Airflow Ducting vs Open-Bay Layout for 0.1 PH/s Rows

22 January 2026 Comparing two Jeolla barn conversions: one with sealed intake plenums, one with open bay circulation, both targeting 0.1 PH/s sustained output.

Two clients in Jeollabuk-do commissioned similar 0.1 PH/s rows in former livestock barns within six weeks of each other. Their approaches to airflow diverged — and so did their winter stability.

Site A: Sealed intake plenum

The operator built a plywood plenum along the north wall with Merv 11 filters and variable-speed intake fans. Intake air was drawn from 1.2 m above grade to avoid ground frost pooling.

Result: Intake variance across the row stayed within 2 °C during January. Hashrate held within 1.5% of rated output. Filter maintenance every 18 days due to hay dust.

Site B: Open bay circulation

The second operator relied on existing barn openings and two large circulation fans without a sealed intake path. Cheaper upfront, faster install.

Result: West-end racks saw 4–7 °C warmer intake than east-end racks on still mornings. Two hashboards on the west row logged recurring low-temperature throttle codes. Operator added temporary ducting in February at additional cost.

When open bay works

Open layouts can suffice when:

Building depth is under 15 m
Prevailing winter wind provides consistent cross-ventilation
Rack density stays below 0.04 PH/s per 100 m² floor area

Above those thresholds, plenum investment typically pays back within one season of avoided throttle downtime.

Our recommendation

For rows at or above 0.08 PH/s in buildings deeper than 20 m, budget for sealed intake design before miner delivery. Retrofitting ducting around live hardware costs more in labour and lost uptime.