ENERGY EFFICIENT LOW OPERATING COST CLEANROOM

AIRFLOW DESIGN
[Paper presented at IEST’s ESTECH 2003 Conference, Phoenix, AZ May 18-21]
Rajan Jaisinghani, Technovation Systems, Inc.

Biography

Rajan (Raj) Jaisinghani is a chemical engineer with over 30 years of R&D experience related to fluid mechanics,
particle science, including colloid and aerosol science, filtration and cleanroom technology. Raj has a BS in Chemical
Engineering from BHU, India and a MS with additional graduate work from the University of Wisconsin. He is widely
published in the above fields and holds 12 patents. Currently Raj is President and CEO of Technovation Systems, Inc.

Abstract

Up to 40% of the non process related initial and operating costs of cleanrooms are dependent on the airflow rate
used in cleanrooms. Three factors that largely affect the energy and operating cost efficiency of cleanrooms are: a) the
airflow rate design method, b) the type of air handling system and air flow distribution and c) the performance characteristics
of the filter system utilized. A critical review of airflow rate design charts is presented, followed by a review of analytical
design methods such as the dilution and transient analysis models with an emphasis on energy efficient design. The effect of
various air-handling and new lower pressure drop filtration systems are also considered. Finally, a few examples of
utilization of the newer design methods and air handling/filter systems are presented showing the associated energy savings.

Keywords
airflow, cleanroom, airflow design, energy efficiency, operating cost, dilution model, transient analysis, airflow
distribution, energy efficient filters, air filters, air handling

Introduction and Scope

Recent work (1) aimed at bench marking cleanroom energy consumption has shown that the biggest factor affecting
non-process related cleanroom initial and operating (energy) cost is the airflow rate. And cleanrooms use a lot of airflow!
Surprisingly little attention has been paid to this the most important aspect of cleanroom design. In fact cleanroom airflow
design methods have not changed in decades and what is worse is that the existing method – charts showing required airflow
as a function of class (e.g. Table I (2)) – have in fact no traceable technical basis. Figure 1 shows the variables affecting
airflow design and thus cleanroom performance. Clearly charts such as Table I do not take into account any of the variables
associated with performance. The truth is that engineers designing cleanrooms conduct no calculations for the design of
airflow. Thus the most important variable of the mechanical air handling system is simply obtained from a highly dubious
chart. Energy efficiency dictates a more technical approach. This paper summarizes currently available methods - methods
that have a technical basis.

Table I Typical Airflow Design Chart (2)

Cleanroom Class Airflow Type Av. Airflow Velocity, fpm Air changes/hr
1 Unidirectional 60-100 360-540
10 Unidirectional 50-90 300-540
100 Unidirectional 40-80 240-480
1,000 Mixed 25-40 150-240
10,000 Mixed 10-15 60-90
100,000 Mixed 5-10 [corrected] 5-48

In general very little attention has been paid to the energy efficient design of air handling systems. Specific areas of
improvement include duct design, air distribution, selection of energy efficient motors and filter systems and out-of-process
(night) operation energy saving methods. The lack of progress in such areas is at least partially due to industrial standards and
standard and validation bodies that propagate non science based standards, which inhibit the development of innovative
energy efficient systems. The LBL (1) study shares these view points and has culminated into a research plan for addressing
such needs.

Design Variables
Process
Filter
Contamination Makeup Air&
Efficiency
Generation Concentration

„ Airflow design
Energy Efficient Performance depends on many
Criteria/Class
Airflow Design variables.
„ Design charts do not
Particle Airflow
Transport Distribution
take into account
Rate
the impact of these
Re-entrainment
variables.
Process
Sensitivity

Figure 1 Variables affecting cleanroom performance

This paper reviews alternate methods for airflow design for cleanrooms. Basic trends, regarding efficacy of filtration
systems, room velocity and other design variables that are evident from such models are also presented. Additionally, airflow
distribution and the use and energy advantages of using new ultra low pressured drop filter systems are discussed. Examples
of cleanroom airflow design and associated energy savings are also presented.

Cleanroom Airflow Design Methods

Design methods should incorporate the cleanroom performance variables illustrated in Figure 1. For energy
efficient, low initial and operating cost and for trouble free (not under or over designed cleanrooms) it is important that these
variables be considered. In Figure 1 the filtration efficiency is the combined efficiency of the entire system, including pre-
filters. The process contamination generation rate can be easily measured by use of a particle counter around various
machines. In fact equipment manufacturers’ should be obligated to provide such estimates. Similarly, the make up air quality
can be determined. The difficult design parameters are related to process sensitivity. The process sensitivity should determine
how long particles generated in the room will stay (i.e. is related to transport). Each process has different sensitivity with
respect to contaminants and only analysis of product QCA data and or yields can provide answers to such questions.

Current Chart Design Method

As stated above the current charts (Table I) have no traceable technical basis. There are claims that these charts are
based on experience factors. However, there is no documented evidence of this. The IEST is currently reviewing their version
of such a chart (3); however, it is not clear what the basis for such a revision is. A preview of this revision (3) clearly shows
that neither the old chart nor the revision have any parameters that take into account the important design variables shown in
Figure 1. Utilizing such charts can result in under or over designed airflow rates depending on the values of the internal
contamination generation rates and the makeup air contaminant concentration. Essentially, the designer is left with guessing
the airflow rate – a variable too important to be left to guess work!

The Dilution Model

In order to develop a rational basis for designing cleanroom airflow it should be understood that the primary purpose
of the clean airflow is to a) dilute the contaminants produced in the room and b) to transport or carry away such particles.
Jaisinghani (4) has presented a simplified dilution model that is based on rational analysis. This is summarized and reviewed
here. Figure 2 shows the schematic of the model as applied to cleanrooms. The cleanroom design variables are defined in

A Simple Model for Dilution

Cm
Particle Concentrations
Make up air, f
#/ft3 Bank of Filters
Ca = Conc. in Supply Q Ca
Cd = Design Conc. or
R
Conc. in EV exit e
EV, Elemental
Cm = Conc. in make up t Cleanroom G Volume
f = Fraction of make up u
G = Internal generation r
#/min
Cd
Q = Flow rate scfm
n
= EV Velocity, fpm
EV = Elemental Volume
1 ft3, w/ 1ft2 cross
section Figure 1 - Model Schematic

Figure 2 – Dilution Model Schematic

Figure 2. The diluted concentration, Cd, in the elemental volume with internal particle generation rate G is given by:

Cd=Ca+G/Q (1)

From this Jaisinghani (4) develops the following relationship between cleanroom design concentration and the
design variables:

Cd = [f (1-E) Cm+ G/Q]/[1 - (1-f)(1-E)] (2)

This model is applicable to a single elementary volume in a cleanroom provided the following conditions are
achieved in the airflow distribution:
a) The airflow rate is evenly distributed so that essentially the flow is unidirectional with negligible amount of
dispersion.
b) Transport or the rate of transport is not a factor here.
c) Steady state conditions are assumed.

The model may be used for an entire cleanroom using a marching technique, similar to that used in finite element
analysis. The equation 1 may be re-written as:

Cd(i) = Cd(i-1) +G(i)/Q (3)

where, i refers the current elemental volume and (i-1) refers to the elemental volume above this element.

Then equation 2 only applies to the first element directly under the filters, analogous to a boundary value equation,
except that Cd would be replaced by Cd(i). For elemental volumes below this initial volume equation 3 applies. In other
words beyond the first elemental volume the filtration system does not play a role in the cleanroom dilution process. Hence,
using equations 2 and 3 the entire cleanroom volumetric concentration may be profiled, by marching from top down.
However, since cleanrooms are classified based on the highest concentration in the room, only the dirtiest cross section of the
cleanroom may be analyzed.
 Jaisinghani (4) has applied this model to a simplified cleanroom zone or cross section. Although simplified there is a
significant amount of information to be gleaned from this. The calculations are based on the following conditions:
1. There is only one source of generation within a single elemental volume (as shown in Figure 2).
2. The make-up air conditions are fixed - 3% make-up air (as a percent of total air flow circulation), with make-up air
concentration, Cm, fixed at 500,000/ ft3.
3. Four filtration systems are considered: a) 99.9%, b) 99.97%, c) 99.99% and d) 99.999999% filtration efficiency at
0.3 Um. The last one is an extremely high efficiency filtration system such as achievable at reasonable pressure drop
using electrically enhanced filtration2 as a primary HEPA in series with a terminal HEPA filter. The mid
efficiencies, 99.97% and 99.99%, are common HEPA efficiencies. The 99.9% efficiency filter, a HEPA filters of the
past, is used to consider a lower HEPA efficiency filter that will have a significantly lower pressure drop.

Figures 3 – 5 show the results of these calculations.

1000.0
Cd, 0.3Um Conc.#/ft3

Cm = 500,000, f = 0.03 FILTER

G = 10,000 EFFICIENCY
99.90%
99.97%
99.99%
"99.999999%"

100.0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Velocity fpm

Figure 3 Effect of filtration efficiency and velocity at high values of G

The following are the salient observations from these calculations:

1. Referring to Figure 3, for higher class (i.e., less clean) cleanrooms, lower (than HEPA) efficiency filters may be
utilized for proper cleanroom performance at significantly lower pressure drops (and thus lower energy
consumption) in such cleanrooms. Current practices however continue to utilize HEPA filters in such applications
(ISO Class 7-9) although such filters have a higher energy cost and provide no advantage over more energy efficient
lower efficiency filters which also tend to last longer (have higher life or dust holding capacity).
2. Referring to Figure 4, for all values of G used, higher velocities result in lower diluted concentration. However, at
value of G, this effect has a limiting asymptotic value at around 60 fpm average room velocity. In other words
adding more airflow beyond about 50-60 fpm there is a diminishing return in terms of improved performance.
Figure 4 also illustrates that the cleanroom performance is in the end limited by the cleanliness of the cleanroom
processes and practices or G.
3. Referring to Figure 5, higher efficiency filters can be utilized to achieve the desired cleanroom classification at
lower airflow rates- for the same internal particle generation rates. Although the more restrictive filters may be
required for this, the lower airflow rates required may more than offset this and result in a net energy savings.

None of these trends are apparent in the airflow charts used by most cleanroom designers. Clearly airflow
requirements for a particular room class depend on the internal generation rates, flow velocities, and filter efficiency for
given make-up air conditions. Design charts such as Table 1 do not show such dependencies. While this model is simplified,
it nevertheless takes into account, in a manner that is borne out by experience, the effect of various design variables. It also
illustrates some important design considerations (see items 1-3 above). It should be noted that the values of Cd in the above
calculations are low because only a single generation source in a single elemental volume is considered. As additional
elemental volumes are considered the values of Cd obtained by this analysis will be higher –depending on values of G and Q
in accordance with Equation 3.
 9 9 .9 7 % 0 .3 U m F iltra tion
C m = 50 0,000 , f = 0 .03
10 00 .0
Cd, steady state conc,

1 00.0 G = 100 00
#/ft3

G = 100 0
G = 100
10.0 G = 10

1.0
10 20 30 40 50 60
V elocity, fpm
Figure 4 – Effect of Velocity on Dilution

100.0 FILTER
EFFICIENCY
Cm = 500,000, f = 0.03
Cd 0.3Um Conc. #/ft3

G = 100
99.90%
99.97%
10.0
99.99%
99.999999%

1.0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Velocity fpm
Figure 5 – Effect of Filtration Efficiency

Transient Analysis
Jaisinghani (5) has also presented another method for airflow design utilizes the solution to the material balance
equation as applied to a well mixed room. Due to the high air changes per hour cleanrooms are quite well mixed although not
to the extent that there are no spatial variations. Hence, this model results only in an average room concentration. This
average value may be used along with an assumed distribution function, such as a log normal distribution, to enable
calculation of the 95% Upper Confidence Level (UCL) concentration. It should be noted that the ISO 144661 (6) standard
allows for using the 95% UCL for determining the classification level of the cleanroom. The transient analysis model (5) is
outlined below.

The overall material balance equation is, as applied to a room with re-circulating air is:
 dC
V = - QvC - E (Qf - Qv)C - KVC + QVCV(1 - E) + GV (4)
dt

where
V is the room volume, ft3
C is the volume average room particulate concentration greater than a certain size, #/ft3
E is the fractional filter efficiency for the size range of interest
Qf is the filtered air flow rate, scfh
Qv is the make up air or ventilation air flow rate scfh
Cv is the concentration of particles, greater than the size of interest, in the make up or ventilation air
K is the #/ft3 particle decay (not due to filtration) rate constant, h-1
G is the internal room generation rate of particles greater than the size of interest, #/(ft3-h), and
t is time, h.

The solution (5) to equation 2 is:

C(t) = [1-e-Ot] I/O + Co e-Ot (5)

where Co is the initial average room concentration at time t = 0.

and I, the net ingression parameter, is given by,

I = Qv Cv (1-E)/V + G (6)

and O, the removal parameter, is given by,

O = [(1-E) Qv + EQf ]/V + K (7)

At steady state (assuming a pseudo equilibrium), the equilibrium concentration is given by,

Ceq = I/O

For a non re-circulating air flow room, Qf = Qv, and hence,

I = Qf Cv (1-E)/V + G (8)

O = Qf /V + K (9)

Figure 6 shows a typical analysis for a room that has been initially contaminated and shows the room recovery with
respect to time. K is estimated to be approximately 0.1/h from based on experimental studies of particle decay in chamber
without airflow. The value of G is estimated based on an average or worse case value based on measurement of process
equipment.

The use of the model requires some heuristic criteria regarding recovery time. Basically, this is an experience based value and
is based on the premise that lower class (cleaner) rooms should clean up or recover faster to their design value. The
fundamental basis of the use of this model is that since rooms operate in a fluctuating ingression mode (due to material,
personnel entry and process fluctuations). A simplified method of dealing with this design challenge is to calculate recovery
time after a single large step ingression. It also stands to reason that cleaner rooms should need to respond to these mini
ingressions of contaminants faster. So although this method does not eliminate some experience based factors it does take
into the account the variables that affect cleanroom design.

Computational Fluid Dynamics and Transport

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a well establish method for determining the stream lines or spatial velocity
profiles in open and duct flows. The most common method used is by Patankar and Spalding (7). The velocity profiles can
 TRANSIENT RESPONSE using
EEF HEPA FILTERS - DOUBLE HEPA SYSTEM
1,000,000
>0.3 Um ROOM CONC. #/ft3

400 FT2 ROOM, 250

100,000
SCFM MAKEUP, G
10,000
7400 SCFM, 18.5
1,000

100 11,100 SCFM,

CLASS 10
10

1
0 1 2 3 4 5
TIME min

Figure 6 – Example of a Transient Analysis

then be used with the conservation of mass equation to result in concentration profiles. Boundary value conditions that
incorporate filtration and sources for particle generation can also be introduced, but with a very much higher degree of
complication. It should be noted that these methods require specific and detailed knowledge regarding the three dimensional
profiles of the various process equipment in the cleanroom. Inaccuracies in such inputs result in large inaccuracies in the
results. CFD analysis incorporating filtration and point source generation requires highly trained personnel with advanced
knowledge of fluid dynamics.

CFD analysis on the other hand can be fairly easily utilized as a means of determining airflow patterns in
cleanrooms especially to analyze the effect of airflow return openings and their placement within the room. CFD analysis
also is useful for estimating particle residence time in the room. This is an important design variable. Increasing the airflow
rate tends to reduce the residence time until the onset of turbulence which can cause eddies to trap particles for longer time
periods. The average residence time, Tr, is equal to the reciprocal of the average room velocity.

Air handling Considerations

The above methods of airflow rate determination should be used in conjunction with other sound engineering
principles and innovative concepts to result in energy efficient cleanroom design. Just a few of these concepts and principles
are presented here.

Unidirectional, Laminar and Turbulent Flow

Often cleanroom airflow is incorrectly referred to as being laminar. More often than not these rooms are at best
unidirectional. Non laminar unidirectional flows may have small scale turbulent fluctuations which are usually acceptable.
What is not acceptable is to have highly turbulent flows that create significant eddies, since eddies usually result in larger
residence time of particles trapped in such eddies. Recent work (7,8) has shown that cleanroom performance deteriorates at
about average room velocities of about 65 fpm probably due to turbulent eddies formation. This means that simply increasing
airflow rates in cleanrooms will not always improve performance and that velocities above 65 fpm not only add to energy
consumption but also adversely affect performance. It should be noted that the FDA cGMP guidelines call for 90+/- 20% fpm
velocity at the filters which is contrary to the authors experience and the findings of the above studies (7,8). This is because
in most ISO Class 4 pharmaceutical applications 100% ceiling coverage with filters is the norm. This velocity guideline’s
origin has been traced to the ad hoc value obtained as a filter velocity in one of the first cleanrooms at Los Alamos. It should
be also noted that HEPA filters perform better at lower velocities than at higher velocities (9). This is another example of a
non science based guideline. It should be mentioned however that the primary concern of the cGMP guidelines is that there
should be a “sweeping flow “ that transports away particles viz. unidirectional flow. Often it is the validation companies that
have made the 90 fpm requirement to be an edict rather than a guideline.

Airflow Distribution and Air handling Systems

It is intuitively obvious that higher ceiling coverage by airflow distribution devices such as terminal filters or supply
diffusers will produce higher performance cleanrooms or for equal performance higher ceiling coverage will require less
airflow and thus lower energy consumption. To apply this concept the filtration or air handling system should have what is
known as flow rate and flow velocity independence. The centralized air handling system (typically one rooftop unit with pre-
filters and terminal room sided HEPA filters) meets this requirement. However, due to larger air flows than used in standard
HVAC applications, these units are typically custom designed units operating at non standard and possibly less efficient coil
velocities than standardized units. Additionally, such customized systems cost about 3-5 times as much as standardized air
conditioners. In order to overcome this handicap a distributed air handling scheme, as illustrated by Figure 7, is used. This
system uses multiple in-duct fan filter units, which are the prime movers of air. This allows the use of standard high
efficiency air conditioners that simply pull in the rated airflow from the return ducts or plenums and make up air, condition
this air and feed this typically smaller fraction of the total re-circulating air into the intake of the in-duct fan filter units. The
in-duct fan filter units then act as mixing boxes. In this system for ISO Class 5 and above no terminal HEPA filters are
utilized. For lower class rooms terminal HEPA filters are also used to result in double HEPA filtration with a system
filtration efficiency of 99.999999% at 0.3 Um. The advantages of double HEPA filtration have already been established;
double HEPA filters require significantly less airflow than single HEPA filtration.

D is t r ib u te d A ir H a n d lin g S y s te m
In d u c t f a n u n its w ith
p r im a r y U L P D ™ H E P A s AC
m
a
• F lo w / v e lo c it y k
in d e p e n d e n c e e
u
• A C f lo w is n o t p

dependent on
t o t a l f lo w O p tio n a l B a n k o f
T e r m in a l H E P A f ilte r s

C le a n r o o m F lo w S c h e m a t ic

Figure 7 The Distributed Air Handling System

Other advantages of this air handling system are:

1. The filters are replaced outside of the room – no contamination inside the room.
2. With double HEPA filtration the terminal HEPA filters should never require replacement under normal
circumstances.
3. Less noise inside the room since there are no fans on the ceiling.
4. Typically no roof re-enforcement is needed to install the standard air conditioners as opposed to the higher weight
customized central air handlers.

Ultra Low Pressure Drop Filters

During the last 6 years electrically enhanced filtration (EEF) systems have been successfully commercialized (10,5)
for cleanroom and other applications such as residential and commercial buildings. These filters typically use a lower
efficiency, lower pressure drop filter and electrically enhance the filter to perform at HEPA performance levels while still
retaining the low pressure drop advantage of the basic filter material. Combining the cleanroom and other applications there
are now over 16,000 units in operation, some of them for over 5 years. Clearly, the reliability of this technology has been
proven.

Recent advances in this technology (11) have vastly magnified the advantages of this technology, by utilizing the
advances made in mechanical construction of commercial filters along with improvements to the EEF technology itself. The
result is ultra low pressure drop HEPA filters having only 0.5”WC pressure drop at 2400 scfm in a 24”x24”x11.5” deep size
filter! This is 60% lower than conventional mechanical HEPA filters of the same size. This means that these units will
consume 60% less energy than conventional filter units. Another advantage of this technology is that these EEF HEPAs have
about 2.5-3 times higher dust loading capacity. This results in significant savings in operating and maintenance costs.

The EEF HEPA filters are available as filters that can be installed in any air handling equipment or in separate
housings with or without fans. Thus they can be utilized in both central and distributed air handling systems and the
advantages of low pressure drop can be used to increase the energy advantages of the lower flow required for double HEPA
filter systems. Table II below shows the relative savings by using lower pressure drop primary filters in different class
cleanrooms versus conventional mechanical primary filters. The pre-filters and terminal filters are always conventional filters
in both cases. Here a centralized or distributed system is assumed such that in both cases the pre-filters and primary filters are
2’x2’ in cross section and are operated at 2000 scfm per filter with the same airflow rate (assuming properly designed
airflow) in each case. Hence only the terminal filter pressure drop (PD) is dependent on the room velocity. For this analysis it
is assumed that for ISO Class 1-3 there is 100% ceiling coverage of terminal filters. For Class 5-7 it is assumed that there are
no terminal filters used. The relative savings due to system 1 in this case are given by:

%Savings = [1 – (PD1/PD2) ] X 100 (10)

Table II Energy Savings Due to Ultra Low PD Filters at Same Airflow Rates
ISO Room Prefilter Primary Terminal Total Prefilter Primary Terminal Total System 1
Class Velocity PD1“WC HEPA HEPA PD1 PD2“WC HEPA HEPA PD2 %Savings
fpm PD1“WC PD1“WC “WC PD2“WC PD2“WC “WC Eq. 10
1 60 0.25 0.4 0.3 0.95 0.25 1.0 0.3 1.55 38.7
10 45 0.25 0.4 0.22 0.85 0.25 1.0 0.22 1.47 42.2
100 25 0.25 0.4 0.125 0.77 0.25 1.0 0.125 1.37 43.8
1000 16 0.25 0.4 NA 0.65 0.25 1.0 NA 1.25 48.0
10K 7 0.25 0.4 NA 0.65 0.25 1.0 NA 1.25 48.0
Sub 1 = System w/ Ultra Low PD primaries Sub 2= System with conventional PD primaries

In this case where all things are equal except the primary HEPA filter, the use of Ultra Low PD filters results in a
relative filter PD energy savings ranging from 38.7% for ISO Class 2 to 48% for ISO Class 7.

Table III shows the results when comparing a system (1) designed in accordance to the transient and dilution models
above with Ultra Low PD primary HEPA filters to a system (2) designed in accordance to the design chart shown in Table I
with no primary HEPAs but only terminal HEPAs (single HEPA or ULPA filters). It is assumed that for system 1 the
primary HEPAs and the pre-filters have the same size as above and operate at 2000 scfm. Similary the system 2 pre-filters are
the same size and also operate at 2000 scfm each. Obviously in order to achieve at least similar (but somewhat inferior)
performance in system 2 ULPA filters would have to be used for ISO Class 1-3 rooms. Further, for System 2 for Class 1000
and above it is assumed that there is only 35% ceiling coverage and for Class 100 there the ceiling coverage is 75%. These
values and the average room velocity determine the terminal filter PD. The percent savings, due to system 1, in terms of
filtration system pressure drop, for this case are given by:

% Savings = [1-V1xPD1/(V2xPD2)] x 100 (11)

 The results for this case in Table III shows that although for most classes of cleanrooms the system 1 has slightly
higher pressure drop due to the lower flow rates utilized in this case there is a net relative energy savings related to the
filtration systems of between 29.6 (for ISO Class 2) to 48% at higher airflow rates.

In order to get a more quantitative value of energy savings the following formula may be used. The result is the
power savings due to low pressure drop filters compared to conventional filters taking into account the overall or
thermodynamic efficiency of converting electric power into work.

Power Saved = Flow Rate x (Pressure Drop Savings)/Overall Thermodynamic Efficiency (12)

In English units,

Power Saved, KW = Flow Rate, scfm x Pressure Drop reduction, “WC/Fractional Overall Efficiency x 0.0001176 (13)

Assuming an overall thermodynamic efficiency (fan plus motor) of 0.38 each ultra low pressure drop filter run at 2000 scfm
will save 0.3713 KW or 3252 KWH per year per filter for continuous operation.

Table III Savings Due to Ultra Low Pressure Drop Primary HEPAs using Models vs Charts

Room Sys. 1 Prefilter Primary Terminal Total System 2 Prefilter Terminal Total System 1
Class Velocity PD1 HEPA HEPA PD1 Velocity PD2 Filter PD 2 %
V1 “WC PD1”WC PD1”WC “WC V2 “WC PD2”WC “WC Savings
fpm fpm Eq. 11
1 60 0.25 0.4 0.3 0.95 90 0.25 0.65 0.9 29.6
10 45 0.25 0.4 0.22 0.85 75 0.25 0.54 0.79 35.4
100 25 0.25 0.4 0.125 0.77 50 0.25 0.33 0.58 33.6
1000 16 0.25 0.4 NA 0.65 30 0.25 0.42 0.67 48.3
10K 7 0.25 0.4 NA 0.65 16 0.25 0.23 0.48 40.7

Summary

The methods presented here provide a rational basis for cleanroom airflow design. Energy and operating cost efficiency can
only be achieved by utilizing such engineering analysis rather than simply using dubious design charts which do not take into
account the variables that affect cleanroom performance. Additionally guidelines regarding air handling and the use of ultra
low pressure drop filters have also been presented. These methods along with these guidelines and ultra low pressure drop
filters have been extensively and successfully used by Technovation in the design of about 75 cleanrooms. Figure 7 shows
the design velocities used in some of these cleanrooms versus the velocities recommended by the Table I chart. Clearly in
these cases the chart velocities are unnecessarily high. Although these methods are rational they are only a start; more
research is needed in order to develop more sophisticated design methodology.

E x a m p le s o f A irflo w D e s ig n
C u s to m e r- IS O C la s s D e s ig n V e l C h a r t V e l.
T y p e (2 0 9 E ) fp m fp m
B u r lin g to n 2 (< 1 ) 5 5 7 5 -1 0 0
F a b r ic s
D o w C h e m 4 (1 0 ) 3 5 7 0 -9 0
- la u n d r y
M e d P h a rm 4 (1 0 ) 4 0 7 0 -9 0
E n c e lle 6 (1 0 0 0 ) 1 6 2 5 -4 0
B io te c h

Figure 7 – Actual Design Velocities vs. Table I Chart Velocities in Select Projects
 References

1. Lawrence Berkley Laboratories, (2000) “Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories High Tech Buildings Program –
Cleanroom Benchmarking Plan”, Internal Report, LBL, Berkeley, CA.
2. Hansz, T., (1996), “Cleanroom Programming and Planning”, Proc. CleanRooms 96 East, 11th Int. Conference On
Advanced Technology and Practices for Contamination Control, p 233.
3. Fitzpatrick, M. and K. Goldstein, (2002), “Cleanroom airflows Part II: The Messy Details”, Cleanrooms, Vol 16,
#7.
4. Jaisinghani, R.A., (2000)," New Ways of Thinking About Cleanroom Airflow Design", A2C2, Vol 3, # 11.
5. Jaisinghani R.A., T.J. Inzana and G. Glindemann, (1996), “High Filtration/Biocidal Performance Cleanroom
System”, Proc. CleanRooms ’96 West, The Conference on Advanced Microcontamination Control and Ultrapure
Manufacturing, October 28-30, 1996, Santa Clara Convention Center, Santa Clara, California
6. International Standards Organization, (2001),
7. Tannous, G and K. Compton, (1998), “Studies Conclude Low Air Velocity Increases Effectiveness of
Minienvironment Design”, Cleanrooms, March issue.
8. Vazquez, M. (1999), “The Study of Altering Air Velocities in Operational Cleanrooms”, Proc. Cleanrooms West
’99, Santa Clara, CA.
9. Dhaniyala, S. and B.Y.H. Liu, (1999), “Investigations of Particle Penetration in Fibrous Filters”, J. IEST, v 42, #1.
10. Jaisinghani, R. A. (1995) U.S. patent 543,383.
11. Jaisinghani, R.A. (2002), Patent pending.