Frederick C Winkelmann, Walter F Buhl, Y Joe Huang, Curtis O Pedersen, Richard K Strand, Richard J Liesen, Daniel E Fisher, Michael J Witte, et al. 2001. EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and buildings 33, 4 (2001), 319--331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. 2016. CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 83 (2016), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Rajat Ghosh and Yogendra Joshi. 2011. Dynamic reduced order thermal modeling of data center air temperatures. In International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 44625. 423--432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. GPy. since 2012. GPy: A Gaussian process framework in python. http://github.com/SheffieldML/GPy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sandeep KS Gupta, Rose Robin Gilbert, Ayan Banerjee, Zahra Abbasi, Tridib Mukherjee, and Georgios Varsamopoulos. 2011. Gdcsim: A tool for analyzing green data center design and resource management techniques. In 2011 International Green Computing Conference and Workshops. IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Xu Han, Wei Tian, Jim VanGilder, Wangda Zuo, and Cary Faulkner. 2021. An open source fast fluid dynamics model for data center thermal management. Energy and Buildings 230 (2021), 110599.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Hrvoje Jasak, Aleksandar Jemcov, Zeljko Tukovic, et al. 2007. OpenFOAM: A C++ library for complex physics simulations. In International workshop on coupled methods in numerical dynamics, Vol. 1000. IUC Dubrovnik Croatia, 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. David J Lettieri, Michael M Toulouse, Cullen E Bash, Amip J Shah, and Van P Carey. 2013. Computational and experimental validation of a vortex-superposition-based buoyancy approximation for the COMPACT code in data centers. Journal of Electronic Packaging 135, 3 (2013), 030903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Lei Li, Chieh-Jan Mike Liang, Jie Liu, Suman Nath, Andreas Terzis, and Christos Faloutsos. 2011. Thermocast: a cyber-physical forecasting model for datacenters. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 1370--1378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Zachary M Pardey, James W VanGilder, Christopher M Healey, and David W Plamondon. 2015. Creating a calibrated CFD model of a midsize data center. In International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and Exhibition, Vol. 56888. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, V001T09A029.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Tu-Hoa Pham, Giovanni De Magistris, and Ryuki Tachibana. 2018. Optlayer-practical constrained optimization for deep reinforcement learning in the real world. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 6236--6243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Amir Radmehr, Brendan Noll, John Fitzpatrick, and Kailash Karki. 2013. CFD modeling of an existing raised-floor data center. In 29th IEEE Semiconductor Thermal Measurement and Management Symposium. IEEE, 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Emad Samadiani and Yogendra Joshi. 2010. Multi-parameter model reduction in multi-scale convective systems. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53, 9--10 (2010), 2193--2205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Emad Samadiani and Yogendra Joshi. 2010. Proper orthogonal decomposition for reduced order thermal modeling of air cooled data centers. Journal of heat transfer 132, 7 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Emad Samadiani, Yogendra Joshi, Hendrik Hamann, Madhusudan K Iyengar, Steven Kamalsy, and James Lacey. 2012. Reduced order thermal modeling of data centers via distributed sensor data. Journal of heat transfer 134, 4 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mike Shafto, Mike Conroy, Rich Doyle, Ed Glaessgen, Chris Kemp, Jacqueline LeMoigne, and Lui Wang. 2012. Modeling, simulation, information technology & processing roadmap. National Aeronautics and Space Administration 32, 2012 (2012), 1--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Umesh Singh, Amarendra Singh, S Parvez, and Anand Sivasubramaniam. 2010. CFD-Based Operational Thermal Efficiency Improvement of a Production Data Center.. In SustainIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence Sirovich. 1987. Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I. Coherent structures. Quarterly of applied mathematics 45, 3 (1987), 561--571.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kunihiko Taira, Steven L Brunton, Scott TM Dawson, Clarence W Rowley, Tim Colonius, Beverley J McKeon, Oliver T Schmidt, Stanislav Gordeyev, Vassilios Theofilis, and Lawrence S Ukeiley. 2017. Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview. Aiaa Journal 55, 12 (2017), 4013--4041.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Wei Tian, Thomas Alonso Sevilla, Dan Li, Wangda Zuo, and Michael Wetter. 2018. Fast and self-learning indoor airflow simulation based on in situ adaptive tabulation. Journal of Building Performance Simulation 11, 1 (2018), 99--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ruihang Wang, Xin Zhou, Linsen Dong, Yonggang Wen, Rui Tan, Li Chen, Guan Wang, and Feng Zeng. 2020. Kalibre: Knowledge-based Neural Surrogate Model Calibration for Data Center Digital Twins. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation. 200--209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Christopher K Williams and Carl Edward Rasmussen. 2006. Gaussian processes for machine learning. Vol. 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Wangda Zuo and Q Chen. 2007. Validation of fast fluid dynamics for room airflow. IBPSA Building Simulation 2007 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Reducio: model reduction for data center predictive digital twins via physics-guided machine learning

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        BuildSys '22: Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation
        November 2022
        535 pages
        ISBN:9781450398909
        DOI:10.1145/3563357

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 December 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate148of500submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader