<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Travis,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In general, your local codes will drive most of these answers more than general opinion, but I have seen both. At my previous institution (Cornell), the 2003 era building had gas cabinets and process tools on the same exhaust, but divided
into several different types: corrosive exhaust in fiber reenforced plastic duct (i.e. fiberglass, FRP), solvent exhaust in SS, silane exhaust in a dedicated SS duct, and vacuum pump exhaust for the general process tools (post scrubbers). Each of those systems
had a 100% redundant fan, with automatic switchover for wear leveling and the ability to do maintenance on one without impacting operations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At my current location (Princeton), everything is in one system with SS duct, but with the same 100% redundant fan with switchover for maintenance and wear leveling. We do have a separate pair of fans for our gas bunker, where most (but
not all) of our gas cabinets are located. Newer codes and some jurisdictions may require catastrophic exhaust abatement on the gas cabinet exhaust, so that is something to consider with your ducting plans. Given the amount of maintenance that fans require
per year, having the redundancy to avoid tools and processing shutdowns constantly is worth the investment. Additionally, carrying the load with a single fan often helps to hit the jet velocity that designers are generally seeking, to ensure the exhaust clears
the standard thermal plume / recirculation that most buildings have. Multiple fans running at lower volumes may have a harder time getting to the recommend ft/sec.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Dan<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Daniel Woodie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Director, Micro/Nano Fabrication Center, Princeton Materials Institute<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> labnetwork <labnetwork-bounces@mtl.mit.edu>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Massey, Travis<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 24, 2025 9:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> labnetwork@mtl.mit.edu<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [labnetwork] Combined or separate exhaust?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">LLNL is planning a significant cleanroom expansion, and the question arose whether we
<i>need</i> separate exhaust for hoods and tools/gases, or if they can be combined into a single shared exhaust. Or do you have a single exhaust with 2+ exhaust fans pulling simultaneously, so there’s always
<i>some </i>exhaust air moving if one fan is down? The conventional wisdom around here has its share of holes, so I’m out to learn from the broader nanofab cleanroom community. How are your cleanrooms’ exhaust systems are configured, especially if you’ve
had to go down this cleanroom design rabbit hole?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I’m also broadly open
<i>any</i> other lessons learned regarding provisioning exhaust or other utilities – whatever you feel like sharing. Too much information during the design phase is far better than too little.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Travis Massey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Center for Micro and Nano Technology (CMNT)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>