energy saving of cleanrooms in electronic industries
DESCRIPTION
Energy Saving of Cleanrooms in Electronic Industries. Xu Han Tianjin University, China 2013 .01.11. Outline. Characteristics of cleanrooms Energy consumption of cleanrooms Identification of energy saving opportunities Commissioning. Characteristics . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Energy Saving of Cleanrooms in Electronic Industries
1
Xu HanTianjin University, China
2013.01.11
Outline
• Characteristics of cleanrooms• Energy consumption of cleanrooms• Identification of energy saving opportunities• Commissioning
Characteristics
Parameters Ranges
Sensible internal heat loads
commonly high to 2152 W/m2 while typically 602-807 W/m2
Fresh air requirements to
replace process exhaust
51 L/s• m2 for some while typical industry averages 10.2-15.3 L/s•m2
Average air velocity typically 0.20 m/s to 0.51 m/s while 0.35-0.41 m/s most common
Temperature ±0.11°C to ±0.28°C
Relative humidity ±1% RH to ±2.5% RH
• Design or control ranges of key parameters for semiconductor cleanrooms
Source: ISO 14644, R Schrecengost, 2004
Characteristics • Recommended air change rate
Source: [1] R Jaisinghani et al., 2003 [2] IEST RP-12.1 [3] ISO 14644 [4] GB 50073
Note:– Unidirectional airflow type is
recommended for ISO Class 1-5, and non-unidirectional for ISO Class 6-8;
– Average airflow velocity is specified for unidirectional airflow type and air changes per hour for non-unidirectional airflow type.
– The average airflow velocity is transformed to air changes per hour related to a room height of 3.0 meter.
STANDARD\ISO CLASS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8IEST RP12.12 Maximum 600 600 540 540 480 240 90 48
Minimum 360 360 360 300 240 150 60 5ISO 146443 Maximum - 600 600 600 600 160 70 20
Minimum - 360 360 360 240 70 30 10GB 500734 Maximum 600 600 600 600 600 60 25 15
Minimum 360 360 360 360 240 50 15 10
ISO cleanliness class
Air c
hang
e ra
te (1
/hr)
Empirical value1
Wide rangeVariation between standards
Outline• Characteristics of cleanrooms• Energy consumption of cleanrooms
Comparison among different countries/regionsComparison among different cleanliness levelEnergy end use allocation
• Identification of energy saving opportunities• Commissioning
Source: E Mills et. al,LBNL-39061 Report, 1996
Energy consumption
The power uses were estimated based on typical cleanrooms in CA, USA, by LBNL in 1993;
• Power use of different clean classifications
Cleanrooms of higher cleanliness level consume much more energy than its lower level especially when the cleanliness level is 100 or 1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 2 3 4 5
Air C
hang
e ra
te [1
/hr]
Elec
trici
ty In
tens
ity [k
Wh/
m2 ·
yr]
Cleanroom Classification
Electricity intensityAir change rate
1 and 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000
+28.9%
+90.2%
+94.9%
+24.3%
Note:• Airflow velocity updates are taken from Chapter 7 (Class 1&10 to 90 fpm, Class 100 to 70 fpm,
Class 1,000 to 30 fpm, Class 10,000 to 10 fpm, and Class 100,000 to 5 fpm) Cleanrooms - 1992-2000, Rooms and Components Vol. Three.
• Outside air estimates for cleanroom make-up air (5 cfm/sq.ft. for both heating and cooling): Brown, W.K., PE. “Makeup Air Systems Energy-Saving Opportunities.” ASHRAE Transactions V. 96, 1990.
Energy consumption
[1] Power consumption range of 12 fabs in the USA, from LBNL report , 1999[2] Power consumption range in Japan, from Japan Mechanical Association, 1990[3] Power consumption average value of 9 fabs in Taiwan, from SC Hu et al., 2003[4] Power consumption range of 8” fabs in the USA and China, GM Lu and R Wang,2012
High power use in Taiwan and China;
Fabs in US decrease power use by about 27% within last ten years;
Fabs in China consume 15% more than that in US;
• Power use in different countries/regions
2.18
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
1 2 3 4 5
Pow
er co
nsum
ption
[kW
/m2 ]
Different countries/regions
Range
Average
USA19991 Japan1990
2 Taiwan20033 USA2012
4 China20124
Energy end use in cleanrooms
Figure 1 Fab energy flow
Process Tools39%
Recir and Makeup Fans
17%
Chillers and Pumps
21%Exhaust Fans
6%
Source: R Schrecengost, P Naughton, 2004
Energy end use allocation
Figure 2 Power consumption allocation of a fab in China2
Figure 1 Average power consumption allocation of 9 fabs in Taiwan1
Source: [1] SC Hu, 2003 [2] PX Chen, 2003
Chiller
Water treatment
Air condition
Lighting ProcessCompressed air
HVAC sector: 39.9%
HVAC sector: 53.0%
Taiwan
China
Energy end use allocation
Source: Report of LBNL HIGH TECH BUILDINGS PROGRAM,2001
v
HVAC sector: 58.0%
HVAC sector: 64.0%
HVAC sector: 36.0%
CA, USA
Energy end use allocation
Source: LBNL benchmark project, 2001
Figure 1 Average electricity consumption in 12 example semiconductor fabs
HVAC sector: 46.0%
USA
Energy end use• Observations: The HVAC systems account for 40-50% of power consumed in the fabs, while
the process tools account for 35-40%; Among HVAC system, chillers consume 20-35% of the total power used, and
fans consume 10-26% of total power used; HVAC efficiency influenced by:
Airflow system:• Air change rate;• Airflow system efficiency;
Water system:• Chiller plant efficiency;
Operation and Control;• Temperature and relative humidity control;
Outline• Characteristics of cleanrooms• Energy consumption of cleanrooms• Identification of energy saving opportunities
Airflow system:– Air change rate;– Airflow system efficiency;
Water system:– Chiller plant efficiency;
Operation and Control;– Temperature and relative humidity control;
• Commissioning
Figure 1: Measured air change rates for ISO 5 (Class 100)cleanrooms.1
ISO 5 facility could be operated with an air change rate of approximately 200 air changes per hour and still provide the cleanliness classification required
Source: [1] LBNL Cleanroom Benchmarking Study
Air change rate
Air change rate
Source: [1] LBNL Cleanroom Benchmarking Study
Figure 1 Autual recirculation air change rates for ISO 5/4 cleanrooms.1
Two cleanrooms of ISO Class-4 exceeded the upper limit recommended by IEST, Energy saving opportunities might well exist in the meanwhile
Air change rate • Observations: Air change rates vary significantly among different cleanrooms having the same
cleanliness classification; The ACR needed depends largely on the mount of contamination, which is not
necessarily well understood at design; thus the cleanroom may be designed/operating with more ACR than needed;
Air change rate can be optimized by: Use mini-environment to reduce area of clean zone; Measure actual ACR and compare with benchmark and Standard; Use CFD to model air flows, effects of convention from heat sources to identify
minimum downward velocity needed to overcome heat convection, movement of people;
Use distributed particle counters to monitor cleanroom conditions in the real time;
Demand controlled filtration, Automatic set-back, and Occupancy sensors were demonstrated
Airflow efficiency• Air flow efficiency was analyzed separately for the
recirculation units (RCU), make-up air units (MAU) Wide variation in air system performance Similar average results with International Sematech study
Cleanroom ID Cleanroom ID
Airfl
ow e
ffici
ency
(W/c
fm)
Airfl
ow e
ffici
ency
(W/c
fm)
Figure 1 MAU airflow efficiency Figure 2 RCU airflow efficiency
Average 0.51 from International Sematech study
Average 0.49
Average 1.06 from International Sematech study
Average 0.91
Source: LBNL benchmark database and International Sematech study
Airflow efficiency• Relationship between recirculation system efficiency
(W/cfm) and ceiling filter exit velocity
Source: LBNL benchmark database
Airflow efficiency• Relationship between recirculation system efficiency
(W/cfm) and filter coverage
Source: LBNL benchmark database
AverageFFU:0.63
Ducted HPEA:0.58Pressurized plenum:0.43
Airflow efficiency• Relationship between recirculation system efficiency
(W/cfm) and filter pressure drop
Source: LBNL benchmark database
Airflow efficiency• Observations: Benchmarking results showed wide variation in air system
performance; No necessarily strong correlation between airflow efficiency and
ceiling filter exit air velocity/ceiling filter coverage; Filter pressure drop shows more critical influence on airflow
efficiency, which varies with type of airflow system; Airflow efficiency influenced by:
System pressure drop;Fan and motor efficiency;Filter design;Other system design characteristics.
Water system efficiency• Chilled water system comparison
Source: LBNL benchmark database
Chi
ller p
lant
effi
cien
cy (k
W/T
on)
Facility ID
Water system efficiency• Observations: The Chilled water system efficiency varied, and was similar between water
cooled and air cooled systems, but the water system generated chilled water with lower temperature;
The Chilled water system generating 36 chilled water consumed 2.67 times ℉energy than that generating 43 to generated one ton chilled water; ℉
Water system efficiency can be improved by: Temperature reset may provide substantial savings opportunities; For
centrifugal-compressor-based chillers, a 1 change in chilled-water-℉supply temperature can increase efficiency by 1-2%.
Medium-temperature (55-70 )chilled water, which potential for “free ℉cooling”;
Optimizing Exhaust; VSD technologies;
Operation and Control• Temperature and relative humidity control
Figure 1 Design and Measured Space Relative Humidity Cleanroom ID
RH (
%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 3 10 11 12 13 14 18 23 17 24
22.2
21.1
20.0
18.9
17.8
16.7
15.6
Figure 2 Design and Measured Space TemperatureCleanroom ID
Tem
pera
ture
()
℃ 3 10 11 12 13 14 18 23 17 24
Source: LBNL benchmark database
Temperatures and humidity were not as tightly controlled as specified
Operation and Control• Observations: Cleanroom reheat energy usage can be significant when the
required space temperature and relative humidity requirements are very stringent ;
The temperature and RH measured were not as tightly controlled as specified;
Owners were unaware of actual conditions; Processes may not need tight control? Commissioning and monitoring are important; Energy efficiency opportunities abound
Outline• Characteristics of cleanrooms• Energy consumption of cleanrooms• Identification of energy saving opportunities• Commissioning
Verification – Cleanroom performance – HEPA filters– Other parameters
Commissioning – HVAC air system– HVAC water system
Verification • Cleanroom performance: Space Particulate level Room Recovery Space Pressurization Space Temperature Space Humidity Lighting Noise
Verification • HEPA filters performance: Efficiency; Air leakage; Air flow; Air velocity,
Verification • Other parameters: Cleanroom enclosure– Enclosure Leak Testing to Verify no contamination entering
and air leakage is not excessive; Process equipment– Exhaust air flow
Commissioning• Verification of HVAC air system performance: Total supply air flow Total return air flow MAU operating data
Commissioning• Optimization of HVAC air system : Optimizing Air-Change Rates– Actual measurement or CFD technology;– A 30% reduction in air-change rate may reduce power consumption by
66%1, and also improve cleanliness by minimizing turbulence Optimizing make-up air unit and exhaust– Makeup air requirements vary correspondingly, with an added amount for
leakage and pressurization; – Heat recovery in process exhaust/condensation;– Optimizing operating and control strategies.
[1] Source: a report of Industrial Energy Efficiency Workshop, 2007
Commissioning• Verification of HVAC water system performance: Design scheme and control strategies of chillers; History operation data Chiller-water-supply temperature; Operating parameters;
Commissioning• Optimization of HVAC water system : Feasibility study of optimization of operation and control strategy
of chillers– through history operation data or simulation to avoid long term part-load
operation of chillers with low energy efficiency; Feasibility study of application of variable frequency technology,
dual-temperature, cooling tower, free cooling, heat recovery;– For example, In a pilot project for a multiple-cleanroom-building campus, the
implementation of a dual-temperature chilled-water system was analyzed. The site had 2,370 tons of makeup-air cooling and 1,530 tons of sensible and process cooling. With 42-F (5.7C) water for low-temperature use and 55-F (12.8C) water for medium-temperature use, approximately $1 million was saved per year, with a payback of two years1.
[1] Source: a report of Industrial Energy Efficiency Workshop, 2007
Thank you!