1604 TRP PDF

INVITATION TO SUBMIT A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON AN ASHRAE RESEARCH PROJECT-
1604-TRP
Attached is a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) for a project dealing with a subject in which you, or your institution
have expressed interest. Should you decide not to submit a proposal, please circulate it to any colleague who
might have interest in this subject.
1604-TRP, Demand Based Flow Control For Cleanrooms
Sponsoring Technical Committee: TC 9.11 Clean Spaces
Budget Range: $175,000 may be more or less as determined by value of proposal and competing proposals.
Scheduled Project Start Date: September 1, 2011 or later.
All proposals (hardcopy or electronic format) must be received at ASHRAE Headquarters by 5 p.m. EDT, May
15, 2011. Electronic copies must be sent to rpbids@ashrae.org.
If you have questions concerning the Project, we suggest you contact one of the individuals listed below:
For Technical Matters For Administrative or Procedural Matters:

M. Gordon P. Sharp Manager of Research & Technical Services (MORTS)
39 Chapel St. Michael R. Vaughn
Newton, MA 02458 ASHRAE, Inc.
617-641-8821 1791 Tullie Circle, NE
gsharp@aircuity.com Atlanta, GA 30329
Phone: 404-636-8400
Fax: 678-539-2111
E-Mail: mvaughn@ashrae.org
Contractors intending to submit a proposal should so notify, by mail, fax or e-mail, the Manager of
Research and Technical Services, (MORTS) by May 3, 2011 in order that any late or additional
information on the RFP may be furnished to them prior to the bid due date.
Proposals may now be submitted electronically. All other correspondence must be sent to
Electronic submissions require a PDF file ddaniel@ashrae.org or mvaughn@ashrae.org.
containing the complete proposal preceded by Hardcopy submissions require 1-signed original in
signed copies of the two forms listed below in the the same order. In all cases, the proposal must
order listed below. ONLY electronic proposals be in the hands of the ASHRAE MORTS by 5
are to be sent to rpbids@ashrae.org. p.m. EDT, May 15, 2011.
The following forms must accompany the proposal:
(1) ASHRAE Application for Grant of Funds (signed)

(2) Additional Information for Contractors (signed)
ASHRAE reserves the right to reject any or all bids.

1604-TRP, Demand Based Flow Control For Cleanrooms
State of the Art (Background)

The basic use of a cleanroom is the management of particles in the space to reduce the risk of the detrimental
impact of particles settling on or in the product. The acceptable level and size of particles is related to the
processes taking place in the cleanroom.
Unlike commercial spaces, energy-intensive cleanrooms often utilize high constant volume filtered airflows to
remove airborne particles with air change rates from 15 up to 600. Consequently, construction costs can
range from $300 to $1,200 per sq. ft., and operating energy usage can range between 159 kw-h/sq.ft. to 945
kw/sq.ft[1] for cooling and fan energy. For California this is 10 to 50 times the total energy consumption of
commercial spaces of the same size.
In the world, there are more than 120,000[11] cleanrooms totalling more than 800,000,000 sq.ft. of which
25% are located in the United States.
Very little research has been done on dynamic control of airflow to control particles in cleanrooms - matching
airflow to the desired contamination limits{5,8]. The high energy use and resulting cost for typical systems
today and concern over availability of electricity suggests that the ventilation rate should be adjusted in order
to achieve the desired cleanliness yet minimizing excess airflow.
Up till now, this technology was not applied, as real time particle measurement systems did not have both
sufficient precision, reliability, and cost effectiveness, and controls did not have adequate reaction time. Also
owners and operators of industrial cleanrooms have been hesitant to make changes to the air exchange rates
in cleanrooms due to misconceptions that varying flow rates through cleanroom filters will disrupt the flow
and cause particle counts to increase.
Recently, new technology and systems have become available which can be used for this application cost
effectively. This research will investigate the use of real time particle counts to control ventilation rates using
particle counters or particle measurement systems to directly control recirculation fan speeds.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has benchmarked energy use in cleanrooms and has demonstrated the
concept of demand control ventilation [5,8]. This demonstration showed the feasibility of the technology but
many parameters have to be defined in order to apply this technology to the various applications of
cleanrooms and to enable it to be widely applied.
Justification and Value to ASHRAE

This research relates to goal n1 of the strategic plan 2010-2015 ''Maximize the Actual Operational Energy
Performance of Buildings and Facilities''. And goal n7 ''Support development of tools, procedures and
methods suitable for designing low energy buildings''.
Reducing energy consumption in industries and institutions that rely on cleanrooms will help to meet the
ASHRAE mission to attain sustainability and reduce CO2 emissions. As stated earlier, compared to
commercial buildings, the opportunity for energy savings in cleanrooms is an order of magnitude greater.
ASHRAE should play a leadership role in optimizing the HVAC systems in cleanrooms, and in fact the industry
is looking for specific guidance in this area.
For example in a recent article in the June 2010 edition of Controlled Environments Magazine [9] a GE
healthcare facility with a large cleanroom employed a simple form of demand based flow control to reduce
energy consumption. However, the system reduced flow from previously used levels by only 18%. This
reduced energy consumption, but the facility engineers were hoping for greater savings, but were helped
back by a lack of documented industry results:
When modeling the HVAC design and energy savings features, the design team faced two
insurmountable challenges ...
Second, at the time of submission, there was no currently accepted supporting standard or other
backup for substantiating a Cleanroom Airflow Reduction model for this type of bay-chase, large
production cleanroom. The project submitted a model showing 27% cost savings, but was credited
with only a 17.5% cost savings. ..
The baseline was modeled at 55 cfm/sf airflow. It has been the design team's experience that an
airflow reduction to 45 cfm/sf will maintain ISO Class 5 and remove a significant amount of process
equipment heat. However, since no study or standard exists to substantiate the airflow reduction
assumptions, only a portion of the submitted points were awarded. The clean-manufacturing
industry continues to evolve. Like most industries, clean manufacturing is incorporating more
environmentally conscious practices into their operations. The design team expects that cleanroom
airflow reduction will be examined closely in the near future because it is "low hanging fruit." The
design team also anticipates the publication of formal studies providing direction to operators and
designers.
Demand control is already in use in many applications such as variable air volume systems to control room
temperature, variable water flow to control a coils capacity, and demand control ventilation to decrease air
flow to spaces when there is no demand such as during low occupancy. Additionally, demand based control
has been widely applied to research laboratory spaces to vary lab room air change rates based on both
particulate and chemical containment levels in a very similar control approach to what is proposed here, but
in a lab environment, not a clean room. A recent article in the February 2010 ASHRAE Journal, Demand
Based Control of Lab Air Change Rates [10], presents the results of a large study evaluating the results of
applying this approach to labs and vivariums.
The technology now exists to control cleanroom airflows (precise particle counters, variable frequency
drives, controls, etc.), yet it is not in widespread use because of a lack of understanding of air change rates
and the resulting cleanliness levels in cleanroom environments. Many cleanrooms already have variable
speed fans but are only varying fan speed to account for filter loading keeping the air change rate constant.
Adapting these systems to control based on particle counts would be relatively straightforward.
It is obvious that controlling air flow rates in a cleanroom based on real particle counts in the room is a viable
technology that should be studied.
Objective
Establish a scientific approach to implement demand based flow control of the filtered supply airflow
rate for cleanrooms for the two cleanroom classes (ISO, 7 and 8, (10 000 and 100 000) that have the
broadest application. For example, these two classes comprise 85 to 90% of pharmaceutical class rooms.
Based on the results of this research, a future project could well research applying this approach to other
more stringent classes.
Determine 3 particle generation rates that would be typical of the particle generation created by the
different factors affecting contamination levels (e.g. personnel, production processes, etc.) for use in
challenging and testing the demand based flow control approach.
Using simple models estimate expected minimum achievable air change rates based on different
particle generation rates to maintain the tested cleanroom classes.
Determine and experimentally validate a methodology or simple formula for the number or density of
sample locations that is recommended for demand based flow control based on just the size of the space
or potentially including other factors such as cleanroom class or potential peak particle generation rates.
Determine clean room recovery times using demand based flow control for different levels of particle
generation rate events and system reaction times. The impact of using air sampling systems and their
slower reaction times on system recovery times should be implemented or simulated as part of these
tests.
Quantify and compare the energy consumption at a fixed airflow rate and using demand based flow-
control ventilation to achieve the same air cleanliness class requirement using different particle
generation rates and different lengths of the periods of generation vs. non-generation.
Evaluate risks and limitations of the technology
Scope
Task n1 - Literature review
Review all the pertinent literature related to demand based flow control with a resume of the potential
savings and risk factors.
Task n2 Laboratory tests

Select a cleanroom test suite which can be used to perform testing at two different cleanliness classes
that contains at least two different size rooms where the HEPA-filtered supply airflow rates can be widely
varied, particle counts measured in at least two channel sizes (at 0.3m and 0.5m), and where supply
fan energy and supply air flow can also be measured (confirm that a variable frequency drive is in place).
It is also important since multiple rooms will typically be on one fan that each room to be studied have
independent VAV flow tracking controls on the supply and exhaust/return of the room using VAV valves
or accurate VAV boxes and controls.
Establish a recommended number of real time sensing/sampling points and their locations such as in the
room, on the wall and or in the return/exhaust duct or grills through experimentation in addition to
using a more extensive grid of typical validation measurement locations where measurements can be
done with a portable particle counter to periodically validate the results of the real time measurement
locations. The minimum number of typical validation measurement locations used for a given test room
should be determined based on each rooms size per ISO 14644 standard. Additionally, the
exhaust/return air flow particle levels should also be checked.
Experiment with using particle counters and or sampling based particle measurement systems to directly
control fan speeds where one fan connects to just one room, or else more likely to control room supply
and return/exhaust flow with fan speed being controlled from static pressure . This may involve
resolving interfaces with building control systems.
Challenge the recommended demand based flow control concept with its recommended sampled
locations including a return/exhaust duct location sensing/sampling approach with three different
particles generation rates at one room location applied in a step function manner for a given middle
reaction time for three different minimum air change rate setpoints for a total of 18 tests. Determine the
recovery time and plot the contamination clearing response for the above challenges Additionally using
both the room and duct location sensing/sampling location approaches perform additional testing using
the middle particle generation rate with the given middle reaction time at the middle minimum air
change rate setpoint at three different particle generator locations for a total of 6 additional tests.
Perform 3 additional tests for either the room or duct locations, using three different reaction times.
Perform 6 additional tests with the second different sized test room for both room and duct location
sensing/sampling approaches with the particle generator at three different locations. Perform at least
five additional tests to be based on areas of interest for these parameters or in conjunction with other
promising parameters of interest to be determined.
Test matrix below is the minimum scope for rooms 1 and 2 plus five additional tests to be determined.
The total number of tests outlined below is 38.
Test Simulated Total

Particle Particle Minimum Particle
Room System number
Generation Generator ACH Rate Concentration
Reaction of tests
Levels locations Setpoint Sampling
Time
1 Three One Three 9
One Room location
different reaction different
location approach
levels time setpoints
1 Three One One Three Duct location 9
different Location reaction different approach
levels time setpoints
1 One 3
Three One Room location
One Level reaction
locations setpoint approach
time
1 One 3
Three One Duct location
One Level reaction
time
1 Three 3
One different One Either location
One Level
Location reaction setpoint approach
times
2 One 3
Three One Room location
One Level reaction
time
2 One 3
Three One Duct location
One Level reaction
time
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 5
Use a simplified model to estimate the minimum achievable air change rates based on the different
typical particle generation rates to maintain the tested cleanroom classes
Compare the energy consumptions at the fixed and demand-controlled ventilation in achieving the same
air cleanliness class requirement based on different particle generation rates and durations. Quantify
these energy savings related to the achieved air flow rate reduction.
Task n3 Field measurement
3A. During normal day operation

Select at least one site to cover at least two certified rooms, one for each of the 2 cleanroom class levels
where the ventilation rates can be varied and measured, and where ventilation energy can also be
monitored.
Install equipment and controls to implement demand based flow control in these two rooms with real
time monitoring with the recommended number of sensed ares in the recommended in-room locations
including a recomended sensing/sampling approach using the return/exhausts for each room. A
sampled system that takes air samples and makes measurements on a sequential, periodic basis is
recommended for control purposes and to provide better correlation between readings. Alternatively,
individual particle counters at each location can be employed.
Use a manual validation approach with a separate (non manifolded) multiple channel single particle
counter to check the operation of the demand control filtration approach at the fixed validation locations.
This particle counter should also be operating during the tests to provide a real time validation output at
one location independent of the control system outputs. Particle counting/sensing equipment in use
should be calibrated within 6 months.
For the three different particles generation conditions, establish the recovery time with the different
reaction times of the air flow rates. Take into consideration the presence and number of people. Also the
impact of the sampling time or the frequency of particle measurement should be evaluated since greater
economy at least in manifolded or multiplexed systems can be achieved if the samples are taken
periodically particularly for these less critical clean room classes, (ISO 7, & 8). The impact of sampling at
3 or 4 different rates in the range of 3 to 15 minutes is recommended to be evaluated at one release rate
for each of the two different class levels.
3B. During off-production period
Establish the minimum flow rate while under dynamic control to maintain the room classification,
measure the particle counts and particle settling times.
Sequence the flow between the previously established minimum flow rate and a selected full flow
occupied rate to look for any particle spikes or disturbances caused by the change in flow up or down.
3C. Field validation of laboratory findings

Compare the predicted air change rates based on the simplified model with the actual air change rates in
achieving the same air cleanliness classes to test if the simplified model can be used as the basis for
determining the minimum setpoint for room air change rates.
Compare the laboratory energy saving results with the actual field generated energy saving through
demand based flow controlled ventilation.
Task n4 Establish guidelines/recommendations

Based on the literature review, laboratory tests and field measurement develop
guidelines/recommendations for the implementation of demand based flow control for cleanrooms and
the associated energy saving potential.
Deliverables:
Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Research or Technical Paper(s), and Data shall constitute the deliverables
(Deliverables) under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a. Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the Society through its
Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals; specifically on or before each January
1, April 1, June 10, and October 1 of the contract period.
Furthermore, the Institutions Principal Investigator, subject to the Societys approval, shall, during the
period of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in person to the
sponsoring Technical Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and winter meetings, and be
available to answer such questions regarding the research as may arise.
b. Interim Reports
Interim reports at the end of each indicated task (Task 1 through Task 4), as intermediate deliverables,
shall be submitted to the PMS for review and approval to ensure the progress can be tracked easily and
feedback from PMS can be timely addressed or incorporated.
c. Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, Final Report), in a form approved by the Society,
shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Societys Manager of Research and Technical
Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete details of all research carried out under
this Agreement, including a summary of the control strategy and savings guidelines. Unless otherwise
specified, the final draft report shall be furnished, either electronically or hardcopy format (6 copies) for
review by the Societys Project Monitoring Subcommittee (PMS).
Tabulated values for all measurements shall be provided as an appendix to the final report (for
measurements which are adjusted by correction factors, also tabulate the corrected results and clearly
show the method used for correction).
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the Final Report will
be furnished by the Institution as follows:
-An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the public.
- One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction.
- One bound copy
-Two copies on CD-ROM disks; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word.
d. HVAC&R Research or ASHRAE Transactions Technical Papers
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services (MORTS) and then to the ASHRAE Manuscript Central website-based manuscript review
system in a form and containing such information as designated by the Society suitable for
publication. Papers specified as deliverables should be submitted as either Research Papers for
HVAC&R Research or Technical Paper(s) for ASHRAE Transactions. Research papers contain
generalized results of long-term archival value, whereas technical papers are appropriate for applied
research of shorter-term value, ASHRAE Conference papers are not acceptable as deliverables from
ASHRAE research projects.. The paper(s) shall conform to the instructions posted in Manuscript
Central for an ASHRAE Transactions Technical or HVAC&R Research papers. The paper title shall
contain the research project number (1604-RP) at the end of the title in parentheses, e.g., (1604-RP).
All papers or articles prepared in connection with an ASHRAE research project, which are being
submitted for inclusion in any ASHRAE publication, shall be submitted through the Manager of
Research and Technical Services first and not to the publication's editor or Program Committee.
e. Data
Data is defined in General Condition VI, DATA
f. Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totaling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad technical
audience, which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings are significant, and
3. How the findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in general shall be submitted to the
Manager of Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term for publication in
ASHRAE Insights
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in the Societys
ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a Deliverable. Technical articles shall
be prepared using dual units; e.g., rational inch-pound with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI
usage shall be in accordance with IEEE/ASTM Standard SI-10.
Level of Effort
The entire project is anticipated to be completed within 24 calendar-months from the initiation of work. The
estimated level of the combined effort of principal investigator and co-investigator(s) is at 10-manmonths.
The total cost is anticipated approximately at $175,000.
Other Information for Bidders
1. Two types of particle counters or particle counting systems are recommended for this project. For
validation and monitoring, but not control purposes one particle counter appropriate for validating at
least ISO class 6 cleanrooms should be used to sample airborne particles at 60 seconds or less per
reading. A later model counter is recommended that can show 6 channels to match 6-channel ISO
standards (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 & 5.0 um). For control purposes a more economic choice for particle
counting can be used that has one or two channels with at least 0.3 um capability that will be used as a
proxy for controlling clean room cleanliness. Multiple lower cost counters could be employed
simultaneously for control at the different room locations or else a recommended approach is to use a
manifolded or multiplexed sampling based particle counting system that uses one particle counter to
measure multiple locations sequentially. These particle counters or the manifolded particle counting
system needs to be able to provide either an analog output for control or a digital integration through a
protocol such as BACNet.
2. Cleanrooms or clean labs to be used for the research shall be certified for its available classes. Temporary,
low cost cleanroom or soft curtain will not be accepted for research. The desired site could be a
cleanroom suite consisting of multiple rooms with differential classes to ensure that flow ranges can
cover entire spectrum (wide flow ranges).
3. Research team members should have prior cleanroom design, testing, certification, consulting and/or
research, control experience and a good understanding of ISO standards , the testing personnel should
have at least one member as certified cleanroom technician or engineer.
4. Unlike temperature or humidity measurement, particle counting is not a simultaneous, but a cumulated
reading (counters can be set to either cumulative mode or differential mode) based on sampling speed
selected. The analog signal or digital integration should be processed in a controller or by a lab room and
or building control system with proper control algorithms developed and utilized to control both overall
fan speed based on static pressure or flow and most likely also room air flows through tracking VAV
boxes or valves.
5. Room particle concentration varies significantly when equipment operation (on/off), processing,
personnel traffic, especially door opening are taking in place. The control strategies and logic should be
smart enough to prevent over-shoot, or hunting when a portion of a room is impacted by one or more of
these challenges.
6. As most cleanrooms are under stringent pressure control to pre-defined specifications to prevent particle
migration from adjacent dirtier areas, when supply air flow rate changes, proper room pressure should
be maintained by modulating return flow rate too (flow tracking), so control strategy should include
return and/or exhaust flow controls.
7. Cleanroom testing has unique and stringent protocols and manual validation testing shall strictly meet
the ISO testing standards. The research team, especially the Principal Investigator, needs to have
extensive cleanroom research, design or testing experience at the class levels of interest (ISO 7, & 8), a
combination of these experiences is more desirable. Bidder's previous research background in cleanroom
field is strongly encouraged to be listed in his/her resume/bio of the proposal.
8. The experimental plan including basic diagrams, instrumentation setup and testing procedures should be
submitted to the Project Monitoring Sub-Committee (PMS) for review and approval prior to any formal
experiment.
Review comments from PMS, if any, need to be addressed and/or incorporated into the experiment by the
investigators.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria

All proposals will be technically evaluated based on the following criteria and weighting factors:
Evaluation Criteria Weighting Factors

Contractor's understanding of Work Statement as revealed in proposal 10%
Quality of methodology proposed for conducting research 20%
Contractor's capability in terms of facilities 20%
Qualifications of personnel for this project 20%
Student involvement 1%
Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the Work 25%
Statement
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE projects or other energy projects (No
4%
penalty for new contractors)
References
[1] Xu, Tengfang, Tschudi, W. 2001, Energy Performance of Cleanroom Environmental Systems
[2] Tschudi, W., Benshine, K., Rumsey, P. 2001, Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking in High Tech and Biotech
Industries
[3] ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 16, Clean Spaces
[4] ISO Standard 14644 - Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments, Part 4, Design, Construction
and Start-up.
[5] Faulkner, D.; Fisk, W.J., and Walton, J.T. (1996) Energy Savings in Cleanrooms from Demand-Controlled
Filtration, Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences 39(2): 21-27. LBNL-38869
[6] ISO Standard 14644 Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments.
[7] IEST Recommended Practices (RP-CC012.1) Considerations in Cleanrooms Design
[8] Faulkner, D., D. DiBartolomeo, D. Wang, 2008, Demand Controlled Filtration in an Industrial
Cleanroom, LBNL-63420, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley,
CA 94720.
[9] Bilodeau, R.A. 2010 Winning the Gold, Successful Cleanroom Design Strategies in Todays LEED
World Controlled Environments Magazine June 2010.
[10] Sharp, G.P. 2010 Demand-Based Control of Lab air Change Rates ASHRAE Journal 52(2):30-41
[11] McIlvaine, R. 2008, Where are the cleanroom. Cleanrooms Magazine, vol. 22, September 2008.
ASHRAE
Technology for a Better Environment
1791 Tullie Circle, NE Atlanta, GA 30329-2305 USA Tel 404.636.8400, Ext. 1211 Fax 678.539.2211
http://www.ashrae.org
Michael Vaughn, PE
Manager of Research & Technical Services email: mvaughn@ashrae.org
TO: Roland Charneux, Chair TC 9.11, rcharneux@pageaumorel.com
FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, mvaughn@ashrae.org
CC: Kishor K Khankari, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 9.11, kkhankari@syska.com

Carl Huber, Research Liaison Section 9.0, carl_huber@waterfurnace.com
Work Statement Authors: Roland Charneux, Gordon Sharp, David Faulkner, Bill Tschudi, Wei
Sun; WFTschudi@lbl.gov, wsun@engsysco.com;
DATE: October 15, 2010
SUBJECT: Work Statement 1604-WS, Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
At their fall meeting, the Research Administration Committee (RAC) reviewed the subject Work Statement (WS)
and voted to conditionally accept it for bid. The following list summarizes the mandatory comments and questions
that need to be fully addressed with the work statement:
1. Expand task descriptions as suggested in the WS evaluation sheet comments to the satisfaction of your RL
2. Clarify in the work statement what is meant by the term guidelines after reviewing the comments
provided in the WS evaluation sheet
A WS evaluation sheet is also attached as additional information and it provides a breakdown of comments and
questions from individual RAC members based on specific review criteria. This should give you an idea of how
your work statement is being interpreted and understood by others.
Please coordinate changes to this Work Statement with your Research Liaison, Carl Huber,
carl_huber@waterfurnace.com or RL9@ashrae.net. Once he is satisfied that the approval conditions have been met,
the project will be eligible to bid.
The first opportunity that you will have for this project to possibly bid is spring 2011. I should warn you, however,
that you will be competing with about 20 other projects already waiting to bid. To be eligible for this bid cycle, a
revised work statement that has been approved for bid by your research liaison should be sent (electronically) to
Mike Vaughn, Manager of Research and Technical Services, mvaughn@ashrae.org or morts@ashrae.net, by
February 15, 2011.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
Project ID 1604
Project Title Demand Controlled Filtration for Clean Rooms
Sponsoring TC TC 9.11, Clean Spaces
Cost / Duration $175,000 / 24 months
Submission History 1st submission as WS. RTAR conditionally approved 09.10. This was also 1st submission of RTAR.
Classification: Research or Technology Transfer Basic/Applied Research
TW 2010 Meeting Review WORK STATEMENT SUMMARY SCORE & COMMENTS - Version 1
Check List Criteria Voted NO Additional Comments & Suggestions
Adequate Intermediate Deliverables? The project should include the review of

intermediate results by the PMS at logical milestone points during the project. #8-The WS does contain adequate interim deliverables (under (b) of Deliverables). Better specification is needed as to what the contractor is supposed to do. #5 - Need intermediate deliverables
Before project work continues, the PMS must approve the intermediate results. #5 at the end of each task so the progress can be tracked easily.
Time and Cost Estimate Reasonable? The time duration and total cost of the
project should be reasonable so that the project can be as it is described in the #8-Looks reasonable, but the WS itself is not crafted properly. Also, how much do these particle counters cost?, what is their reliability?, how often do they need calibration?, how many
WS. manufacturers offer such devices?,
Detailed Bidders List Provided? The contact information in the bidder list should
be complete so that each potential bidder can be contacted without difficulty.
Proposed Project Doable? Can the project as described in the WS be

accomplished? If difficulties exist in the project's WS that prevent a successful
conclusion of the project, then the project is not doable. In this situation, major #8- The listing of tasks is very cursory. There should be a Task 2 which spells out in detail what type of facility will be used, proof that it can meet the required objectives, and spell out the
revision of the WS is needed to resolve the issues that cause the difficulty. #8 experimental plan. No experimental uncertainty is mentioned and yet this is critical to the risks involved (which is one of the objectives)
#8 -The objectives of the WS are somewhat unclear. The WS states that the objective is "the use of real time particle count to control ventilation rates using particle counters or particle
Proposed Project Description Correct? Are there technical errors and/or measurement systems to directly control recirculation fan speeds". It is not clear as to what is meant by "guidelines". Clearly there are numerous configurations of clean rooms, different types of
technical omissions that the WS has that prevents it from correctly describing the particle generation rates, different types of filtration systems,.. etc which will not allow generalized ACH-type of guidelines to be developed or recovery times to be determined. Each clean room
project? If there are, than the WS needs major revision. #8 may be unique. Is the guideline a calculation/design methodology as to how the fan will be controlled?
Task Breakdown Reasonable? Is the project divided into tasks that make #8 -See comments above. In addition, would the guideline specify "where" to place the particle counters in typical clean rooms and "how" to interpret the readings so as to provide useful input to
technical and practical sense? Are the results of each task such that the results of the AHU controller? #1 - The task 2 description could be expanded to include a test matrix that identifies the minimum testing requirements. The current description is a big vague and seems
the former naturally flow into the latter? If not, then major revisions are needed to incomplete in terms of meeting the overall objectives. Are recovery time and reaction time the only outputs of interest. I thought energy consumption and particle counts would be compared for
the WS that would include: adding tasks, removing tasks, and re-structuring tasks fixed and demand-controlled ventilation. The same comments apply to task 3. Isn't a goal to compare energy use and particle counts for the two strategies? I don't see that described. The task 4
among others. #8, #1 provides no description of what is really expected for guidelines. I think more description is needed.
Proposed Project Biddable? Examining the WS as a whole, is the project

described in the WS of sufficient clarity and detail such a potential bidder can
actually understand and develop a proposal for the project? This criterion
combines the previous three criteria into an overall question concerning the
usefulness of the WS. If the WS is considered to not be biddable, then either
major revisions are in order or the WS should be rejected. #8 #8 -The justification of the work is satisfactory, but the WS is not specific enough in terms of the outcomes.
Initial
Decision Options Decision? Final Decision & Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
CONDITIONAL ACCEPT 9-0-1 CNV

1. Expand task descriptions as suggested in the WS evaluation sheet comments to the satisfaction of your RL
ACCEPT
2. Clarify in the work statement what is meant by the term guidelines after reviewing the comments provided in the WS evaluation sheet
X HE - Good WS. PD - The WS has
COND. ACCEPT
not been reviewed by the Research Liaison. One comment from just glancing at the WS; the Executive Summary is much too long. The Deliverables section should explicitly include the new
RETURN requirement for an ASHRAE research journal or ASHRAE Transaction paper. SS - Since this is only the first submission, it's better to get the to TC address the intermediate deliverables and any
other comments RAC might have and we get to review it again and then approve it to go out for bids. RC - Although I am not familiar with this technology, everything looks OK to me. JB - The
REJECT task descriptions should be expanded as outlined above.
ACCEPT Vote - Work statement(WS) ready to bid as-is

CONDITIONAL ACCEPT Vote - Minor Revision Required - RL can approve WS for bid without going back to RAC once TC satisfies RAC's approval condition(s) to his/her satisfaction
RETURN Vote - WS requires major revision before it can bid
REJECT Vote - Topic is no longer considered acceptable for the ASHRAE Research Program due to duplication of work by another project or because the work statement has a fatal flaw(s) that makes it unbiddable
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET Date: August 12th 2010
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )

A. Title Title: Demand controlled filtration for cleanrooms
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE WS# 1604
H. Objective (To be assigned by MORTS Same as RTAR #)
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Project Duration in Months Special Publications, etc.:
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total HVAC Application chapters 7, 14, 16 and the cleanroom design guide
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC-9.11 Date of Vote:

TC/TG:
For 15 This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
Agains * 0
t
Abstaining * 1
Absent or not returning * 1
BallotVoting Members
Total 17 Has RTAR been submitted Yes 1604
? Strategic Plan Goals 1 and 7 of strategic plan 2010-2015
Work Statement Authors: ** Theme/Goals
Roland Charneux, Gordon Sharp, David Faulkner, Bill Tschudi, Wei Sun**
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee: Project Monitoring

Chair: Roland Charneux Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Members: Kishor Khankari
Gordon Sharp
Bill Tschudi
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): ** Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
**
John Swift, Jr., P.E. Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, P.C., 917-981-6000,
jswift@eypae.com
Dr. A.J. Heber, Purdue University, 765-494-1214, heber@purdue.edu
Dr. Mingsheng Liu, University of Nebraska, 402-554-2173, mliu@unl.edu
**Wei Sun, P.E., Engsysco Inc., 734-678-9718, weisun.engsysco@netzero.com
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)

Yes No How Long (weeks)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions

One voter abstained.
Explanation for abstention:
1) Concerns regarding possibility that the research was potentially a platform to advocate preconceived beliefs/ideas as indicated in this quote from the WS:
The objective of the present research is to dispel misconceptions about the impact of varying flow rates on cleanroom cleanliness as well as to establish
guidelines to help designers and cleanroom owners reduce the air change rate whenever possible without impacting their processes.
2) Concerns regarding extent to which proposed research is a repeat of work already performed by LBNL and others.
3) Concerns regarding lack of discussion in the WS regarding methods to verify that sampler placement accurately reflects actual realtime aerosol counts
within critical work zones as well as a desire for additional discussion (or intent to discuss in the research) on sampler selection, calibration & maintenance
requirements.
4) The above three concerns were greatly tempered by my recognition that my own professional experience has a limited, specific focus regarding cleanroom
design objectives and my respect for the authors broad and recognized expertise in cleanroom design engineering, thus I opted to abstain.
Include your Name and Affiliation.
Respectfully,
Kenneth R. Mead, PhD, PE | Senior Research Engineer
CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
phone: 513-841-4385 | email: kmead@cdc.gov
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.
WORK STATEMENT 1604
RESPONSIBLE TC/TG: 9.11 CLEAN SPACES
CO-RESPONSIBLE TC/TG: N/A
(AUGUST 5, 2010)
TITLE
Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The basic use of a cleanroom is the management of particles in the space to reduce the risk of
particles settling on or in the product. The acceptable quantity and size of particles is related to
the processes taking place in the cleanroom.
Unlike commercial spaces, energy-intensive cleanrooms often utilize high constant volume
filtered airflows to remove airborne particles with very high efficiency filters at air change rates
from 15 up to 600. Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per sq.ft.,
and operating energy usage can range between 159 kw-h/sq.ft. to 945 kw/sq.ft[1] for cooling
and fan energy. For California this is 10 to 50 times the total energy consumption of commercial
spaces of the same size.
Very little research has been done on dynamic control of airflow to control particles in
cleanrooms in order to maintain the desired contamination limits. The high energy use and
resulting cost for typical systems today, and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
the ventilation rate should be adjusted in order to achieve the desired cleanliness yet
minimizing excess airflow.
In the world, there are more than 120,000[11] cleanrooms totalling more than 800,000,000 sq.ft.
of which 25% are located in the United States.
Up till now, this technology was not applied, as real time particle measurement systems did not
have both sufficient precision, reliability, and cost effectiveness, and controls did not have
adequate reaction time. Also owners and operators of industrial cleanrooms have been
hesitant to make changes to the air exchange rates in cleanrooms due to misconceptions that
varying flow rates through cleanroom filters will disrupt the flow and cause particle counts to
increase.
Recently, new technologies and systems have become available which can be used for this
application cost effectively. This research will investigate the use of real time particle counts to
control ventilation rates using particle counters or particle measurement systems to directly
control recirculation fan speeds.
The objective of the present research is to dispel misconceptions about the impact of varying
flow rates on cleanroom cleanliness as well as to establish guidelines to help designers and
cleanroom owners reduce the air change rate whenever possible without impacting their
processes.
DEFINITIONS
Recovery time:
Time required to re-establish the particle count setpoint from an offset condition.
Reaction time:
Time for the whole system to react to a particle count offset to increase the air change rate
of the cleanroom to a defined setpoint level.
APPLICABILITY TO ASHRAE STRATEGIC PLAN
Based on the ASHRAE research strategic plan 2010-2015, this research will address the goal n1
''Maximize the actual operational energy performance of buildings and facilities'' and goal n7
''Support development of tools, procedures and methods suitable for designing low energy
buildings''.
APPLICATION OF RESULTS
Key results to be included in:

ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 16 - Clean Spaces
Future special publication - Cleanroom Design Guidelines (Manual)
Possible impact on other ASHRAE Handbook chapters and other organization:

ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 7 - Health Care Facilities
ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 14 - Laboratories
Future revisions of ISO Cleanroom Standards
STATE-OF-THE-ART (BACKGROUND)
the detrimental impact of particles settling on or in the product. The acceptable level and size
of particles is related to the processes taking place in the cleanroom.
filtered airflows to remove airborne particles with air change rates from 15 up to 600.
Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per sq. ft., and operating
energy usage can range between 159 kw-h/sq.ft. to 945 kw/sq.ft[1] for cooling and fan energy.
For California this is 10 to 50 times the total energy consumption of commercial spaces of the
same size.
cleanrooms - matching airflow to the desired contamination limits{5,8]. The high energy use and
resulting cost for typical systems today and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
increase.
Recently, new technology and systems have become available which can be used for this
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has benchmarked energy use in cleanrooms and has
demonstrated the concept of demand control ventilation [5,8]. This demonstration showed the
feasibility of the technology but many parameters have to be defined in order to apply this
technology to the various applications of cleanrooms and to enable it to be widely applied.
ADVANCEMENT TO THE STATE-OF-THE-ART
The effectiveness of a cleanroom is dependent on many factors:

Type of contaminants and their production rate
Air flow (air change rate) in the room
Design of air supply
Filter coverage
Filter efficiency
Location of air supply and return/and or exhaust
People and gowning protocols
Procedures in the room
Recovery times
Etc.
The air change rate is often based on the cleanliness level that one wants to obtain. Air change
rates have not been scientifically established for various cleanliness classes. They are typically
established based upon rules of thumb or prior operating experience where contamination
issues did not arise.
The value of products or services produced in cleanrooms is very high and the various industries
and institutions that utilize cleanrooms are reluctant to risk experimenting with airflows fearing
a loss of production even though this could save energy. Even reducing air change rates during
non production periods seems risky to the various cleanroom operators because they do not
have reliable data on contamination levels during those periods. Also, cleanroom operators
think that recovery after a reduction in air change rates will take too long or will cause a burst
of particles.
The impact of demand controlled ventilation during production and non production time will be
demonstrated through this research using a scientific approach. Most contamination in
cleanrooms is introduced by people although some processes can also generate particles. The
goal of this research will be to show that air change rates can be reduced during periods of low
particle generation or when spaces are not occupied. It will also show recovery times once
particles are reintroduced to the space.
A scientific approach shall be used to demonstrate the effect of air change rates on real-time
particle counts and a tool to convince the cleanroom operators shall be developed.
JUSTIFICATION AND VALUE TO ASHRAE
This research relates to goal n1 of the strategic plan 2010-2015 ''Maximize the Actual
Operational Energy Performance of Buildings and Facilities''. And goal n7 ''Support
development of tools, procedures and methods suitable for designing low energy buildings''.
Reducing energy consumption in industries and institutions that rely on cleanrooms will help to
meet the ASHRAE mission to attain sustainability and reduce CO2 emissions. As stated earlier,
compared to commercial buildings, the opportunity for energy savings in cleanrooms is an
order of magnitude greater. ASHRAE should play a leadership role in optimizing the HVAC
systems in cleanrooms, and in fact the industry is looking for specific guidance in this area.
For example in a recent article in the June 2010 edition of Controlled Environments Magazine[9]
a GE healthcare facility with a large cleanroom employed a simple form of demand controlled
filtration to reduce energy consumption. However, the system reduced flow from previously
used levels by only 18%. This reduced energy consumption, but the facility engineers were
hoping for greater savings, but were helped back by a lack of documented industry results:
When modeling the HVAC design and energy savings features, the design team faced
two insurmountable challenges ...
Second, at the time of submission, there was no currently accepted supporting standard
or other backup for substantiating a Cleanroom Airflow Reduction model for this type of
bay-chase, large production cleanroom. The project submitted a model showing 27%
cost savings, but was credited with only a 17.5% cost savings. ..
The baseline was modeled at 55 cfm/sf airflow. It has been the design team's experience
that an airflow reduction to 45 cfm/sf will maintain ISO Class 5 and remove a significant
amount of process equipment heat. However, since no study or standard exists to
substantiate the airflow reduction assumptions, only a portion of the submitted points
were awarded. The clean-manufacturing industry continues to evolve. Like most
industries, clean manufacturing is incorporating more environmentally conscious
practices into their operations. The design team expects that cleanroom airflow
reduction will be examined closely in the near future because it is "low hanging fruit."
The design team also anticipates the publication of formal studies providing direction to
operators and designers.
Demand control is already in use in many applications such as variable air volume systems to
control room temperature, variable water flow to control a coils capacity, and demand control
ventilation to decrease air flow to spaces when there is no demand such as during low
occupancy. Additionally, demand based control has been widely applied to research laboratory
spaces to vary lab room air change rates based on both particulate and chemical containment
levels in a very similar control approach to what is proposed here, but in a lab environment, not
a clean room. A recent article in the February 2010 ASHRAE Journal, Demand Based Control of
Lab Air Change Rates [10], presents the results of a large study evaluating the results of
The technology now exists to control cleanroom airflows (precise particle counters, variable
frequency drives, controls, etc.), yet it is not in widespread use because of a lack of
understanding of air change rates and the resulting cleanliness levels in cleanroom
environments. Many cleanrooms already have variable speed fans but are only varying fan
speed to account for filter loading keeping the air change rate constant. Adapting these
systems to control based on particle counts would be relatively straightforward.
It is obvious that controlling air flow rates in a cleanroom based on real particle counts in the
room is a viable technology that should be studied.
OBJECTIVE
Establish a scientific approach to implement demand controlled filtration (ventilation rate)

for cleanrooms for the two cleanroom classes (ISO, 7 and 8, (10 000 and 100 000) that have
the broadest application. For example, these two classes comprise 85 to 90% of
pharmaceutical class rooms. Based on the results of this research, a future project could
well research applying this approach to other more stringent classes.
Develop guidelines of minimum air change rates for tested cleanroom classes
Quantify energy saving related to air flow rate reduction
Determine factors affecting contamination levels (e.g. personnel, production processes,
etc.)
Determine recovery time and reaction time of the technology
SCOPE

Review all the pertinent literature related to demand controlled filtration with a resume of
the potential savings and risk factors.

Select a site where the ventilation rates can be varied, particle counts measured, and where
ventilation fan energy can also be measured (confirm that a variable frequency drive is in
place). It is also important since multiple rooms will typically be on one fan that each room
to be studied have independent VAV flow tracking controls on the supply and
exhaust/return of the room using VAV valves or accurate VAV boxes and controls.
Establish a number of real time monitoring points and their locations through
experimentation in addition to using a more extensive grid of typical validation
measurement locations where measurements can be done with a portable particle counter
to periodically validate the results of the real time measurement locations. Additionally, the
Experiment with using particle counters and or sampling based particle measurement
systems to directly control fan speeds where one fan connects to just one room, or else
more likely to control room supply and return/exhaust flow with fan speed being controlled
from static pressure . This may involve resolving interfaces with building control systems.
For two different particles generation rates in three room locations plus a fourth
return/exhaust duct location, establish the recovery time and the reaction time at three
different air change rates.

Select one or two sites to cover two certified rooms, one for each of the 2 cleanroom class
levels where the ventilation rates can be varied and measured, and where ventilation
energy can also be monitored.
Install equipment and controls to implement demand controlled filtration in these two
rooms with real time monitoring in at least three different in-room locations including a
fourth location in the return/exhaust for each room. A sampled system that takes air
samples and makes measurements on a sequential, periodic basis is recommended for
control purposes and to provide better correlation between readings. Alternatively,
Use a manual validation approach with a separate (non manifolded) multiple channel single
particle counter to check the operation of the demand control filtration approach at the
fixed validation locations. This particle counter should also be operating during the tests to
provide a real time validation output at one location independent of the control system
outputs.
For different particles generation conditions, establish the recovery time and the reaction
time of the air flow rates. Take into consideration the presence and number of people. Also
the impact of the sampling time or the frequency of particle measurement should be
evaluated since greater economy at least in manifolded or multiplexed systems can be
achieved if the samples are taken periodically particularly for these less critical clean room
classes, (ISO 7, & 8). The impact of sampling at 3 or 4 different rates in the range of 3 to 15
minutes is recommended to be evaluated at one release rate for each of the two different
class levels.
Establish the minimum flow rate while under dynamic control to maintain the room
classification, measure the particle counts and particle settling times.
Sequence the flow between the previously established minimum flow rate and a selected
full flow occupied rate to look for any particle spikes or disturbances caused by the
change in flow up or down.
Task n4 Establish guidelines

Based on the literature review, laboratory tests and field measurement develop guidelines
for the implementation of demand controlled filtration for cleanrooms and the associated
energy saving potential.
DELIVRABLES
Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Technical Paper(s) and Data shall constitute the only
deliverables (''Deliverables'') under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a) Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the
Society through its Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals;
specifically on or before each January 1st, April 1st, June 10 and October 1st of the contract
period.
Furthermore, the Institution's Principal Investigator, subject to the Society's approval, shall,
during the period of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in
person to the sponsoring Technical Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and
winter meetings, and be available to answer such questions regarding the research as may
arise.
b) Interim Reports
Interim reports for each indicated task (Task 1 through Task 4) shall be submitted to the
PMS for review and approval.
c) Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, ''Final Report''), in a form approved
by the Society, shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society's Manager
of Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete
details of all research carried out under this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six
copies of the final report shall be furnished for review the Society's Project Monitoring
Subcommittee (PMS).
The Final Report shall contain multiple sections which could include (not limited to):
Introduction, Background, Theoretical Developments, Experiment and Data Analysis, CFD
Modeling, Simulation and Validation, Findings and Conclusions and Recommended
Guidelines.
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the
Final Report will be furnished by the Institution as follows:
1. An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the
public.
2. Two bound copies
3. One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction
4. Two copies on disks; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word
d) Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and
Technical Services (MORTS) and then to the ''ASHRAE Manuscript Central'' website-based
manuscript review system in a form and containing such information as designated by the
Society suitable for presentation at a Society meeting. The Technical Paper(s) shall conform
to the instructions posted in ''Manuscript Central'' for a technical paper. The technical paper
title shall contain the research project number (xxxx-RP) at the end of the title in
parentheses, e.g., (9999-RP).
e) Data
Data is defined in General Condition VI, ''DATA''
All papers or articles prepared in connection with an ASHRAE research project, which are
being submitted for inclusion in any ASHRAE publication, shall be submitted through the
Manager of Research and Technical Services first and not to the publication's editor or
Program Committee.
f) Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totalling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad
technical audience, which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings
are significant, and 3. How the findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in
general shall by submitted to the Manager of Research and Technical Services by the end of
the Agreement term for publication in ASHRAE Insights.
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in
the Society's ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a
Deliverable. Technical articles shall be prepared using dual units; e.g. rational inch-pound
with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance IEEE/ASTM
Standard SI-10.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
The entire project is anticipated to be completed within 24 calendar-months from the initiation
of work. The estimated level of the combined effort of principal investigator and co-
investigator(s) is at 10-manmonths. The total cost is anticipated approximately at $175,000.
OTHER INFORMATION TO BIDDERS
1. Two types of particle counters or particle counting systems are recommended for this
project. For validation and monitoring, but not control purposes one particle counter
appropriate for validating at least ISO class 6 cleanrooms should be used to sample airborne
particles at 6 seconds or less per reading. A later model counter is recommended that can
show 6 channels to match 6-channel ISO standards (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 & 5.0 um). For
control purposes a more economic choice for particle counting can be used that has one or
two channels with at least 0.3 um capability that will be used as a proxy for controlling clean
room cleanliness. Multiple lower cost counters could be employed simultaneously for
control at the different room locations or else a recommended approach is to use a
manifolded or multiplexed sampling based particle counting system that uses one particle
counter to measure multiple locations sequentially. These particle counters or the
manifolded particle counting system needs to be able to provide either an analog output for
control or a digital integration through a protocol such as BACNet.
2. Cleanrooms or clean labs to be used for the research shall be certified for its available
classes. Temporary, low cost cleanroom or soft curtain will not be accepted for research.
The desired site could be a cleanroom suite consisting of multiple rooms with differential
classes to ensure that flow ranges can cover entire spectrum (wide flow ranges).
3. Research team members should have prior cleanroom design, testing, certification,
consulting and/or research, control experience and a good understanding of ISO standards ,
the testing personnel should have at least one member as certified cleanroom technician or
engineer.
4. Unlike temperature or humidity measurement, particle counting is not a simultaneous, but

a cumulated reading (counters can be set to either cumulative mode or differential mode)
based on sampling speed selected. The analog signal or digital integration should be
processed in a controller or by a lab room and or building control system with proper
control algorithms developed and utilized to control both overall fan speed based on static
pressure or flow and most likely also room air flows through tracking VAV boxes or valves.
5. Room particle concentration varies significantly when equipment operation (on/off),

processing, personnel traffic, especially door opening are taking in place. The control
strategies and logic should be smart enough to prevent over-shoot, or hunting when a
portion of a room is impacted by one or more of these challenges.
6. As most cleanrooms are under stringent pressure control to pre-defined specifications to

prevent particle migration from adjacent dirtier areas, when supply air flow rate changes,
proper room pressure should be maintained by modulating return flow rate too (flow
tracking), so control strategy should include return and/or exhaust flow controls.
7. Cleanroom testing has unique and stringent protocols and manual validation testing shall
strictly meet the ISO testing standards. The research team, especially the Principal
Investigator, needs to have extensive cleanroom research, design or testing experience at
the class levels of interest (ISO 7, & 8), a combination of these experiences is more
desirable. Bidder's previous research background in cleanroom field is strongly encouraged
to be listed in his/her resume/bio of the proposal.
8. The experimental plan including basic diagrams, instrumentation setup and testing
procedures should be submitted to the Project Monitoring Sub-Committee (PMS) for review
and approval prior to any formal experiment.
9. Review comments from PMS, if any, need to be addressed and/or incorporated into the
experiment by the investigators.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA & WEIGHTING FACTORS

Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the 25%
Work Statement
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE projects or other energy
4%
projects (No penalty for new contractors)
REFERENCES
[1] Xu, Tengfang, Tschudi, W. 2001, Energy Performance of Cleanroom Environmental

Systems
[2] Tschudi, W., Benshine, K., Rumsey, P. 2001, Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking in High Tech
and Biotech Industries
[4] ISO Standard 14644 - Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments, Part 4, Design,
Construction and Start-up.
[5] Faulkner, D.; Fisk, W.J., and Walton, J.T. (1996) Energy Savings in Cleanrooms from
Demand-Controlled Filtration, Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences 39(2):
21-27. LBNL-38869
[8] Faulkner, D., D. DiBartolomeo, D. Wang, 2008, Demand Controlled Filtration in an
Industrial Cleanroom, LBNL-63420, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
[9] Bilodeau, R.A. 2010 Winning the Gold, Successful Cleanroom Design Strategies in Todays
LEED World Controlled Environments Magazine June 2010.
[10] Sharp, G.P. 2010 Demand-Based Control of Lab air Change Rates ASHRAE Journal
52(2):30-41
[11] McIlvaine, R. 2008, Where are the cleanroom. Cleanrooms Magazine, vol. 22,
September 2008.
AUTHORS
Roland Charneux, Gordon Sharp, David Faulkner, Bill Tschudi, Wei Sun (TC-9.11)
ASHRAE
Michael Vaughn, PE
TO: Wei Sun, Chair TC 10.4, wsun@engsysco.com
FROM: Mike Vaughn

Manager of Research and Technical Services
CC: Roberto Aguilo, Research Liaison 10, rraguilo@fibertel,com.ar

Kishor Khankari, Research Subcommittee Chair, RTAR Author,
kkhankari@syska.com
DATE: November 2, 2009
SUBJECT: 1604-RTAR, Demand Controlled Filtration for Clean Rooms;
During their recent Tech Weekend teleconference meeting, the Research Administration Committee
(RAC) reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to conditionally
accept it for further development into a work statement (WS) provided that the RAC approval
condition(s) are addressed to the satisfaction of your Research Liaison in a revision to the RTAR.
See the bottom of the attached RTAR review summary for the approval condition(s).
The RTAR review summary also contains comments from individual members of RAC that the TC
may or may not choose to also consider when revising the RTAR or developing the WS; some of these
comments may indicate areas of the RTAR and subsequent WS where readers require additional
information or rewording for clarification.
Please coordinate changes to the RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison Roberto Aguilo,
rraguilo@fibertel,com.ar, in response to the approval condition(s) only so that it can submitted to
the Manager of Research and Technical Services and posted by ASHRAE as part of the Societys
Research Implementation Plan.
Once the revised RTAR is posted, please develop a work statement also with the help of your
Research Liaison prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for
consideration by RAC. The work statement must be approved by the Research Liaison prior to
submitting it to RAC. The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than
August 15, 2011 or it will be dropped from display on the Societys Research Implementation Plan.
The next submission deadline for work statements is December 15th 2009 for consideration at the
Societys 2010 winter meeting; the submission deadline after that is May 15th, 2010.
Project ID 1604
Project Title Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
Sponsoring TC TC 9.11
Cost $125K - ?M
Submission History 1st Submission
Tech Weekend 2009 Meeting Review RTAR SUMMARY SCORES & COMMENTS
Check List Criteria Voted NO Comments & Suggestions
#1, #8, #10
#1 - Has this not already been done in clean room design? #10 - reference to ASHRAE RP? #8 - While
the aim of the research is to achieve energy savings in clean rooms through the dynamic control of the
airflow rate, the RTAR indicates that operators are reluctant to adjust the airflow rate because they fear a
Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include loss of production. This mindset sounds like a difficult hurdle to get over. Are there studies in the
some level of literature review that documents the literature to support the statement that the opportunity for energy savings in clean rooms is an order of
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR magnitude higher than in commercial buildings? Is this on a per-square-foot basis? Statements such as
should be returned for revision. this should be supported with data or references.
Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the
RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research that
is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics outside
the scope of ASHRAE activities.
Is there an adequate description of the approach in order

for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the #10 - If this seems like good cost-effective approach, why has it not been applied before? A brief
budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision. indication of the cost benefits in the WS is needed.
#3 - This is a hard one to judge without knowing the estimated time needed to finish the job. My guess is
Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then this will need more money to complete, just by going through the available info. #4 - budget seems like it
RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted could be low; #8 - Considering that both laboratory and field testing is planned, it seems like the budget
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS. might need to be increased.
#1, #3, #8,
Have the proper administrative procedures been followed? #14, #4
This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues.
Initial
Decision Options Decision? Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
Approval Conditions: 1) State how this topic addresses goals from the 2005-2010 Research Strategic
ACCEPT
Plan. 2) Explain in greater detail how this work relates to on-going LBNL work on same topic. 3) Please
define recovery time and reaction time in RTAR and WS. 4) References seem inadequate. While the aim
X
of the research is to achieve energy savings in clean rooms through the dynamic control of the airflow
COND. ACCEPT
rate, the RTAR indicates that operators are reluctant to adjust the airflow rate because they fear a loss of
production. This mindset sounds like a difficult hurdle to get over. Are there studies in the literature to
RETURN support the statement that the opportunity for energy savings in clean rooms is an order of magnitude
higher than in commercial buildings? Is this on a per-square-foot basis? Statements such as this should
REJECT be supported with data or references.
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS ________1604____________________
RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST
TC/TG: TC 9.11
Title: Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
Research Category: Design Tools/Energy Saving/Sustainable Design
Research Classification: Basic/Applied Research TC/TG Priority: 1
TC Vote: Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:

12-1-6 CV e-mail ballot, 6 members did not respond
M. SiChen Hu voted against for the following reasons:
1.The Laser Particle Counter( LPC)'s responding time is not quick enough, resulting "hunting" and/or
"stop" of the fan. If the LPC can response as quick as RTD (temp sensor), the DCF may work.
2. The dispersion or diffusion behavior of particles is not different from "temperature".
Particles may deposit on any surface. These features result a very different cleanliness level based on
limited sampling points.
Please see additional discussions at the end with the acceptance of M. Hu
Estimated Cost: $125,000
Other Interested TC/TGs: N/A
Possible Co-funding Organizations: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, depending on time frame
Application of Results:


State-of-the-Art (Background):
The basic use of a cleanroom is the management of particles in the space to reduce the risk of particles
settling on or in the product. The acceptable level and size of particles is related to the processes taking
place in the cleanroom.
Unlike commercial spaces, energy-intensive cleanrooms normally utilize high constant volume filtered
airflows to remove or wash down and dilute airborne particles with air change rates from 15 up to
600. Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per square foot, and operating costs
can reach 50 times or more of commercial spaces of the same size.
Very little research has been done on dynamic control of particles in cleanrooms to match airflow to the
desired contamination limits. The increased cost and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
the ventilation rate should be adjusted in order to achieve the desired cleanliness yet minimize excess
airflow.
Advancement to the State of the Art
The effectiveness of a cleanroom is dependant on many factors:

Production rate and type of contaminants and particles
Location of air supply and return
Recovery times
Etc.
The air change rate is often based on the cleanliness level that one wants to obtain. It is empirical based
upon rules of thumb or prior operating experience, and not scientifically established.
The value of products or services produced in cleanrooms is very high and the various industries and
institutions that utilize cleanrooms are reluctant to risk experimenting with airflows fearing a loss of
production even though this could save energy. Even reducing air change rates during non production
periods seems risky to the various cleanroom operators.
demonstrated through this research. Most contamination in cleanrooms is introduced by people although
some processes can also generate particles. The goal of this research will be to show that air change rates
can be reduced during periods of low particle generation or when spaces are not occupied. It will also
show recovery times once particles are reintroduced to the space.
A scientific approach shall be used to demonstrate the effect of air change rates on real-time particle
counts.
Justification and value to ASHRAE
ASHRAE mission to attain sustainability and reduce CO 2 emissions. Compared to commercial buildings,
the opportunity for energy savings in cleanrooms is an order of magnitude greater. ASHRAE should play
a leadership role in optimizing the HVAC systems in cleanrooms
Demand control is already in use in many applications such as variable air volume systems to control the
room temperature, variable water flow to control the coils capacity, etc. The technology exists to control
cleanroom airflows (precise particle counters, variable frequency drives, controls, etc.)
, yet it is not in widespread use because of a lack of understanding of air change rates and the resulting
cleanliness levels. Many cleanrooms already have variable speed fans but are only varying fan speed to
account for filter loading. Adapting these systems to control based on particle counts would be relatively
straightforward.
It is obvious that controlling air flow rates in a cleanroom based on real particle counts in the room is a
viable technology that should be studied.
Objective
Establish a scientific approach to implement demand controlled filtration (ventilation rate) for
cleanrooms of different classes (ISO 4, 5, 6 and 7, (10, 100, 1000 and 10 000)
1. Literature review
2. Laboratory tests
Select a site where the ventilation rates can be varied and measured, and where
ventilation energy can also be measured (confirm that a variable frequency drive is in
place).
For different particles generation rates, establish the recovery time and the reaction time
of the air flow rates.
3. Field measurement
ventilation energy can also be measured.
time of the air flow rates. Also take into consideration consideration the presence and
number of peoples to reset the required air change rate
Establish the minimum flow rate to maintain the room classification, measure the
particles count and particles settling.
Establish the recovery time to come back to the production air change level
Expected results
Guidelines of air change rates for tested cleanroom classes

Potential energy saving related to air flow rate reduction
Factors affecting contamination levels (e.g. personnel, production processes, etc.)
Risks and limitations of the technology
Recovery time and reaction time of the technology
Key References
ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 16, Clean Spaces

ISO Standard 14644 - Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments, Part 4, Design,
Lawrence Berkeley. National Laboratory Energy Savings in Cleanrooms from Demand Controlled
Filtration
Additional discussions on the negative Vote by e-mail correspondance

Dear Mr. Roland:
Yes, I agree that to have answers we need to do some research.

May be the performance of particle counter has been improved a lot over the time.
Thanks
SC Hu
2009/8/18 Charneux Roland <rcharneux@pageaumorel.com>

Hi M. Hu.
Do you think that this proposed research project could be modified to take your concerns into account.
The objective of this project research is exactly to determine what are the possibilities and limitations of
the technology.
For example to determine the sampling rate and location of sampling points etc...
Is it possible to use the technology for ressetting the airflow during unoccupied period or to adjust the
airflow
depending on the number of occuppants ?
In my opinion the only way to have good answers is to do some research.
Would you be interested in improving the RTAR or do you really believe that it is completely impossible.
Best regards and thanks for your response.
Roland Deleted:
WORK STATEMENT COVER SHEET Date: August 12th 2010
(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )

A. Title Title: Demand controlled filtration for cleanrooms
B Executive Summary
C. Applicability to ASHRAE Research Strategic Plan
D. Application of the Results
E. State-of-the-Art (background)
F. Advancement to State-of-the-Art
G. Justification and Value to ASHRAE WS# 1604
H. Objective (To be assigned by MORTS Same as RTAR #)
I. Scope
J. Deliverables/Where Results will be Published
K. Level of Effort Results of this Project will affect the following Handbook Chapters,
Project Duration in Months Special Publications, etc.:
Professional-Months: Principal
Investigator
Professional-Months: Total HVAC Application chapters 7, 14, 16 and the cleanroom design guide
Estimated $ Value
L. Other Information to Bidders (optional)
M. Proposal Evaluation Criteria & Weighting Factors
N. References
Responsible TC-9.11 Date of Vote:

TC/TG:
For 15 This W/S has been coordinated with TC/TG/SSPC (give vote and date):
Agains * 0
t
Abstaining * 1
Absent or not returning * 1
BallotVoting Members
Total 17 Has RTAR been submitted Yes 1604
? Strategic Plan Goals 1 and 7 of strategic plan 2010-2015
Work Statement Authors: ** Theme/Goals
Roland Charneux, Gordon Sharp, David Faulkner, Bill Tschudi, Wei Sun**
Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee: Project Monitoring

Chair: Roland Charneux Subcommittee:
(If different from Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee)
Members: Kishor Khankari
Gordon Sharp
Bill Tschudi
Recommended Bidders (name, address, e-mail, tel. number): ** Potential Co-funders (organization, contact person information):
**
John Swift, Jr., P.E. Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, P.C., 917-981-6000,
jswift@eypae.com
Dr. A.J. Heber, Purdue University, 765-494-1214, heber@purdue.edu
Dr. Mingsheng Liu, University of Nebraska, 402-554-2173, mliu@unl.edu
**Wei Sun, P.E., Engsysco Inc., 734-678-9718, weisun.engsysco@netzero.com
(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)

Yes No How Long (weeks)
Is an extended bidding period needed?
Has an electronic copy been furnished to the MORTS?
Will this project result in a special publication?
Has the Research Liaison reviewed work statement?
* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions

One voter abstained.
Explanation for abstention:
1) Concerns regarding possibility that the research was potentially a platform to advocate preconceived beliefs/ideas as indicated in this quote from the WS:
The objective of the present research is to dispel misconceptions about the impact of varying flow rates on cleanroom cleanliness as well as to establish
guidelines to help designers and cleanroom owners reduce the air change rate whenever possible without impacting their processes.
2) Concerns regarding extent to which proposed research is a repeat of work already performed by LBNL and others.
3) Concerns regarding lack of discussion in the WS regarding methods to verify that sampler placement accurately reflects actual realtime aerosol counts
within critical work zones as well as a desire for additional discussion (or intent to discuss in the research) on sampler selection, calibration & maintenance
requirements.
4) The above three concerns were greatly tempered by my recognition that my own professional experience has a limited, specific focus regarding cleanroom
design objectives and my respect for the authors broad and recognized expertise in cleanroom design engineering, thus I opted to abstain.
Include your Name and Affiliation.
Respectfully,
Kenneth R. Mead, PhD, PE | Senior Research Engineer
CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
phone: 513-841-4385 | email: kmead@cdc.gov
** Denotes WS author is affiliated with this recommended bidder
Use additional sheet if needed.
WORK STATEMENT 1604
RESPONSIBLE TC/TG: 9.11 CLEAN SPACES
CO-RESPONSIBLE TC/TG: N/A
(AUGUST 5, 2010)
TITLE
Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
particles settling on or in the product. The acceptable quantity and size of particles is related to
the processes taking place in the cleanroom.
filtered airflows to remove airborne particles with very high efficiency filters at air change rates
from 15 up to 600. Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per sq.ft.,
and operating energy usage can range between 159 kw-h/sq.ft. to 945 kw/sq.ft[1] for cooling
and fan energy. For California this is 10 to 50 times the total energy consumption of commercial
spaces of the same size.
cleanrooms in order to maintain the desired contamination limits. The high energy use and
resulting cost for typical systems today, and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
increase.
Recently, new technologies and systems have become available which can be used for this
The objective of the present research is to dispel misconceptions about the impact of varying
flow rates on cleanroom cleanliness as well as to establish guidelines to help designers and
cleanroom owners reduce the air change rate whenever possible without impacting their
processes.
DEFINITIONS
Recovery time:
Time required to re-establish the particle count setpoint from an offset condition.
Reaction time:
Time for the whole system to react to a particle count offset to increase the air change rate
of the cleanroom to a defined setpoint level.
APPLICABILITY TO ASHRAE STRATEGIC PLAN
Based on the ASHRAE research strategic plan 2010-2015, this research will address the goal n1
''Maximize the actual operational energy performance of buildings and facilities'' and goal n7
''Support development of tools, procedures and methods suitable for designing low energy
buildings''.
APPLICATION OF RESULTS


STATE-OF-THE-ART (BACKGROUND)
the detrimental impact of particles settling on or in the product. The acceptable level and size
of particles is related to the processes taking place in the cleanroom.
filtered airflows to remove airborne particles with air change rates from 15 up to 600.
Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per sq. ft., and operating
energy usage can range between 159 kw-h/sq.ft. to 945 kw/sq.ft[1] for cooling and fan energy.
For California this is 10 to 50 times the total energy consumption of commercial spaces of the
same size.
cleanrooms - matching airflow to the desired contamination limits{5,8]. The high energy use and
resulting cost for typical systems today and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
increase.
Recently, new technology and systems have become available which can be used for this
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has benchmarked energy use in cleanrooms and has
demonstrated the concept of demand control ventilation [5,8]. This demonstration showed the
feasibility of the technology but many parameters have to be defined in order to apply this
technology to the various applications of cleanrooms and to enable it to be widely applied.
ADVANCEMENT TO THE STATE-OF-THE-ART
The effectiveness of a cleanroom is dependent on many factors:

Type of contaminants and their production rate
Filter coverage
Filter efficiency
Location of air supply and return/and or exhaust
Recovery times
Etc.
The air change rate is often based on the cleanliness level that one wants to obtain. Air change
rates have not been scientifically established for various cleanliness classes. They are typically
established based upon rules of thumb or prior operating experience where contamination
issues did not arise.
The value of products or services produced in cleanrooms is very high and the various industries
and institutions that utilize cleanrooms are reluctant to risk experimenting with airflows fearing
a loss of production even though this could save energy. Even reducing air change rates during
non production periods seems risky to the various cleanroom operators because they do not
have reliable data on contamination levels during those periods. Also, cleanroom operators
think that recovery after a reduction in air change rates will take too long or will cause a burst
of particles.
demonstrated through this research using a scientific approach. Most contamination in
cleanrooms is introduced by people although some processes can also generate particles. The
goal of this research will be to show that air change rates can be reduced during periods of low
particle generation or when spaces are not occupied. It will also show recovery times once
particles are reintroduced to the space.
A scientific approach shall be used to demonstrate the effect of air change rates on real-time
particle counts and a tool to convince the cleanroom operators shall be developed.
JUSTIFICATION AND VALUE TO ASHRAE
This research relates to goal n1 of the strategic plan 2010-2015 ''Maximize the Actual
Operational Energy Performance of Buildings and Facilities''. And goal n7 ''Support
development of tools, procedures and methods suitable for designing low energy buildings''.
Reducing energy consumption in industries and institutions that rely on cleanrooms will help to
meet the ASHRAE mission to attain sustainability and reduce CO2 emissions. As stated earlier,
compared to commercial buildings, the opportunity for energy savings in cleanrooms is an
order of magnitude greater. ASHRAE should play a leadership role in optimizing the HVAC
systems in cleanrooms, and in fact the industry is looking for specific guidance in this area.
For example in a recent article in the June 2010 edition of Controlled Environments Magazine[9]
a GE healthcare facility with a large cleanroom employed a simple form of demand controlled
filtration to reduce energy consumption. However, the system reduced flow from previously
used levels by only 18%. This reduced energy consumption, but the facility engineers were
hoping for greater savings, but were helped back by a lack of documented industry results:
When modeling the HVAC design and energy savings features, the design team faced
two insurmountable challenges ...
Second, at the time of submission, there was no currently accepted supporting standard
or other backup for substantiating a Cleanroom Airflow Reduction model for this type of
bay-chase, large production cleanroom. The project submitted a model showing 27%
cost savings, but was credited with only a 17.5% cost savings. ..
The baseline was modeled at 55 cfm/sf airflow. It has been the design team's experience
that an airflow reduction to 45 cfm/sf will maintain ISO Class 5 and remove a significant
amount of process equipment heat. However, since no study or standard exists to
substantiate the airflow reduction assumptions, only a portion of the submitted points
were awarded. The clean-manufacturing industry continues to evolve. Like most
industries, clean manufacturing is incorporating more environmentally conscious
practices into their operations. The design team expects that cleanroom airflow
reduction will be examined closely in the near future because it is "low hanging fruit."
The design team also anticipates the publication of formal studies providing direction to
operators and designers.
Demand control is already in use in many applications such as variable air volume systems to
control room temperature, variable water flow to control a coils capacity, and demand control
ventilation to decrease air flow to spaces when there is no demand such as during low
occupancy. Additionally, demand based control has been widely applied to research laboratory
spaces to vary lab room air change rates based on both particulate and chemical containment
levels in a very similar control approach to what is proposed here, but in a lab environment, not
a clean room. A recent article in the February 2010 ASHRAE Journal, Demand Based Control of
Lab Air Change Rates [10], presents the results of a large study evaluating the results of
The technology now exists to control cleanroom airflows (precise particle counters, variable
frequency drives, controls, etc.), yet it is not in widespread use because of a lack of
understanding of air change rates and the resulting cleanliness levels in cleanroom
environments. Many cleanrooms already have variable speed fans but are only varying fan
speed to account for filter loading keeping the air change rate constant. Adapting these
systems to control based on particle counts would be relatively straightforward.
It is obvious that controlling air flow rates in a cleanroom based on real particle counts in the
room is a viable technology that should be studied.
OBJECTIVE
Establish a scientific approach to implement demand controlled filtration (ventilation rate)

for cleanrooms for the two cleanroom classes (ISO, 7 and 8, (10 000 and 100 000) that have
the broadest application. For example, these two classes comprise 85 to 90% of
pharmaceutical class rooms. Based on the results of this research, a future project could
well research applying this approach to other more stringent classes.
Develop guidelines of minimum air change rates for tested cleanroom classes
Quantify energy saving related to air flow rate reduction
Determine factors affecting contamination levels (e.g. personnel, production processes,
etc.)
Determine recovery time and reaction time of the technology
SCOPE

Review all the pertinent literature related to demand controlled filtration with a resume of
the potential savings and risk factors.

Select a site where the ventilation rates can be varied, particle counts measured, and where
ventilation fan energy can also be measured (confirm that a variable frequency drive is in
place). It is also important since multiple rooms will typically be on one fan that each room
to be studied have independent VAV flow tracking controls on the supply and
exhaust/return of the room using VAV valves or accurate VAV boxes and controls.
Establish a number of real time monitoring points and their locations through
experimentation in addition to using a more extensive grid of typical validation
measurement locations where measurements can be done with a portable particle counter
to periodically validate the results of the real time measurement locations. Additionally, the
Experiment with using particle counters and or sampling based particle measurement
systems to directly control fan speeds where one fan connects to just one room, or else
more likely to control room supply and return/exhaust flow with fan speed being controlled
from static pressure . This may involve resolving interfaces with building control systems.
For two different particles generation rates in three room locations plus a fourth
return/exhaust duct location, establish the recovery time and the reaction time at three
different air change rates.

Select one or two sites to cover two certified rooms, one for each of the 2 cleanroom class
levels where the ventilation rates can be varied and measured, and where ventilation
energy can also be monitored.
Install equipment and controls to implement demand controlled filtration in these two
rooms with real time monitoring in at least three different in-room locations including a
fourth location in the return/exhaust for each room. A sampled system that takes air
samples and makes measurements on a sequential, periodic basis is recommended for
control purposes and to provide better correlation between readings. Alternatively,
Use a manual validation approach with a separate (non manifolded) multiple channel single
particle counter to check the operation of the demand control filtration approach at the
fixed validation locations. This particle counter should also be operating during the tests to
provide a real time validation output at one location independent of the control system
outputs.
time of the air flow rates. Take into consideration the presence and number of people. Also
the impact of the sampling time or the frequency of particle measurement should be
evaluated since greater economy at least in manifolded or multiplexed systems can be
achieved if the samples are taken periodically particularly for these less critical clean room
classes, (ISO 7, & 8). The impact of sampling at 3 or 4 different rates in the range of 3 to 15
minutes is recommended to be evaluated at one release rate for each of the two different
class levels.
Establish the minimum flow rate while under dynamic control to maintain the room
classification, measure the particle counts and particle settling times.
Sequence the flow between the previously established minimum flow rate and a selected
full flow occupied rate to look for any particle spikes or disturbances caused by the
change in flow up or down.
Task n4 Establish guidelines

Based on the literature review, laboratory tests and field measurement develop guidelines
for the implementation of demand controlled filtration for cleanrooms and the associated
energy saving potential.
DELIVRABLES
Progress, Financial and Final Reports, Technical Paper(s) and Data shall constitute the only
deliverables (''Deliverables'') under this Agreement and shall be provided as follows:
a) Progress and Financial Reports
Progress and Financial Reports, in a form approved by the Society, shall be made to the
Society through its Manager of Research and Technical Services at quarterly intervals;
specifically on or before each January 1st, April 1st, June 10 and October 1st of the contract
period.
Furthermore, the Institution's Principal Investigator, subject to the Society's approval, shall,
during the period of performance and after the Final Report has been submitted, report in
person to the sponsoring Technical Committee/Task Group (TC/TG) at the annual and
winter meetings, and be available to answer such questions regarding the research as may
arise.
b) Interim Reports
Interim reports for each indicated task (Task 1 through Task 4) shall be submitted to the
PMS for review and approval.
c) Final Report
A written report, design guide, or manual, (collectively, ''Final Report''), in a form approved
by the Society, shall be prepared by the Institution and submitted to the Society's Manager
of Research and Technical Services by the end of the Agreement term, containing complete
details of all research carried out under this Agreement. Unless otherwise specified, six
copies of the final report shall be furnished for review the Society's Project Monitoring
Subcommittee (PMS).
The Final Report shall contain multiple sections which could include (not limited to):
Introduction, Background, Theoretical Developments, Experiment and Data Analysis, CFD
Modeling, Simulation and Validation, Findings and Conclusions and Recommended
Guidelines.
Following approval by the PMS and the TC/TG, in their sole discretion, final copies of the
Final Report will be furnished by the Institution as follows:
1. An executive summary in a form suitable for wide distribution to the industry and to the
public.
2. Two bound copies
3. One unbound copy, printed on one side only, suitable for reproduction
4. Two copies on disks; one in PDF format and one in Microsoft Word
d) Technical Paper
One or more papers shall be submitted first to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and
Technical Services (MORTS) and then to the ''ASHRAE Manuscript Central'' website-based
manuscript review system in a form and containing such information as designated by the
Society suitable for presentation at a Society meeting. The Technical Paper(s) shall conform
to the instructions posted in ''Manuscript Central'' for a technical paper. The technical paper
title shall contain the research project number (xxxx-RP) at the end of the title in
parentheses, e.g., (9999-RP).
e) Data
Data is defined in General Condition VI, ''DATA''
All papers or articles prepared in connection with an ASHRAE research project, which are
being submitted for inclusion in any ASHRAE publication, shall be submitted through the
Manager of Research and Technical Services first and not to the publication's editor or
Program Committee.
f) Project Synopsis
A written synopsis totalling approximately 100 words in length and written for a broad
technical audience, which documents 1. Main findings of research project, 2. Why findings
are significant, and 3. How the findings benefit ASHRAE membership and/or society in
general shall by submitted to the Manager of Research and Technical Services by the end of
the Agreement term for publication in ASHRAE Insights.
The Society may request the Institution submit a technical article suitable for publication in
the Society's ASHRAE JOURNAL. This is considered a voluntary submission and not a
Deliverable. Technical articles shall be prepared using dual units; e.g. rational inch-pound
with equivalent SI units shown parenthetically. SI usage shall be in accordance IEEE/ASTM
Standard SI-10.
LEVEL OF EFFORT
The entire project is anticipated to be completed within 24 calendar-months from the initiation
of work. The estimated level of the combined effort of principal investigator and co-
investigator(s) is at 10-manmonths. The total cost is anticipated approximately at $175,000.
OTHER INFORMATION TO BIDDERS
1. Two types of particle counters or particle counting systems are recommended for this
project. For validation and monitoring, but not control purposes one particle counter
appropriate for validating at least ISO class 6 cleanrooms should be used to sample airborne
particles at 6 seconds or less per reading. A later model counter is recommended that can
show 6 channels to match 6-channel ISO standards (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 & 5.0 um). For
control purposes a more economic choice for particle counting can be used that has one or
two channels with at least 0.3 um capability that will be used as a proxy for controlling clean
room cleanliness. Multiple lower cost counters could be employed simultaneously for
control at the different room locations or else a recommended approach is to use a
manifolded or multiplexed sampling based particle counting system that uses one particle
counter to measure multiple locations sequentially. These particle counters or the
manifolded particle counting system needs to be able to provide either an analog output for
control or a digital integration through a protocol such as BACNet.
2. Cleanrooms or clean labs to be used for the research shall be certified for its available
classes. Temporary, low cost cleanroom or soft curtain will not be accepted for research.
The desired site could be a cleanroom suite consisting of multiple rooms with differential
classes to ensure that flow ranges can cover entire spectrum (wide flow ranges).
3. Research team members should have prior cleanroom design, testing, certification,
consulting and/or research, control experience and a good understanding of ISO standards ,
the testing personnel should have at least one member as certified cleanroom technician or
engineer.
4. Unlike temperature or humidity measurement, particle counting is not a simultaneous, but

a cumulated reading (counters can be set to either cumulative mode or differential mode)
based on sampling speed selected. The analog signal or digital integration should be
processed in a controller or by a lab room and or building control system with proper
control algorithms developed and utilized to control both overall fan speed based on static
pressure or flow and most likely also room air flows through tracking VAV boxes or valves.
5. Room particle concentration varies significantly when equipment operation (on/off),

processing, personnel traffic, especially door opening are taking in place. The control
strategies and logic should be smart enough to prevent over-shoot, or hunting when a
portion of a room is impacted by one or more of these challenges.
6. As most cleanrooms are under stringent pressure control to pre-defined specifications to

prevent particle migration from adjacent dirtier areas, when supply air flow rate changes,
proper room pressure should be maintained by modulating return flow rate too (flow
tracking), so control strategy should include return and/or exhaust flow controls.
7. Cleanroom testing has unique and stringent protocols and manual validation testing shall
strictly meet the ISO testing standards. The research team, especially the Principal
Investigator, needs to have extensive cleanroom research, design or testing experience at
the class levels of interest (ISO 7, & 8), a combination of these experiences is more
desirable. Bidder's previous research background in cleanroom field is strongly encouraged
to be listed in his/her resume/bio of the proposal.
8. The experimental plan including basic diagrams, instrumentation setup and testing
procedures should be submitted to the Project Monitoring Sub-Committee (PMS) for review
and approval prior to any formal experiment.
9. Review comments from PMS, if any, need to be addressed and/or incorporated into the
experiment by the investigators.
PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA & WEIGHTING FACTORS

Probability of contractor's research plan meeting the objectives of the 25%
Work Statement
Performance of contractor on prior ASHRAE projects or other energy
4%
projects (No penalty for new contractors)
REFERENCES
[1] Xu, Tengfang, Tschudi, W. 2001, Energy Performance of Cleanroom Environmental

Systems
[2] Tschudi, W., Benshine, K., Rumsey, P. 2001, Cleanroom Energy Benchmarking in High Tech
and Biotech Industries
[4] ISO Standard 14644 - Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments, Part 4, Design,
[5] Faulkner, D.; Fisk, W.J., and Walton, J.T. (1996) Energy Savings in Cleanrooms from
Demand-Controlled Filtration, Journal of the Institute of Environmental Sciences 39(2):
21-27. LBNL-38869
[8] Faulkner, D., D. DiBartolomeo, D. Wang, 2008, Demand Controlled Filtration in an
Industrial Cleanroom, LBNL-63420, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
[9] Bilodeau, R.A. 2010 Winning the Gold, Successful Cleanroom Design Strategies in Todays
LEED World Controlled Environments Magazine June 2010.
[10] Sharp, G.P. 2010 Demand-Based Control of Lab air Change Rates ASHRAE Journal
52(2):30-41
[11] McIlvaine, R. 2008, Where are the cleanroom. Cleanrooms Magazine, vol. 22,
September 2008.
AUTHORS
Roland Charneux, Gordon Sharp, David Faulkner, Bill Tschudi, Wei Sun (TC-9.11)
ASHRAE
Michael Vaughn, PE
TO: Wei Sun, Chair TC 10.4, wsun@engsysco.com
FROM: Mike Vaughn

Manager of Research and Technical Services
CC: Roberto Aguilo, Research Liaison 10, rraguilo@fibertel,com.ar

Kishor Khankari, Research Subcommittee Chair, RTAR Author,
kkhankari@syska.com
DATE: November 2, 2009
SUBJECT: 1604-RTAR, Demand Controlled Filtration for Clean Rooms;
During their recent Tech Weekend teleconference meeting, the Research Administration Committee
(RAC) reviewed the subject Research Topic Acceptance Request (RTAR) and voted to conditionally
accept it for further development into a work statement (WS) provided that the RAC approval
condition(s) are addressed to the satisfaction of your Research Liaison in a revision to the RTAR.
See the bottom of the attached RTAR review summary for the approval condition(s).
The RTAR review summary also contains comments from individual members of RAC that the TC
may or may not choose to also consider when revising the RTAR or developing the WS; some of these
comments may indicate areas of the RTAR and subsequent WS where readers require additional
information or rewording for clarification.
Please coordinate changes to the RTAR with the help of your Research Liaison Roberto Aguilo,
rraguilo@fibertel,com.ar, in response to the approval condition(s) only so that it can submitted to
the Manager of Research and Technical Services and posted by ASHRAE as part of the Societys
Research Implementation Plan.
Once the revised RTAR is posted, please develop a work statement also with the help of your
Research Liaison prior to submitting it to the Manager of Research and Technical Services for
consideration by RAC. The work statement must be approved by the Research Liaison prior to
submitting it to RAC. The first draft of the work statement should be submitted to RAC no later than
August 15, 2011 or it will be dropped from display on the Societys Research Implementation Plan.
The next submission deadline for work statements is December 15th 2009 for consideration at the
Societys 2010 winter meeting; the submission deadline after that is May 15th, 2010.
Project ID 1604
Project Title Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
Sponsoring TC TC 9.11
Cost $125K - ?M
Submission History 1st Submission
Tech Weekend 2009 Meeting Review RTAR SUMMARY SCORES & COMMENTS
Check List Criteria Voted NO Comments & Suggestions
#1, #8, #10
#1 - Has this not already been done in clean room design? #10 - reference to ASHRAE RP? #8 - While
the aim of the research is to achieve energy savings in clean rooms through the dynamic control of the
airflow rate, the RTAR indicates that operators are reluctant to adjust the airflow rate because they fear a
Is there a well-established need? The RTAR should include loss of production. This mindset sounds like a difficult hurdle to get over. Are there studies in the
some level of literature review that documents the literature to support the statement that the opportunity for energy savings in clean rooms is an order of
importance/magnitude of a problem. If not, then the RTAR magnitude higher than in commercial buildings? Is this on a per-square-foot basis? Statements such as
should be returned for revision. this should be supported with data or references.
Is this appropriate for ASHRAE funding? If not, then the
RTAR should be rejected. Examples of projects that are not
appropriate for ASHRAE funding would include: 1) research that
is more appropriately performed by industry, 2) topics outside
the scope of ASHRAE activities.
Is there an adequate description of the approach in order

for RAC to be able to evaluate the appropriateness of the #10 - If this seems like good cost-effective approach, why has it not been applied before? A brief
budget? If not, then the RTAR should be returned for revision. indication of the cost benefits in the WS is needed.
#3 - This is a hard one to judge without knowing the estimated time needed to finish the job. My guess is
Is the budget reasonable for the project scope? If not, then this will need more money to complete, just by going through the available info. #4 - budget seems like it
RTAR could be returned for revision or conditionally accepted could be low; #8 - Considering that both laboratory and field testing is planned, it seems like the budget
with a note that the budget should be revised for the WS. might need to be increased.
#1, #3, #8,
Have the proper administrative procedures been followed? #14, #4
This includes recording of the TC vote, coordination with other
TCs, proper citing of the Research Strategic Plan, etc. If not,
then the RTAR could be returned for revision or possibly
conditionally accepted based on adequately resolving these
issues.
Initial
Decision Options Decision? Additional Comments or Approval Conditions
Approval Conditions: 1) State how this topic addresses goals from the 2005-2010 Research Strategic
ACCEPT
Plan. 2) Explain in greater detail how this work relates to on-going LBNL work on same topic. 3) Please
define recovery time and reaction time in RTAR and WS. 4) References seem inadequate. While the aim
X
of the research is to achieve energy savings in clean rooms through the dynamic control of the airflow
COND. ACCEPT
rate, the RTAR indicates that operators are reluctant to adjust the airflow rate because they fear a loss of
production. This mindset sounds like a difficult hurdle to get over. Are there studies in the literature to
RETURN support the statement that the opportunity for energy savings in clean rooms is an order of magnitude
higher than in commercial buildings? Is this on a per-square-foot basis? Statements such as this should
REJECT be supported with data or references.
Unique Tracking Number Assigned by MORTS ________1604____________________
RESEARCH TOPIC ACCEPTANCE REQUEST
TC/TG: TC 9.11
Title: Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms
Research Category: Design Tools/Energy Saving/Sustainable Design
Research Classification: Basic/Applied Research TC/TG Priority: 1
TC Vote: Reasons for Negative Votes and Abstentions:

12-1-6 CV e-mail ballot, 6 members did not respond
M. SiChen Hu voted against for the following reasons:
1.The Laser Particle Counter( LPC)'s responding time is not quick enough, resulting "hunting" and/or
"stop" of the fan. If the LPC can response as quick as RTD (temp sensor), the DCF may work.
2. The dispersion or diffusion behavior of particles is not different from "temperature".
Particles may deposit on any surface. These features result a very different cleanliness level based on
limited sampling points.
Please see additional discussions at the end with the acceptance of M. Hu
Estimated Cost: $125,000
Other Interested TC/TGs: N/A
Possible Co-funding Organizations: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, depending on time frame
Application of Results:


State-of-the-Art (Background):
The basic use of a cleanroom is the management of particles in the space to reduce the risk of particles
settling on or in the product. The acceptable level and size of particles is related to the processes taking
place in the cleanroom.
Unlike commercial spaces, energy-intensive cleanrooms normally utilize high constant volume filtered
airflows to remove or wash down and dilute airborne particles with air change rates from 15 up to
600. Consequently, construction costs can range from $300 to $1,200 per square foot, and operating costs
can reach 50 times or more of commercial spaces of the same size.
Very little research has been done on dynamic control of particles in cleanrooms to match airflow to the
desired contamination limits. The increased cost and concern over availability of electricity suggests that
the ventilation rate should be adjusted in order to achieve the desired cleanliness yet minimize excess
airflow.
Advancement to the State of the Art
The effectiveness of a cleanroom is dependant on many factors:

Production rate and type of contaminants and particles
Location of air supply and return
Recovery times
Etc.
The air change rate is often based on the cleanliness level that one wants to obtain. It is empirical based
upon rules of thumb or prior operating experience, and not scientifically established.
The value of products or services produced in cleanrooms is very high and the various industries and
institutions that utilize cleanrooms are reluctant to risk experimenting with airflows fearing a loss of
production even though this could save energy. Even reducing air change rates during non production
periods seems risky to the various cleanroom operators.
demonstrated through this research. Most contamination in cleanrooms is introduced by people although
some processes can also generate particles. The goal of this research will be to show that air change rates
can be reduced during periods of low particle generation or when spaces are not occupied. It will also
show recovery times once particles are reintroduced to the space.
A scientific approach shall be used to demonstrate the effect of air change rates on real-time particle
counts.
Justification and value to ASHRAE
ASHRAE mission to attain sustainability and reduce CO 2 emissions. Compared to commercial buildings,
the opportunity for energy savings in cleanrooms is an order of magnitude greater. ASHRAE should play
a leadership role in optimizing the HVAC systems in cleanrooms
Demand control is already in use in many applications such as variable air volume systems to control the
room temperature, variable water flow to control the coils capacity, etc. The technology exists to control
cleanroom airflows (precise particle counters, variable frequency drives, controls, etc.)
, yet it is not in widespread use because of a lack of understanding of air change rates and the resulting
cleanliness levels. Many cleanrooms already have variable speed fans but are only varying fan speed to
account for filter loading. Adapting these systems to control based on particle counts would be relatively
straightforward.
It is obvious that controlling air flow rates in a cleanroom based on real particle counts in the room is a
viable technology that should be studied.
Objective
Establish a scientific approach to implement demand controlled filtration (ventilation rate) for
cleanrooms of different classes (ISO 4, 5, 6 and 7, (10, 100, 1000 and 10 000)
1. Literature review
2. Laboratory tests
ventilation energy can also be measured (confirm that a variable frequency drive is in
place).
For different particles generation rates, establish the recovery time and the reaction time
of the air flow rates.
3. Field measurement
ventilation energy can also be measured.
time of the air flow rates. Also take into consideration consideration the presence and
number of peoples to reset the required air change rate
Establish the minimum flow rate to maintain the room classification, measure the
particles count and particles settling.
Establish the recovery time to come back to the production air change level
Expected results
Guidelines of air change rates for tested cleanroom classes

Potential energy saving related to air flow rate reduction
Factors affecting contamination levels (e.g. personnel, production processes, etc.)
Risks and limitations of the technology
Recovery time and reaction time of the technology
Key References
ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications, Chapter 16, Clean Spaces

ISO Standard 14644 - Cleanrooms and Associated Control Environments, Part 4, Design,
Lawrence Berkeley. National Laboratory Energy Savings in Cleanrooms from Demand Controlled
Filtration
Additional discussions on the negative Vote by e-mail correspondance

Dear Mr. Roland:
Yes, I agree that to have answers we need to do some research.

May be the performance of particle counter has been improved a lot over the time.
Thanks
SC Hu
2009/8/18 Charneux Roland <rcharneux@pageaumorel.com>

Hi M. Hu.
Do you think that this proposed research project could be modified to take your concerns into account.
The objective of this project research is exactly to determine what are the possibilities and limitations of
the technology.
For example to determine the sampling rate and location of sampling points etc...
Is it possible to use the technology for ressetting the airflow during unoccupied period or to adjust the
airflow
depending on the number of occuppants ?
In my opinion the only way to have good answers is to do some research.
Would you be interested in improving the RTAR or do you really believe that it is completely impossible.
Best regards and thanks for your response.
Roland Deleted:

1604 TRP PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1604 TRP PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INVITATION TO SUBMIT A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON AN ASHRAE RESEARCH PROJECT-

1604-TRP, Demand Based Flow Control For Cleanrooms

Sponsoring Technical Committee: TC 9.11 Clean Spaces

Scheduled Project Start Date: September 1, 2011 or later.

For Technical Matters For Administrative or Procedural Matters:

The following forms must accompany the proposal:

(1) ASHRAE Application for Grant of Funds (signed)

ASHRAE reserves the right to reject any or all bids.

State of the Art (Background)

Justification and Value to ASHRAE

Task n2 Laboratory tests

Test Simulated Total

Task n3 Field measurement

3A. During normal day operation

3C. Field validation of laboratory findings

Task n4 Establish guidelines/recommendations

a. Progress and Financial Reports

d. HVAC&R Research or ASHRAE Transactions Technical Papers

Data is defined in General Condition VI, DATA

Other Information for Bidders

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criteria Weighting Factors

TO: Roland Charneux, Chair TC 9.11, rcharneux@pageaumorel.com

FROM: Michael Vaughn, MORTS, mvaughn@ashrae.org

CC: Kishor K Khankari, Research Subcommittee Chair TC 9.11, kkhankari@syska.com

DATE: October 15, 2010

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

Adequate Intermediate Deliverables? The project should include the review of

Proposed Project Doable? Can the project as described in the WS be

Proposed Project Biddable? Examining the WS as a whole, is the project

CONDITIONAL ACCEPT 9-0-1 CNV

ACCEPT Vote - Work statement(WS) ready to bid as-is

(Please Check to Insure the Following Information is in the Work Statement )

Responsible TC-9.11 Date of Vote:

Proposal Evaluation Subcommittee: Project Monitoring

(Three qualified bidders must be recommended, not including WS authors.)

* Reasons for negative vote(s) and abstentions

Demand Controlled Filtration For Clean Rooms

APPLICABILITY TO ASHRAE STRATEGIC PLAN

Key results to be included in:

Possible impact on other ASHRAE Handbook chapters and other organization:

ADVANCEMENT TO THE STATE-OF-THE-ART

The effectiveness of a cleanroom is dependent on many factors:

JUSTIFICATION AND VALUE TO ASHRAE

Establish a scientific approach to implement demand controlled filtration (ventilation rate)

Task n1 - Literature review

Task n2 Laboratory tests

Task n3 Field measurement

Task n4 Establish guidelines

a) Progress and Financial Reports

Data is defined in General Condition VI, ''DATA''

OTHER INFORMATION TO BIDDERS

4. Unlike temperature or humidity measurement, particle counting is not a simultaneous, but

5. Room particle concentration varies significantly when equipment operation (on/off),

6. As most cleanrooms are under stringent pressure control to pre-defined specifications to

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA & WEIGHTING FACTORS

Evaluation Criteria Weighting Factors

[1] Xu, Tengfang, Tschudi, W. 2001, Energy Performance of Cleanroom Environmental

TO: Wei Sun, Chair TC 10.4, wsun@engsysco.com

FROM: Mike Vaughn

CC: Roberto Aguilo, Research Liaison 10, rraguilo@fibertel,com.ar

DATE: November 2, 2009

SUBJECT: 1604-RTAR, Demand Controlled Filtration for Clean Rooms;