Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking William Tschudi Stephen Fok Kathleen Benshine Peter Rumsey July 25, 2001 Acknowledgements: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Rumsey Engineers
Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking
William TschudiStephen Fok
Kathleen BenshinePeter RumseyJuly 25, 2001
Acknowledgements:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Rumsey Engineers
Many industries have Cleanrooms4.2 million sq.ft. in CA
Hospital4%Food
3%
Automotive3%
Aerospace6%
Semiconductor Supplier
3%Electronics
9%
Medical Device7%
Pharmaceutical7%
Semiconductor58%
Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking
Why Benchmark High-tech Buildings?
The California market is large and growing:
� 9400 GWH in 1997 (all high tech buildings)
� 4.2 million sq. ft. of operating cleanrooms
� Semiconductor and Biotech exhibited high growth in last few years
The Benchmarking Process
Develop a general plan
Enlist Benchmarking participants
Develop Site specific plan
On-site measurement
Draft site report
Final customer and anonymous report
Enter in data base/post web site
Need for common metrics
Cleanroom Metrics
Central Plant Metrics
Cleanroom metrics
Recirculation air handler – cfm/kWRecirculation air flow – cfm/sfMake-up air handler – cfm/kWMake-up air flow – cfm/sfExhaust system efficiency – cfm/kWCleanroom air changes – ACH/hr, ft/secAnnual energy cost - $/sfAnnual energy use – kWh/sf/yr
Central Plant metrics
Chiller efficiency – kW/ton
Cooling tower efficiency – kW/ton
Condenser water pump efficiency – kW/ton
Chilled water pump efficiency – kW/ton
Hot water pump efficiency – kW/ton
Energy Use Breakdown Production Cleanroom
Chillers and Pumps21%
Recirc and Make-up Fans19%
Exhuast Fans7%
Nitrogen Plant7%
Process Tools34%
Support3%Process Water
Pumping4%
DI Water5%
Benchmarking Data Base
Anonymous reporting
Comparison of similar class systems
Comparison of components
Comparison of overall facility
No production metrics
Energy Intensive systemsRecirculation of air in cleanrooms
Process Tools34%
Exhuast Fans7%
Nitrogen Plant7%
Recirc and Make-up Fans19%
Chillers and Pumps21%
Support3%Process Water
Pumping4%
DI Water5%
Recirculation Air Comparison
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Class 10 Pressurized
Plenum
Class 100 Pressurized
Plenum
Class 100 Ducted
Class 100 Fan Filter
Class 100 Ducted
Class 100 Fan Filter
Class 100 Pressurized
Plenum
Class 1Ducted
CFM
/ kW
Recirculation System Observations
Energy use for various air management systems varies by as much as a factor of 10
Plenum systems (low pressure drop) are generally more efficient
Ducted systems (high pressure drop) are less efficient
Fan-filter units are relatively inefficient
(but are improving)
Filter Velocity Observations
0
50
100
150
Facility 1Class 10
Facility 2Class 100
Facility 3Class 100
Facility 4Class 100
Facility 5Class 100
Facility 6Class 100
Facility 7Class 1
ft / m
in
Variations in air flow velocities
The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technologies (IEST) establishes recommended air change rates (velocities)Wide variation in air change rates observedSome measured values exceed IEST ratesPerformance of all rooms was acceptableSince energy varies as the cube of velocity, this is a huge opportunity
Filter Velocity Observations
Understand the contamination control problem
Select appropriate cleanliness class
IEST recommended air change rates
Make-up Air Observations
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
Facility 1Class 10
Facility 2Class 100
Facility 3Class 100
Facility 4Class 100
Facility 5Class 100
Facility 6Class 100
Facility 7Class 1
CFM
/ kW
Make-up Air System Observations
Efficiency is influenced by:
Right sizing exhaust and pressurizationResistance of make-up air pathAdjacency of air handler(s)Air handler face velocityFan and motor efficiencyVFD controls
Energy Intensive SystemsChilled water systems
Recirc and Make-up Fans19%
Process Tools34%
Exhuast Fans7%
Nitrogen Plant7%
Chillers and Pumps21%
Support3%Process Water
Pumping4%
DI Water5%
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
WaterCooled
42F
AirCooled
42F
AirCooled
40F
AirCooled
48F
AirCooled
50F
WaterCooled
40F
WaterCooled
38F
kW /
ton
Cooling Tower
CW Pumps
CHW Pumps
Chiller
Chilled Water System Observations
Chilled Water System Observations
Adjacency of central plant
Chiller efficiency dominates, butPumping energy can be significant
Chiller Comparison
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
WaterCooled
42F
AirCooled
42F
AirCooled
40F
AirCooled
48F
AirCooled
50F
WaterCooled
40F
WaterCooled
38F
kW /
ton
ChillerBenchmarking Observations
Wide variation in efficiency
Air cooled chillers are less efficient
Most efficient ~ .5 KW/ton range
Chiller efficiencies well publicized, but
Name plate is different than measured
Process load Issues
Electrical loads vary greatly depending upon the process in the roomAll of the electrical load is converted to heat which is removed by HVAC and process cooling systemsGetting the design loads right is a challengeHVAC equipment sized correctly operates more efficientlyBenchmark data can help determine design load for future projects
Best Practices
Benchmarking can identify best practices:� Use of free cooling� Separate high temperature chiller� Use of multiple cooling towers� Reduce excess pumping � Recirculation air setback
Benchmarking can identify maintenance problems
What is the cost impact?
Annual energy costs of recirculation fans (Class 5, 20,000ft2)
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
ducted HEPA ducted HEPA fan filter fan filter fan filter pres. Pl. pres. Pl. pres. Pl.
RCU Type
Ann
ual k
Wh
Cos
t bas
ed o
n 0.
1$/k
Wh,
$
Benchmarking Can Help Establish Efficiency Goals
Energy Budget� Total facility
� End use
Efficiency Targets for key systems/components� Cfm/KW
� KW/ton
� Pressure drop
Benchmarking identifies Cleanroom Efficiency Concepts
Minimize Clean Space
Cleaner than needed does not improve yield, wastes energy, and is expensive
Move less air, pump less liquid
Minimize flow resistance
Cleanroom Efficiency Concepts
Chilled water temperature as high as possible
Avoid simultaneous heating and cooling
Minimize exhaust and leakage (and corresponding conditioned make-up air)
Turn off when not in use
Efficiency Concepts (continued)
“Large Pipes / Small Pumps” - lower pressure drops in air and water streams
Lower face velocities in air handlers - 400 to 450 fpm versus 500 fpm saves 10% to 20% on fan energy
Cleanrooms Websitehttp://eetd.lbl.gov/cleanrooms/
Stay tuned for updates