Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
By Paul A. Mathew, Ph.D., Member ASHRAE; William Tschudi, P.E., Member ASHRAE; Dale Sartor, P.E.; James Beasley
result in high cooling loads. Studies have shown that a wide range of cleanroom energy
efficiencies exist, and facility managers may not be aware of how energy efficient
their cleanroom facility can be, relative to other cleanroom facilities with the same
cleanliness requirements.1,2 Metrics and benchmarks are an effective way to compare
one facility to another and to track the performance of a given facility over time.3
This article presents the key metrics
and benchmarks that facility managers
can use to assess, track, and manage
their cleanroom energy efficiency or to
set energy-efficiency targets for new
construction. These include system-level
metrics such as air change rates (ach), air
handling W/cfm, and filter pressure drops.
24
ASHRAE Journal
October 2010
Cleanroom ID
Cleanroom ID
Space Pressurization
This metric describes the pressure
differential between the cleanroom and
the surrounding spaces. Excessive pressurization increases fan static pressure
requirements and energy use. Optimizing the space pressure differential to the
minimum required to meet cleanliness
classification requirements ensures the
required fan static pressure from space
pressurization is at a minimum value
and has a lower energy use. Figure 1
shows that space pressurization in the
benchmark data set varies from 0.05 in.
w.g. to 0.14 in. w.g. (12 Pa to 35 Pa). In
facilities with multiple clean spaces, the
architectural layout of the spaces can be
optimized to limit the pressure differential cascade.
Cleanroom ID
Figure 3: Design and measured relative humidity in the LBNL benchmark database.
cleanliness classification. The ach needed
depends largely on the amount of contamination, which is not necessarily
25
26
ASHRAE Journal
Cleanroom ID
Figure 4: Air change rates for various ISO Class 5 cleanrooms in the LBNL benchmark
database. ISO Class 5 is equivalent to class 100 in FS 209.
Cleanroom ID
Cleanroom ID
Figure 6: Makeup air units (MAU) airflow efficiency in the LBNL database.
ashrae.org
October 2010
28
ASHRAE Journal
Figure 7: Relationship between recirculation system W/cfm and ceiling filter exit velocity.
Figure 9: RCU filter pressure drop for cleanroom RCUs in the LBNL database.
ashrae.org
October 2010
Figure 10: MAU filter pressure drop for cleanroom MAUs in the LBNL database.
Conclusion
Cleanroom operators are more likely to Figure 11: Relationship between RCU W/cfm and filter pressure drop.
meet energy efficiency goals if quantitative metrics and targets are explicitly identified and tracked. En- and designers should obtain the buy-in of all the key stakeholdvironmental metrics such as space pressurization, temperature ers, incorporate them into programming documents, and track
and relative humidity setpoints should not be more stringent them consistently.
than what is actually required for the process or occupant comfort. The key airflow system metrics include RCU and MAU Acknowledgments
system airflow efficiency (W/cfm [W/Ls1]) and RCU and
This article was based on a self-benchmarking guide develMAU filter pressure drops.
oped for the New York State Energy Research and Development
Heating and cooling system efficiency metrics for cleanrooms Authority (NYSERDA) and previous benchmarking studies
are not significantly different from those used for other com- supported by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The
mercial or industrial buildings. Facility-level overall energy Fabs21 database was developed for the International SEMATproductivity metrics can be developed for certain types of ECH Manufacturing Initiative (ISMI).
cleanrooms, if there is an output measure that can be used to
normalize energy use. This article presented productivity met- References
rics for semiconductor fabrication facilities, in which energy
1. Tschudi, W., K. Benschine, S. Fok, and P. Rumsey. 2001.
use can be normalized by wafer outs and mask layers.
Cleanroom energy benchmarking in high-tech and biotech industries.
Metrics and benchmarks are, in effect, key performance in- Proceedings of the 2001 ACEEE Industrial Conference.
dicators for the quality of design, construction and operation.
2. Xu, T. and W. Tschudi. 2002. Energy performance of cleanroom
To ensure that they are effectively used, cleanroom operators environmental systems. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Technical
30
ASHRAE Journal
ashrae.org
October 2010
60,000
55,000
50,000
2,500
45,000
2,000
Btu/cm22
Btu/cm
2 2
Btu/cm
Btu/cm
40,000
35,000
30,000
1,500
25,000
20,000
1,000
15,000
10,000
500
636
637
638
639
640
641
646
647
648
649
650
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
5,000
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Figure 12 (left): Production energy intensity (by wafer outs) for semiconductor fabrication facilities in the Fabs21 database. Figure
13 (right): Production energy intensity (by wafer outs and mask level) for semiconductor fabrication facilities in the Fabs21 database.
Meeting and Exposition of the Institute of Environmental Science and
Technology (ESTECH).
3. Darby, S. 2006. The Effectiveness Of Feedback On Energy Consumption. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford. http://
www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf.
4. Tschudi, W.F., P. Rumsey. 2004. Using benchmarking to identify
32
ASHRAE Journal
October 2010