Modular Data Center: Core Elements, Market Drivers, and Design Comparisons

Introduction: In recent years, data center development has accelerated alongside cloud computing, big data, and IoT. Domestic data centers have grown over 20% annually, with ultra‑large facilities (more than 1,000 racks) proliferating, yet overall design, energy efficiency, construction, and operation still lag behind foreign standards.

The concept of modular data centers remains loosely defined. The author references Schneider Electric APC whitepaper No. 160, which explains modularity, and builds a framework based on business, IT rack, network, and electromechanical modules.

Core elements of modularity are defined as interface, function, logic, and state. Function corresponds to system design, logic to capacity, interface to composition method, and state to physical layout.

Example 1 compares APC’s N+1 UPS‑based modular system with Facebook’s 48 V DC power design, highlighting differences in system design, capacity (160 kVA vs ~60 kW), composition, and floor layout.

Difference

Description

System Design

APC uses an N+1 UPS design; Facebook uses an N+1 48 V DC power design.

APC provides aisle cooling; Facebook has no near‑end cooling unit.

APC defines empty racks for generic servers; Facebook defines racks that include power and servers.

Equipment Capacity

APC modular UPS capacity: 160 kVA; Facebook: about 60 kW.

Composition Method

Facebook lacks cooling cabinets and integrates tight‑end power distribution.

Floor Layout

APC: two rows of racks; Facebook: one row of racks.

Example 2 contrasts HP’s non‑integrated UPS solution with IO Anywhere’s integrated IT module, showing variations in design, capacity (20 kW per rack vs 10‑30 kW), composition, and layout.

Difference

Description

System Design

HP designs a non‑integrated UPS; IO designs a non‑integrated UPS IT module.

HP places cooling equipment on top of racks; IO places it below.

Equipment Capacity

HP: 20 kW per rack; IO: 10‑30 kW per rack.

Composition Method

HP designs multiple assembled units with a full cooling system; IO provides a chilled‑water terminal without a cabinet.

Floor Layout

HP: two rows of racks plus complete cooling; IO: one row of racks plus terminal cooling.

From these examples, four core modular attributes emerge: function (system design), logic (capacity), interface (composition), and state (layout). Modular data centers decompose traditional facilities into interchangeable subsystems, enabling scalable, repeatable, and easier‑to‑manage deployments.

Market participants driving modularization include consulting design institutes, equipment manufacturers, and integration solution providers. The APC whitepaper lists problems such as low investment utilization, long design cycles, quality issues, power‑density errors, complex management, fault tolerance, standards compliance, training burdens, and energy inefficiency, and explains how modular approaches address each.

Different vendors emphasize different aspects: design firms focus on architectural modularity, manufacturers on modular equipment (UPS, monitoring, power modules), and integrators on packaged solutions that combine cooling, power, racks, and cabling.

Conclusion: Modular data‑center design offers on‑demand capacity, reduced deployment time, standardized management, and improved energy efficiency, making it a strategic direction for future infrastructure.