1 page 1 bill tschudi [email protected] sponsored by: public interest energy research (pier)...

1

Bill [email protected]

Sponsored by: Public Interest Energy Research (PIER)California Energy Commission and administered byCalifornia Institute for Energy Efficiency (CIEE)

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

ALLIANCE MICROELECTRONICS WORKSHOPLBNL RESEARCH UPDATE

9-16-04

22

Overview

Cleanrooms

Healthcare

Data Centers

Laboratories

Energy Intensive High-tech Buildings

3

Cleanroom Activities– Benchmarking and Best Practices – Demand Controlled Filtration– Fan-Filter Test Procedure– Mini-Environments

3

Overview

Update of Current Activities

4

Laboratory Activities– Benchmarking and Best

Practices– Berkeley Fume Hood

Development• Overcoming Barriers

(CAL/OSHA)• Side-by-Side Testing• 3 Industrial Demonstrations

– Labs 214

Overview

Current Activities, cont.

5

Data Center Activities– Benchmarking and Best Practices

• Load intensity• Performance Benchmarks

– Self-benchmarking Protocol– Investigate UPS Efficiency Improvement– Investigate Power Supply Improvement

5

Overview


6

Demonstration ProjectsLBNL role is to identify and scope possible demonstrations and arrange industry partners

Technology TransferInteraction with industry, e.g.:

• ASHRAE• SEMATECH• IEST• Cleanrooms East/West• Public utilities – emerging technology

6

Overview


77

Cleanroom Benchmarking

Expanding the Database

– 4-6 New Case Studies

– Compare to Sematech Data

– Adding Data on UPS and Standby Generation

Benchmarking

88

Recirculation Air Systems

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Fac. AClass 10 Press.Plen.

Fac. AClass 100

Press.Plen.

Fac. B.1Class 100

Ducted

Fac. B.1Class 100

FFU

Fac. B.2Class 100

Ducted

Fac. B.2Class 100

FFU

Fac. CClass 100

Press.Plen.

Fac. DClass 10Ducted

Fac. EClass 100

FFU

Fac. EClass 100

Press.Plen.

Fac. FClass 10Press.Plen.



Fac. FClass 10k

CFM

/ kW

(hig

her i

s be

tter)

Averages (cfm / kW)FFU: 1664

Ducted: 1733Pressurized Plenum: 5152

Recirculation Efficiencies

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Facility

CF

M/k

W

Average 3440

Average 1953

LBNL Data

Sematech Data

Benchmarking

99

Baselines Based Upon Benchmark Data

System Performance Target

Benchmarking

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000


Fac. AClass 100

Press.Plen.

Fac. B.1Class 100

Ducted

Fac. B.1Class 100

FFU

Fac. B.2Class 100

Ducted

Fac. B.2Class 100

FFU

Fac. CClass 100

Press.Plen.


Fac. EClass 100

FFU

Fac. EClass 100

Press.Plen.




Fac. FClass 10k

CFM

/ kW

(hig

her i

s be

tter)

Averages (cfm / kW)FFU: 1664

Ducted: 1733Pressurized Plenum: 5152

1010

Make-up Air Systems

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Facility AClass 10

Facility AClass100

FacilityB.1

Class100

FacilityB.2

Class 10

FacilityB.2

Class100

Facility CClass100

Facility DClass 10

Fac.E.1.1Class100

Fac.E.1.2Class100

Fac. F.2Class 10

*

Fac. F.3Class 10

Fac. F.1Class 10

CF

M /

kW (

hig

her

is b

ette

r)

Make-up Air Energy Efficiency

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Facility

cfm

/kW

Average 972

Average 946

LBNL Data

Sematech Data

Benchmarking

1111

Cleanroom Benchmarking

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


Fac. AClass 100

Press.Plen.

Fac. B.1Class 100Ducted

Fac. B.1Class 100

FFU

Fac. B.2Class 100Ducted

Fac. B.2Class 100

FFU

Fac. CClass 100

Press.Plen.


Fac. EClass 100

FFU

Fac. EClass 100

Press.Plen.




Fac. FClass 10k

Air

Cha

nges

per

Hou

r

IEST Recommended Ranges

Class 100: 94 - 276Class 10: 385 - 591

Benchmarking

Air Change Rates

1212

Standby Generation Loss– Several Sources

• Heaters• Battery chargers• Transfer switches• Fuel management systems

– Heaters alone (many operation hours) use more electricity than produced by the generator (few operating hours)

– May be possible to eliminate heaters, batteries, and chargers

Benchmarking

13

Recent case study demonstrated recirculation setback

13

Case Study

Benchmarking

14

Recirculation Setback

Benchmarking

Based Solely on Time clock, 8:00 PM -6:00 AM setback

No reported process problems or pushback

60% – 70% Power Reduction on turndownRAH-X Power

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

3/15/04 0:003/16/04 0:00

3/17/04 0:003/18/04 0:00

3/19/04 0:003/20/04 0:00

3/21/04 0:003/22/04 0:00

Date

kW

RAH-Z Power

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

3/15/04 0:003/16/04 0:00

3/17/04 0:003/18/04 0:00

3/19/04 0:003/20/04 0:00

3/21/04 0:003/22/04 0:00

Date

Chan. 1Chan. 2Chan. 3

Total kW

15

Recirculation Setback - Savings

Benchmarking

Annual Fan Savings from Daily and Weekend Setback:

1,000,000 kWh$130,000 - $150,000

Cooling load reduction when setback:

120 kW35 tons

16

Additional Savings Opportunities

Benchmarking

• Currently using air cooled chiller at 1 kW/ton, partially to conserve water. The RO system rejects 2,500 – 4,000 gallons per day to sewer; RO reject water can be used for tower makeup.

• Space humidity control exceeded design and process requirements in most spaces; energy intensive dehumidification/reheat could be reduced by resetting humidity setpoints to design.

• Actively control recirculation setback for further fan savings.

• Reduce air change rates further.

1717

Controlling Air Flow to Maintain Cleanliness

• Save energy by reducing fan speeds without degrading conditions in cleanroom

• Reduction of recirculation fan speed during unoccupied periods or periods of no activity (potential for minienvironments also)

• Demand filtration based on real-time particle concentration measurements

• Fan power proportional to the cube of the flow rate, so small changes can result in large savings

Demand Controlled Filtration

1818



• Pilot study completed - showing promise• Collaboration with Cornell University• Informal survey of ASHRAE TC 9.11 members regarding control of recirculation fan speed

– Many members said that they use some form of demand controlled filtration now– Some have set backs during unoccupied periods– Manual override is provided

• Demonstration partner identified – Tool Manufacturer

1919

Pilot Study

• ISO Class 5 cleanroom at LBNL – monitored particle concentrations

• Three particle sensors – controlling to various size particles

• Varied flow rate by controlling recirculation fan speed

• Room Pressurization not studied


2020

FFU Test Procedure

Fan-Filter Unit Testing

Average Outlet Velocity, m/s

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Ele

ctric

Effic

ien

cy

, %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 FFU AFFU BFFU CFFU DFFU EFFU FFFU GFFU HFFU I-1FFU I-2FFU JFFU KFFU LFFU MFFU NERL FFU (AC)ERL FFU (ACS)ERL FFU (DC)FFU P-1FFU P-2

4'X2' FFU

2121

FFU Goals

• Develop a standard way to test and report performance of Fan-Filter Units (FFUs)

• Promote FFU energy efficiency through use of the standard

FFU Test Procedure

2222

Test Procedure Development

FFU Test Procedure

A team of experts provided peer-reviews of the draft standard procedure prepared by LBNL

– Project Advisors

– ITRI/AMCA

– FFU Manufacturers

– End-users

– Sematech

2323

On-going Development

FFU Test Procedure

LBNL continues to work with IEST to provide assistance to its more comprehensive recommended Practice (RP) which will include testing for other characteristics such as vibration and noise.

Any input to the draft standard will be appreciated.

2424

Planned FFU Activities

FFU Test Procedure

• Test Procedure will be “tested” at PG&E’s lab facility for small number of units

• Additional units to be tested depending upon funding available

• ITRI (Taiwan) test data may be useful

• PG&E intends to establish baselines based upon tests and use the baselines in incentive programs. Other California public utilities can also use the baselines that PG&E develops.

2525

Minienvironment Tasks

• Understand the energy implications of using minienvironments – micro and macro level

• Case study on minienvironment performance – Asyst Technologies

• Work with IEST on Recommended Practice for minienvironments

• Identify and promote energy efficiency opportunities

Minienvironments

2626

Planned Minienvironment Activitiesminienvironments

• Develop strategies to improve efficiency based upon case study findings and other best practices input. Consider input from:

– NEEA workshop attendees– IEST– Sematech– Suppliers/Users/Utility– A2C2/Cleanroom Magazines

• Host a workshop on minienvironment efficiency

27

•

27

Data Center Benchmarking

Data Centers

Computer Load Dens ity

010203040506070

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fac ility

W/s

q.f

t.

16

Distribution of Computer Room Power Reported to Uptime Institute

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

Computer room UPS power (Watts/square foot)

Fra

ctio

n of

tot

al f

loor

are

a in

sam

ple

1999

2000

2001

Number of facilities Total floor area

Computer room power density

Million square feet W/square foot1999 35 1.55 22.92000 38 1.72 22.42001 48 1.86 25.3

Source: Uptime Institute, 2002.

Benchmarking

Both LBNL and Uptime Institute found average IT equipment loading at ~25 W/ft2

2828

Data Center Benchmarking

Data Centers

H V A C (as a % o f to ta l load)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

D ata C en ter Id en tifier

% o

f to

tal

loa

d

2929

Power Supplies in IT Equipment

30

131

32 32

72

41

86

27 32

020406080

100120140

AC

DC

Loss

es

DC

/DC

Loss

es

Fan

s

Driv

es

PC

I C

ards

Pro

cess

ors

Mem

ory

Chi

pset

Electric ity Use in a Server

Based on a typical dual processor 450W 2U Server; Approximately 160W out of 450W (35%) is losses in the power conversion process

(Source: Brian Griffith: INTEL)

Power Supplies

3030

Power Supplies in IT Equipment

Power Supplies

Recommended Power Supply Efficiency

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700PSU Watt Rating

31

– Developed loading guidelines and test protocol for testing AC/DC power supplies for 1U, 2U and pedestal servers.

– Calculation tool for evaluating impact of improving power conversion process efficiency at rack level.

– Coordination with Server System Infrastructure (SSI) members to adopt loading guidelines and recommend higher efficiency levels for server power supplies.

– Evaluate “real life” server PS loading level and processor usage activity for servers.

31

Power Supply Efficiency

Power Supplies

500W 1U Server Power Supply Efficiency Data

0

20

40

60

80

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% LoadingE

ffic

ien

cy (

%)

Typical Loading

Range for Server PSU

3232

Power Supply EfficiencyPower Supplies

AC Power Input Versus Percent CPU Time

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Wat

ts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

% C

PU

Tim

e

WattsProc Time %

Dell Power Edge 2400 (Web/SQL Server)

Very Low Processor Activity…

…does not relate to very

low power consumption

Most of the time the GHz processor is doing activities that can be done by a MHz processor but the input

power consumption is not changing much

3333

UPS System Benchmarking

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Load Factor (%)

Eff

icie

nc

y (

%)

UPS Systems

34

UPS Measured Performance

34

32%

89%

64%

91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Median 90thPercentile

Field UPS Loading (%)Field UPS Efficiency (%)

Sample of 12 field measurements.

UPS Systems

3535

UPS Systems

Efficiency vs Load with High Efficiency Mode(HE) on and off

60646872768084889296

100

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Full Load

Eff

icie

ncy

(%)

Non Linear Load High Efficiency Mode Non Linear Load Double Conversion Mode

Measuring UPS efficiency to show impact of “high efficiency” option.

Measured Result

Manufacturer Spec

On average, existing high efficiency modes can make a 4 to 5 % difference in UPS efficiency.

3636

UPS Systems

High Efficiency Mode 30% sag 10 cycle

-400-300-200-100

0100200300400

0 50 100 150 200

Time (ms)

Vo

lts

Input Voltage Output Voltage

Double Conversion Mode 30% sag 30 cycle

-400-300-200-100

0100200300400

0 50 100 150 200

Time (ms)

Vo

lts

Input Voltage Output Voltage

In “high efficiency” mode, there can be one cycle

(16.6 msec for 60 Hz) of voltage deviation on the output of the UPS. Power supplies downstream of the UPS can ride

through this.

Analyzing UPS performance in “high efficiency” option.

37

Efficiency and Reliability– Data collection protocol.– Technical review of efficiency versus

load (based on specification) for current generation static and inertial UPS.

– Simplified calculation tools for comparing AC powering versus DC powering and evaluation of cost savings for higher efficiency UPS.

– Testing of UPS to show impact of “high efficiency” option on static UPS

– Coordinating with International labeling effort for quality & efficiency.

37

Labeling

UPS Systems

Possible UPS Efficiency Labeling Criteria

38

• Scoping demonstrations of technologies or strategies to improve energy efficiency in hightech buildings

• Showcase New/Emerging or Under-utilized Technologies or Approaches

38

LBNL’s role

Demonstrations

3939

Possible Demonstrations

Demonstrations

• Follow-on from current research tasks:

– Demand controlled filtration

– Minienvironment efficiency improvement

– Fan-filter test procedure

• Fume hood demonstrations currently are proceeding

4040

Demonstrations

• Additional potential demonstrations for Cleanroom/Lab/Data Centers:

– Airflow visualization via helium bubbles

– Combined Heat and Power

– UPS efficiency improvement

• Energy efficient vacuum pumps

41

LBNL portal

Technology Transfer

Website:http://hightech.lbl.gov

42

Thank you

Questions?

9-16-04

1 page 1 bill tschudi [email protected] sponsored by: public interest energy research (pier)...

Documents