DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

October 1996

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

Energy & Environment Division

Technology and Market Assessment Group

Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Codes and Standards

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

October 1996 

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY 

Energy & Environment Division 

" Technology and Market Assessment Group 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Prepared for 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY' 

Office of Codes and Standards 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR

CLOTHES WASHERS

1. O V ER V IEW ...................................................... 1

2. TEST PROCEDURE .................... ... .......................... 2

3. ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS ................................ 4

3.1 Introduction ......... ..... .... . ......................... 4

3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis ................... 4....... 4

3.3 Energy Use ........................... ................... 5

3.4 Costing Data ................. ...... ....................... 7

3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results .................................. 8

4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN .................. 12

APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA ......... A-i

APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA ....................... B-l

B. 1 Adjustments due to Statistical Variations ............... ........ . B-1

B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization ............................. B-1

B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes ..................... B-2

APPENDIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM .................... C-1

APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION .... D-l

APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION

DESIGN OPTION . ................................ .... EAPPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY ....................... F-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table.1. General Assumptions . .................. .... .......... 7

Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data ....... 9

Table A. 1 Disaggregated Cost of Efficiency Improvements for Standard

Clothes Washers ............................................ A-2

Table B. 1 Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE

Test Procedures ...................................... B-3

Table C. 1 Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis .... C-2

Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data ...... C-4

Table D. 1 Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content ..................... D-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor ................ .. 10

i

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR 

CLOTHES WASHERS 

l. OVERVIEW ...................................................... 1 

2. TEST PROCEDURE ............................................. ' ... 2 

3 . ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS ................................ 4 

3.1 Introduction ...................... ~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis .............................. 4 

3.3 Energy Use ................................................. 5 

3.4 Costing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

3.5 Energy-V se and Cost Results ................................... 8 

4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASmLE DESIGN .................. 12 

APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA ......... A-I 

APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA ....................... B-1 

B.l Adjustments due to Statistical Variations .... ~ ................... B-1 

B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization ............................. B-1 

B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes ...................... B-2 

APPENDIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED,BY AHAM ' ............ , ........ C-l 

APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION .... D-l 

APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS 'FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION 

DESIGN OPTION ................ ' .~ ............... , .... E-l 

APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY" ..................... F-l 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table.I. 

Table 2. 

Table A.I 

Table B.l 

table C.l 

Table C.2 

Table D.I 

General Assumptions ...... ' ............ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data ........ 9 

Disaggregated Cost of Efficiency Improvements for Standard 

Clothes Washers ............................................ A-2 

Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHANI and Future DOE 

Test Procedures ................ , ............................ B-3 

Raw Data Provided byAHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis .... C-2 

AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data ....... C-4 

Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content ..................... D-l , , 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor ..................... 10 

i 
Clothes Washer Preliminary Engineering Analysis

1. OVERVIEW

The Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturer costs, and other

characteristics of the appliance class being analyzed. For clothes washers, there are two classes:

standard and compact. Since data were not available to analyze the compact class, only standard

clothes washers were analyzed in this report. For this analysis, individual design options were

combined and ordered in a manner that resulted in the lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. The

cost/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer cost for a design option divided by the reduction in

operating costs due to fuel and water savings.

A significant amount of information gathering and analysis was conducted before the new

interpretive rule process approach was implemented, therefore, some preliminary results are presented

here as a point for discussion. The methodologies used in the final engineering analysis report will

be addressed after consultation with stakeholders. Uncertainty and variability of data must also be

addressed before the engineering analysis is completed. Other input from stakeholders is also

encouraged for the final engineering analysis report. Alternative approaches can be explored or.

present approaches can be modified and refined. Also open for discussion is what variables or

uncertainties need to be analyzed.

Baseline Units

A baseline unit is the starting point for analyzing design options for improving energy

efficiency. In this report. the baseline unit represents a typical model with an energy efficiency no

lower than the minimum required by the amended National.Appliance Energy Conservation Act -

(NAECA) (Energy Factor 2 1.18 ft3/kWh). The baseline energy use is based on the shipmentweighted average of major American manufacturers? models:

Design Options

Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were

established in Draft Report on Design Optionsfor Clothes Washers [1]. This report also discussed

design options which were screened out from further analysis based on provisions detailed in the

Department of Energy's Interpretive Rule [2]. Analysis of economic criteria will be found in a future

report.

Maximum Technologically Feasible Designs

A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting of a combination of individual

design options was identified. This option, or combination of options, results in the highest energy

1

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Clothes,Washer Preliminary Engineering Analysis 

1. OVERVIEW 

The Engineering Analysis .provides infomiation on efficiencies, manufacturer costs, and other 

c:haracteristics of the appliance class being analyzed. For clothes washers, there are two classes: 

standard and compact. Since data were not available to analyze the compact class, only standard 

dothes washers were analyzed in this report. For this analysis, individual design options were 

(;ombined and ordered in a manner that resulted in the lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. The 

(X)st/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer co.st for a design option divided by the redtiction in 

operating costs due to fuel and water savings, . 

A significant amount of information gathering and analysis was conducted· before the new 

ilnterpretive rule process approach was implemented, therefore, some preliminary results are presented 

here as a point for discussion. The methodologies used in the final engineering analysis report will 

be addressed after consultation with stakeholders. Uncertainty and variability of data must also be 

addressed before the engineering analysis is completed. Other input from stakeholders is also 

. encouraged for the final engineering analysis report. Alternative approaches can be explored o'r. 

present approaches can be modified and refined. Also open for discussion is what variables or 

un~ertainties need to be analyzed. 

Baseline Units 

A baseline unit is the starting point for analyzing design options for improving .energy 

efficiency. In this repon. the baseline unit represents a typical model with an energ'y efficiency no 

lower than the minimum required by the amended NationaL Appliance Energy Conservation Act ... 

(NAECA) (Energy Factor ~ 1.18 ft3/kWh). The baseline energy use is based on the shipme~t~ 

weighted average of major American manufacturers~ models: . 

Design Options 

Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were 

established in Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers [1]. This report also discussed 

design options which were screened out from furt~er analysis based on provisions detailed in the 

Department of Energy's Interpretive Rule [2]. Analysis of economic criteria will be found in a future 

report. 

il1aximum Technologically Feasible Designs 

A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting of a combination of individual 

design options was identified. This option, or combination of options, results in the highest energy 

1 
efficiency. The maximum technologically feasible efficiency level must be either commercially feasible

or available as a working prototype.

EJficiency Calculation

The efficiency levels corresponding to various design options were determined from

manufacturer data and from engineering calculations.

Cost Estimates

Estimates of manufacturer cost were received in response to a questionnaire sent out by

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to the Association. of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (AHAM). Appendix A contains detailed incremental cost data disaggregated into

labor, purchased parts and materials, shipping/packaging, and investment. The sum of.individual

design option costs were used for design options combined in this analysis (i.e., those not previously

combined by AHAM or manufacturers).

Cost-Efficiency Relationships

The results of the Engineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which

show the efficiency and manufacturer cost of the design options.

Outputs from the Engineering Analysis

For each combination of design options considered in the analysis, the following are provided:

* energy efficiency (expressed as a Modified Energy Factor' and unit energy consumption);

* increased variable and fixed costs for manufacturers;

annual.energy consumption per unit (based on DOE test procedures);

* the relationship between cost and efficiency; and

* change in water consumption.

2. TEST PROCEDURE

Since this analysis is based on a future Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure, it is

important to discuss proposed changes to the test procedure. The Department has proposed two new

' The Modified Energy Factor is a measure of energy efficiency derived from the future DOE test procedure for each

product type.

2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

· . " 

efiiciency. The maximum t~hnologically feasible efficiency level must be either commercially feasible . 

or available as a working prototype. 

Efficiency Calculation 

-

The efficiency levels corresponding to various design options were determined from 

manufactur~r data and from engineering calculations. I 

Cost Estimates 

Estimates of manufacturer cost were received in response to a questionnaire sent out by 

Lawrence. Berkeley· National Laboratory (LBNL) to the Association. of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM). Appendix A contains detailed incremental cost dat~ disaggregated into 

labor, purchased parts and materials, shipping/packaging, and investment. The sum of.individual \ 

design option costs were used for design options combined in this analysis (i.e., those not previou~ly 

combined by AHAM or manufacturers). 

Cost.;.Efficiency Relationships 

The results of the Engineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which 

show tile efficiency and manufacturer cost of the design options. 

Outputs from the Engineering Analysis· 

For each combination of design options considered in the analysis, the foll~wing are provided: 

• e~ergy efficiency (expressed as a Modified Energy Factor1 and unit ener~ consumption); 

• increased variable and fixed costs for ~anufacturers; 

• annuaL energy consumption per unit (based on DOE test procedures); 

• the relationship between cost and efficiency; and 

• change in water co.nsumption. 

2. TEST PROCEDURE _ 

Since this analysis is based on a future Department of Energy (DOE) test procedure, it is 

important to discuss proposed changes to the test procedure_ The Department has proposed two new 

I The Modified Energy Factor is a measure of energy efficiency derived from the future, DOE test procedure for each 

product type.' .. 

2 
clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Appendices "J"

and "Jl" [3]. In this report, the two new versions of the test procedure "J" and "J1" will be referred

to as the "proposed" and "future" test procedure, respectively. The proposed (Appendix J) test

procedure will take effect shortly after being completed and published in the Federal Register as a

final rule. The "future" (Appendix J1) test procedure will take effect only when a new clothes washer

standard is enacted. The Engineering Analysis presented in this report is based on the future

(Appendix J1) test procedure.

The test procedure used in analyzing design options is important not only because of

differences in the magnitude of energy savings predicted but also because it has the potential to

change the ranking of design options. For example, the energy savings due to a thermostatically

controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent on the hot water temperature set point of the water

heater.

Existing test procedure

The existing test procedure specifies 140°F inlet water and 416 clothes washer cycles per year

[4]. The existing test procedure is carried out without a cloth test load for vertical axis clothes

washers.

Proposed test procedure (Appendix J)

The Appendix J test procedure will not alter the existing energy factor of any clothes washer

that is required to meet the current efficiency standard, except for clothes washers with temperature

selections which are locked out of the normal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes

washer use of 392 cycles per year, 2) clarification of wash/rinse temperatures to avoid ambiguity, 3)

specification of agitation and spin speed settings, 4) addition of water heating clothes washer

capability, and 5) new provisions to account for an automatic fill control feature. In addition, the

following informational quantities are defined: 1) total (both hot and cold) water consumption, 2)

remaining moisture content (RMC) in the test load after the final spin cycle, and 3) a calculated

modified energy factor (MEF). The MEF will include the energy needed to dry clothes in a dryer

after a final washer spin cycle. Determining the MEF will not be mandatory.

Future test procedure (Appendix Jl)

This DOE clothes washer test procedure has been proposed in order to more accurately

reflect actual energy usage and adapt to the continuing changes in clothes washer design. This test

procedure will make some of the informational changes in the Appendix J test procedure mandatory

[6]. Among the changes in the test procedure will be 1) new temperature use factors (TUFs), 2)

lowering of the inlet hot water temperature from the existing 140°F to 135°F, 3) a water temperature

rise change from 90 °F to 75 °F.and 4) provisions to account for adaptive control and automatic fill

control. In addition, clothes washer test loads will depend on washer capacity, remaining moisture

content after a final spin cycle will be taken into account, and the MEF will replace the current energy

3

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Appendices "f' 

and "JI" [3]. In this report, the two new versions of the test procedure "f' and "nil will be referred 

to as the "proposed" and "future" test procedure, respectively. The proposed (Appendix J) test 

procedure will take effect shortly after being completed and published in the Federal Register as a 

final rule. The "future" (Appendix JI) test procedure will take effect only when a new clothes washer 

standard is enacted. The Engineering Analysis presented in this report is based on the future 

(Appendix JI) test procedure. 

The test procedure used in analyzing design options is important not only because of 

differences in the magnitude of energy savings predicted but also because it has the potential to 

change the ranking of design options. For example, the energy savings due toa thermostatically 

controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent on the hot water temperature set point of the water 

heater. 

Existing test procedure 

The existing test procedure specifies 140°F inlet water and 416 clothes washer cycles per year 

[ 4]. The existing test procedure is carried out without a cloth test load for vertical axis clothes 

washers. 

Proposed test procedure (Appendix J) 

The Appendix J test procedure will not alter the existing energy factor of any clothes washer 

that is required to meet the current efficiency standard~ except for clothes washers with temperature 

selections which are locked out of the nonnal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes 

washer use of392 cycles per year, 2) clarification ofwashlrinse temperatures to avoid ambiguity, 3) 

specification of agitation and spin speed settings, .4) addition of water heating clothes washer 

capability, and 5) new provisions to account for an automatic fill control feature. In addition, the 

following informational quantities are defined: 1) total (both hot and cold) water consumption, 2) 

remaining moisture content (RMC) in the test load after the final spin cycle, and 3) a calculated 

modified energy factor (MEF). The MEF will include the energy needed to dry clothes in a dryer 

after a final washer spin cycle. Determining the MEF will not be mandatory. 

Future test procedure (Appendix JJ) 

This DOE clothes washer test procedure has been proposed in order to more accurately 

reflect actual energy usage and adapt to the continuing changes in clothes washer design. This test 

procedure will make some of the informational changes in the Appendix J test procedure mandatory 

[6]. Among the changes in the test procedure will be 1) new temperature use factors (TUFs), 2) 

lowering of the inlet hot water temperature from the existing 140°F to 135 OF, 3) a water temperature 

rise change from 90°F to 75 °F.and 4) provisions to account for adaptive control and automatic fill 

control. In addition, clothes washer test loads will depend on washer capacity, remaining moisture 

content after a final spin cycle will be taken into account, and the MEF will replace the current energy 

3 
factor (EF) for standard compliance. (Reporting of the energy factor (EF) will be kept for voluntary

programs.) The above changes should result in a more accurate prediction of actual clothes washer

and clothes dryer energy use.

3,. ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction C

A cost and efficiency questionnaire sent to AHAM was responded to by five AHAM member

manufacturers, however not every manufacturer provided energy-use and cost data for each design

option considered. AHAM submitted energy usage data based on both the existing DOE test

procedure and a proposed 2 AHAM test procedure. Differences between the proposed AHAM and

future DOE test procedures are discussed in Appendix B.

After LBNL performed an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested

on combinations of design options, particularly for design options that could be used on both vertical

and horizontal axis washers. Additional data were desired because inherent design differences

between vertical and horizontal axis washers could result in different incremental costs and energy

savings for a given design option. Certain synergies in cost and efficiencies could also result from

combining some design options. The analysis performed was divided into two basic stages; Phase I

and Phase II. Phase I is the analysis of the responses from the initial questionnaire and Phase II

includes responses from additional data requests (e.g., combined design options and further

disaggregated design options). Data from both Phase I and Phase II were used in the final ahalysis.

Where possible, data submitted from Phase II were used. Data from Phase I were used when needed

to analyze design options not covered in the Phase II data submittal. The raw data supplied by

AHAM are provided in Appendix C.

3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis

Because of large differences (in some instances) in cost and energy use data provided by

manufacturers it is important to analyze the effect of variability and uncertainty in the data used in the

,engineering analysis.

Variability refers to differences in input values, for example, costs for a design option. Even

if in some cases the manufacturers know how much a design option would cost them to implement,

these costs may be different among manufacturers. Similarly for fuel costs, although current costs

for fuel are known, fuel prices vary among electric or gas utilities. Uncertainty is a measure of how

a data value may vary if the exact value is unknown. For example, although all manufacturers might

agree on the probable cost of a design option, the exact cost may be unknown. Parameters with

21n this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version of the AHAM test procedure which

was used by manufacturers to submit data.

4 ,

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

factor (EF) for standard compliance. (Reporting of the energy factor (EF) will be kept for voluntary 

programs.) The above chang~s should result in a more accurate prediction of actual clothes washer 

and clothes dryer energy use. . 

3 .. ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS 

3 .. 1 Introduction c -, 

A cost and efficiency questionnaire sent to AHAM was responded to by five AHAM member 

manufacturers, however not every manufacturer provided energy-use and cost data for each design 

option considered, AHAM submitted energy usage data based on both the existing DOE test 

procedure and a proposed2 AHAM test procedure. Differences between the proposed AHAM. and 

fiJture DOE test procedures are discussed in Appendix B. 

After LBNL performed an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested 

on combinations of design options, p~icularly for design optiops that could be used on both vertical 

and horizontal axis washers. Additional data were desired because inherent design differences . 

between vertical and horizontal axis washers could result in different i~cremental costs and· energy 

savings for a given design option. Certain synergies in cost and efficiencies could also result Trom 

c.ombining some design options. The analysis performed was· divided into two basic stages; Phase I 

and Phase II. Phase I is the analysis of the respon~es from the initial questionnaire and Phase II . 

includes responses from additional data requests (e.g., combined design options and further 

disaggregated design options). Data from both Phase I and Phase II were used in the final analysis. 

Where possible, data submitted from Phase ~I were used. Data from Phase I were used when needed 

to analyze design options not covered in the Phase II data submittal. The raw data supplied by 

AHAM are provided in Appendix C. 

3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis 

, Because of large differences (in some instances) in cost and energy use data provided by 

manufacturers it is important to analyze the effect of variability and uncertainty in the data used in the 

. ,engineering' analysis. 

Variability refers to differences in input values, for example, costs for ~ design option. Even 

ifin some cases the manufacturers know how much a desigr:t option would cost them to implement, 

these costs may be different among manufactur~rs.' Similarly for fuel costs, although ~urrent costs 

for fuel are known, fuel prices vary among electric or gas utilities. Uncertainty is a measure of how 

a data value may vary if the exact value is unknown. For example, although all manufacturers might 

agree on the probable cost of a design option, the exact cost may be unknown.· Parameters with 

2In this repolt "proposed' AHAM test pro~edure" refers to an early version· of the AHAM test procedure which 

was used by manufacturers to submit data. 

4 
variability and uncertainty applicable to the engineering analysis include manufacturer cost, fuel price,

usage in cycles per year, predicted energy savings, and water price.

To avoid releasing confidential information, AHAM submitted manufacturing costs and

energy usage data as shipment weighted averages. Along with the actual values, information on the

standard deviation of the data was also provided (see Appendix C). How these data should be used

and whether or not an alternative metric (such as a range of submitted values) can be provided is open

for discussion. Differences in how fixed and variable costs were submitted by AHAM may also be

discussed (see Appendix A).

Data were also provided on confidence factors for: cost and investment data, mass production

success, and marketing success. Of these, cost and investment data are directly applicable to -the

engineering analysis. Stakeholder input is requested in how to explictly utilize these confidence

factors in the analyses.

One approach to account for variability and uncertainty would be to statistically determine

which input variables have a significant impact on the output of the engineering analysis.. This

approach could similarly be used to measure the effect of input paramenter variability on the metrics

used in determining what the appliance standard should be, if one is promulgated. This statistical

approach could also be used to determine the frequency of occurrence of life-cycle cost reduction or

of payback being greater than a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been

used on other products to determine the affect of variability and uncertainty on consumer impacts

(i.e., payback and life-cycle cost). However, these metrics are currently not the subject of the

engineering analysis. In previous rulemakings, sensitivity analyses have been performed by assuming

a high and low value for various data inputs (e.g., electricity price). Sensitivity analyses may be

discussed in the future when doing consumer and national impact analyses.

3.3 Energy-Use

Adjustments had to be made to the data submitted by AHAM because .1) not all manufacturers

provided data' for all design options and 2) differences in the proposed.AHAM and future (Appendix

Jl) DOE test procedures. Test procedure changes included adjustments in: 1) inlet hot water

temperature, 2) TUFs, and 3) dryer usage factor (DUFs). Appendix B details the adjustments made

to the AHAM data.

Cost/savings ratios were calculated for all individual design options (referenced to the

baseline). As depicted in Eq. 1, the cost/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer cost for a design

option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings.

5 -

!~~~~~~~\-

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

variability and uncertainty applicable to the engineering analysis include manufacturer cost, fuel 'price, 

usage in cycles per year, predicted energy savings, and water price. 

To avoid releasing confidential information, AHAM submitted manufacturing costs and 

energy usage data as shipment weighted averages. Along with the actual values, information on the 

standard deviation ofthe data was also provided (see Appendix C). How these data should be used 

and whether or not an alternative metric (such as a range of submitted values) can be provided is open 

for discussion. Differences in how fixed and variable costs were submitted by AHAM may also be 

discussed (see Appendix A). 

Data were also provided on confidence factors for: cost and investment data; mass production 

success, and marketing success. Of these, cost and investment data are directly applicable to -the 

,~ngineering analysis. Stakeholder input is requested in how to explictly utilize these confidence 

factors in the analyses. 

One approach to' account for variability and uncertainty would be to statistically determine 

which input variables have a significant Impact on the output of the engineering analysis., This 

approach could similarly be used to measure the effect of input paramenter variability on the metrics 

used in determining J.,hat the appliance standard should be, if one is promulgated. This statistical 

approach could also be used to determine the frequency of occurrence of life-cycle cost reduc~ion or 

of payback being greater than a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been 

used on other products t() determine the affect of variability and uncertainty on consumer impacts . 

(i.e., payback and life-cycle cost). However, these metdcs are currently not the subject of the 

engineering analysis. In previous rulemakings, sensitivity analyses have been performed by assuming 

a high and low valu,e for various data Inputs (e.g., electricity price). Sensitivity analyses !J1ay be 

discussed in the future when doing consumer and national impact analyses. 

3.3 Energy-Use 

Adjustments had to be made to the data submitted by AHAM because .1) not all manufacturers 

provided data: for all design options and 2) differences in the proposed.AHAM and future (Appendix 

11) DOE test procedures. Test procedure changes included adjustments in: 1) inlet hot water 

temperature, 2) TUFs, and 3) dryer usage factor (DUFs). Appendix B details the adjustments made 

to the AHAM data. ' ' 

Cost/savings ratios were calculated for all individual design options (referenced to the 

baseline). As depicted in Eq. 1, the cost/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer cost for a design 

option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings. 

5 

.,.:" ... 
ACostf

Cost/Savings Ratio = mfg (1) Cost (1) operating

where ACostfr = Increase in manufacturer cost

ACostveyng = Reduction in annual operating cost

Those design options with very high cost/savings ratios were identified and not combined with

other design options in order to reduce the total number of combinations. Those not combined were:

1) added insulation, 2) increased motor efficiency, 3) direct drive motor, and 4) advanced controls.

Individual design options were also combined where possible to determine if greater possible

energy savings were feasible. However, in some instances design options were not considered

compatible with each other. For example, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with lower RMC

options or horizontal axis designs because of greater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds

(which is one method of achieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control

were considered two distinct methods of achieving the same goal and were, therefore, not combined

with each other.

Cost/savings ratios were calculated for various combinations of gas and electric water heaters

and clothes dryers. Generally, design options were ranked and combined by lowest cumulative

cost/savings ratio. Operating costs used in determining the savings portion of the cost/savings ratio

were based on a weighted average of both gas and electric water heaters and dryers. The weighted

average operating costs were derived by first calculating the cost in dollars per year required for

heating water and drying clothes for each fuel type separately. Then average dollars per year were

calculated for pairings of gas and electric water heaters, with similar averages calculated for

combinations of gas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars per year for water heating and

clothes drying is then the sum of the water heater average and the clothes dryer average.

In some instances, other considerations took precedence when ranking design options. An

example involves the horizontal axis and lower RMC designs where the RMC design option should

precede the horizontal axis design option because it has a lower cost/savings ratio. However, since

a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost and performance of adding on a RMC feature,

horizontal axis was placed ahead of it. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM

(some were submitted precombined in Phase II), if they had a lower cost/savings ratio than one of

its single design option components, then the single (uncombined) design option was not used.

For some cases, it was not technically correct to simply add individual energy or water savings

to determine the energy and water saved due to combined options. The following procedure was

used in determining hot water energy for the improved fill control, automatic fill control (auto-fill),

and TCMV design options. First, the energy for the individual design option was determined. Next,

6

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Cost/Savings Ratio = 

/lCostmfg 

/lCostoperating 

where JfjCostmfr 

JfjCostoperating 

= Increase in manufacturer cost 

= Reduction in annual operating cost 

(1) 

Those design options with very high cost/savings ratios were identified and not combined with 

other design options in order to reduce the total number of combinations. Those not combined were: 

1) added insulation, 2) increased motor efficiency, 3) direct drive motor, and 4) advanced controls. 

Individual design options were also combined where possible to determine if greater possible 

energy savings were feasible. However, in some instances design options were not considered 

compatible with each other. For example, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with lower RMC 

options or horizontal axis designs because of greater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds 

(1¥hich is one method of achieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control 

were considered two distinct methods of achieving the same goal and were, therefore, not combined 

with each other. 

Cost/savings ratios were calculated for various combinations of gas and electric water heaters 

and clothes dryers. Generally, design options were ranked and combined by lowest cumulative 

cost/savings ratio. Operating costs used in determining the savings portion of the cost/savings ratio 

were based on a weighted average of both gas and electric water heaters and dryers. The weighted 

average operating costs were derived by first calculating the cost in dollars per year required for 

heating water and drying clothes for each .fuel type separately. Then average dollars per year were 

calculated for pairings of gas and electric water heaters, with similar averages calculated for 

combinations of gas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars per year for water heating and 

clothes drying is then the sum of the water heater average and the clothes dryer average. 

In some instances, other considerations took precedence when ranking design options. An 

example involves the horizontal axis and lower RMC designs where the RMC design option should 

precede the horizontal axis design option because it has a lower cost/savings ratio. However, since 

a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost and performance of adding on a RMC feature, 

horizontal axis was placed ahead of it. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM 

(some were submitted precombined in Phase II), if they had a lower cost/savings ratio than one of 

its single design option components, then the single (uncombined) design option was not used. 

For some cases, it was not technically correct to simply add individual energy or water savings 

to determine the energy and water saved due to combined options. The following procedure was 

used in determining hot water energy for the improved fill control, automatic fill control (auto-fill), 

and TCMV design options. First, the energy for the individual design option was determined. Next, 

6 
the ratio of the individual design option's energy use to the baseline's energy use was calculated. This

ratio was then used to multiply the energy use of the immediately preceding design option to arrive

at the lower energy use for the combined design option. Similarly the above method was used to

determine the reduced water use for improved fill control and auto-fill control design options.

General Assumptions

Table 1 shows the assumptions made in order to carry out the energy-use and energy cost

calculations.

Table 1. General Assumptions

Parameter' Value Source

Baseline Clothes Container Volume . 2.9 cubic feet AHAM [7]

Cycles per Year 392 Future DOE test procedure [8]

Eleciricity Price 0.083594 $/kWh .AEO 1996 [9]

Natural Gas Price 6.075 $/MBtu AEO 1996 [10]

Electricity Price Multiplier 0.90 LBNL

Natural Gas Price Multiplier 1.01 LBNL

Water and Sewage Cost 2.84 $/kgal. Seattle Water [11]

Water Heater Efficiency, Electricity 100% - Existing DOE Test Procedure [12]

Water Heater Efficiency, Gas 75% Existing DOE Test Procedure [13]

Fraction Electric Water Heaters 0.45 AHAM [14]

Fraction Gas Water Heaters 0.55 AHAM [15]

Fraction Electric Clothes Dryers 0.75 AHAM [16]

Fraction Gas Clothes Dryers ' 0.25 AHAM [17]

Initial Remaining Moisture Conten: (RMC) 62% AHAM [18]

Dryer Usage Factor (DUF) 0.84 . Future DOE Test Procedure [ 19]

Drying Efficiency of Clothes Dryer 0.5 kWh/lb. Future DOE Test Procedure [20]

Gas Dryer Correction Factor (GCF' 1.12 See Appendix D

Percentage of Time RMC Option Used 75% See Appendix E

It was assumed for this analysis that the clothes load was not a function of clothes container volume.

Appendix F discusses this assumption.

3.4 Costing Data

All incremental manufacturer cost data are based on AHAM-supplied data. Disaggregated

costs are shown in Appendices A and C.

.7

-I~~

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

, 

the ratio of the individual design option's errergy use to the baseline's energy use was calculated. This 

ratio was then used to multiply the energy use of the immediately preceding design option to arrive 

at the lower energy use for the combined design option. Similarly the above method was used to 

determine the reduced water 'Use for improved fill control and auto-fill control design options. 

(reneral Assumptions, 

Table 1 shows the assumptions made in order to carry out the energy-use and energy cost 

calculations. 

Table 1. General Assumptions 

Parameter' 

Baseline Clothes Container Volurr:~ 

Cycles per Year 

Electricity Price 

Natural Gas Price 

Electricity Price Multiplier 

Natural Gas Price Multiplier 

Water and Sewage Cost 

, Water Heater Efficiency, Electricic:, 

Water Heater Efficiency, Gas 

Fraction Electric Water Heaters 

Fraction Gas Water Heaters 

Fraction Electric Clothes Dryers 

Fraction Gas Clothes Dryers 

Initial Remaining Moisture Conten: (RMC) 

Dryer Usage Factor (DUF) 

Drying Efficiency of Clothes Dryer 

Gas Dryer Correction Factor (GCF 

Percentage of Time RMC Option l: sed 

Value 

2.9 cubic fe,et 

392 

0.083594 $/kWh 

6.075 $/MBtu 

0.90 

1.01 

2.84 $/kgal. 

100% 

75% 

0.45 

0.55 

0.75 

0.25 

62% 

0.84 

0.5 kWhllb. 

1.12 

75% 

Source 

AHAM [7] 

Future DqE test procedure [8] 

. AEO 1996 [9) 

AEO 1996 [10] 

LBNL 

LBNL 

Seattle Water [II] 

Existing DOE Test Procedure [12] 

Existing DOE Test Procedure [13] 

,AHAM [14] 

AHAM [15] 

AHAM [16] 

AHAM [17] 

AHAM [18] 

Future DOE Test Procedure (19) 

Future DOE Test Procedure [20] 

See Appendix D 

See Appendix E 

It was assumed for this analysis that the clothes load was not a function of clothes container volume. 

Appendix F discusses this assumption. 

3.4 Costing Data 

All·incrementalmanufa.cturer cost d.ata are basedoll. AHAM--supplied data. Disaggregated 

costs are shown in Appendices A and C. . , , . 

7 
3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results

The energy use and cost of design options are shown in Table 2.

The analysis was organized to allow maximum flexibility in selecting alternative efficiency

levels for further study. Typically, an engineering analysis is based on arranging combinations of

design options by lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Although this was the basic approach used,

where this would limit choices of design options, additional design paths were created. For example,

horizontal axis with recirculation was branched off of the basic horizontal axis path (itself a branch)

to enable analysis of the different RMC options with horizontal axis without recirculation. Table 2

separates the design options into five categories (a,b,c,d,e). They are: /

Category a: Vertical axis with RMC design options;

· Category b: Horizontal axis;

* Category c: Horizontal axis with recirculation;

* Category d: Vertical axis with tighter tub tolerance. This was separated from "category a" on

the assumption that tighter tub tolerance is not compatible with lower RMC achieved by

increasing the spin speed; and

* Category e: Options not analyzed in combination with other design options.

The.cost/efficiency relationship of the design options in Table 2 is shown graphically in Figure 1.

8

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

~'.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results 

The energy use and cost of design options are shown in Table 2. 

The analysis was organized to allow maXimum flexibility in selecting alternative efficiency 

levels for further study. Typically, an engineering analysis is based on arranging combinations of 

design options by lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Although this was the basic approach used, 

where this would limit choices of design options, additional design paths were created. For example, 

. horizontal axis with recirculation was branched off of the basic horizontal axis path (itself a branch) 

1to enable'analysis of the different RMC options with horizontal axis without recirculation. Table 2 

separates the design options into five categories (a~b,c,d,e) .. They are: 

of Category a: Vertical axis with RMC design options; 

f Category b: Horizontal axiS; . 

• Category c: Horizontal axis with recirculation; 

• . Category'd: Vertical axis with tighter tub tolerance. This was separated from "category a" on 

the assumption that tighter tub tolerance is not compatible with lower RMC achieved by . 

increasing the spin speed; and . 

• Category e: Options not analyzed in combination with other design options. 

The.cost/efficiency relationship of the design OPtions in Tabl~ 2 is shown graphically in Figure 1. 

".: 

8 
Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data _

incr. T1oiai Energy-Us Wnt-r Use . Annual Annual Annual i Cost/

Mfr. Mrr. Ilot Total -Total w/ I'ereent Total 1 Energy ! Water I Operating Savings

Cost Cost' Water Mach.' Washer Dryer' Dryer Improv.', MEF' Gallons WCF' Consumption' Consumption' Expense' Ratio"

No. Design Ontlon 1994$ 1994$ 5kWhcvc klYWcc kVWh/cIc ktlWcvc kWh/cvc % ft/-kWh .al/cvc Ral/f kWh/Fr eallons/vr 1994$ years

0 Baseline (vertical axis) - 225 1.554 0.220 1.774 1.533 3.306 0.885 38.92 13.3 1296 . 15257 117

la 0 + 50% RMC 9.60 235 1.554 0.226 1.780 1.295 3.074 7.0 0.952 38.92 13.3 1205 15257 112 1.7

2a -la 4 Auto Fill 4 TCMV 39.78 275 1.339 0.226 1.565 1.295 2.860 13.5 . 1.024 35.23 12.0 1121 13810 | 103 3.6

3a Ia + Improved Fill 11.58 246 1.436 0.226 1.662 1.295 2.957 10.6 0.990 36.77 12.6 1159 i 14415 107 2.1

4a la 40% RMC 8.52 243 1.554 0.234 1.788 1.097 2.884 12.8 1.015 38.92 13.3 1131 15257 107 1.8

5a 4a + Auto Fill + TCMV 40.21 284 1.339 0.232 1.57i 1.097 2.667 19.3 1.097 35.23 12.0 1046 13810 99 3.1

6.: 6 .'s_..a+_4!,, r , Fjl __~__ 11.58 255 1.1 ^4_436 ;0.2_3:2 . 1.668 1.097 2._765 16.4 1.059 1 36.77 12.6 1084 14415 102 2.0

lb Horizontal Axis ' 101.57 327 0.461 0.193 0.654 1.533 2.187 33.9 1.265 25.73 9.3..- 857 -10086 81 2.8

'2b lb + Auto Fill . 34.15 361 0.423 0.193 0.616 1.533 2.149 35.0 1.287 25.00 9.0 842 9800 79 3.6

3b lb + 50% RMC 8.66 336 0.461 0.204 0.665 1.295 1.960 40.7 1.411 25.73 9.3 768 10086 75 2.6

4b 3b+ TCMV . 8.16 344 0.450 0.204 0.654 1.295 1.949 41.1 1.419 25.73 9.3 764 10086 75 2.8

5b 4b + Auto Fill 31.62 375 0.397 0.204 0.601 1.295 1.896 42.7 1.459 25.01 9.0 743 9804 73 3.4

6b 3b + 40%RMC . ' 7.49 343 0.461 0.209 0.670 1.097 1.767 46,6 1.566' 25.73 9.3 693 10086 70 2.5

7b 6b+TCMV . 8.16 351 0.450 0.209 0.659 1.097 1.756 46.9 1.575 25.73 9.3 688 10086 70 2.7

8b 7b + Auto Fill .- 32.05 383 0.397 0.209 0.606 1.097 1.703 48.5 1.624 25.01 9.0 668 9804 68' 3.2

Ic Horizontal Axis /?:- 101.57 327 0.461 0.193 0.654 1.533, 2.187 33.9 1.265 25.73 9.3 857 10086 81 2.8

2c Ic + Horz. Axis w/recirc. 3.28 330 0.371 0.202 0.573 1.533 2.106 36.3 i 1.299 21.78 8.0 .825 8539 75 2.5

3c 2c 4 50% RMC :: 8.66 339 0.371 0.213 0.584 1.295 1:879 43.2 1.456 21.78 8.0 736 I 8539 69 2.4

.... 3c+40%. /o .RMC..... 7., 49_ 3.46 0.371 0.218 0.589 1.097 1.685 49.0 1.623 21.78 8.0 661 ..... 8539 65 23.....

Id 0 + Tighter Tub 7.09 232 1.461 0.220 1.681 1.533 3.214 2.8 0.911 36.05 . 12.3 1260 1 14131 .112 1.4

2d Id 4 Improved Fill 1 11.58 244 1.350 0.220 1.570 1.533 3.103 -6.1 0.943 -34.07 11.6 1216 13354 108 2.0

3d 2d+TCMV . 8.16 - 252 1.318 0.220 1.538 l.-533. 3.071 7.1 0.953 34.07 11.6 1204 ' 13354 107 . 2.7

4d Id+.TCMV 8.16 241 i 1.426 0.220 1.646 1.533 3.179 3.9 0.921 36.05 12.3 1 1246 14131 112 2.7

5d 4d + Auto Fill 1 31.62 272 1.259 0.220 1.479 1.533 3.012 8.9 0.972 32.63 *11.1 i 1181 12791 104 3.7

6d ld + Auto Fill __ 34.15 267 1.293 0.220 1.513 1.533 3.046 7.9 : 0.961 32.63 11.1 1194 [ 12791 105- 3.4

le 0 + Incr Motor Efficiency 9.51 235 1.554 0.200 1.754 1.533 3.286 0.6 0.891 38.92 13.3 . 1288 15257 117 -16.1

2e 0 + Direct Drive Motor 70.88 296 j1.554 0.086 1.640 1.533 3.172 4.1 0.923 38.92 13.3 1244 15257 113 17.9

3e 0 + Advanced Controls 60.75 286 1.541 0.220 1.761 1.533 3.294 0.4 0.889 38.92' 13.3- 1291 15257 [ 117 254.0

4e 0 + Added Insulation 48.77 274 1.554 0.220 1.774 1.533 3.306 0.0 . 0.885 38.92 13.3 1296 15257 I 117 N/A

I Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars; actual values as provided by AHAM are-used in all calculations.

2 Machine Energy Use. 3

'Dryer Energy Use (D.) based on 62% initial moisture content. DUF (the ratio of dryer cycles to clothes washer cycles per year) = 0.84 (See Appendix E).

4 Percent Improvement over the baseline total with dryer energy use.

s Clothes Container Volume: Vertical Axis Designs = 2.927 ft', Horizontal Axis Designs = 2.766 flW, Horz. with Recirculation Designs =2.736 fi'; same clothes load capacity is assumed for all design

options for purposes of calculating energy use.

6 WCF = Water Consumption Factor.

Annual Energy Consumption is equal to the total (with dryer) energy per cycle multiplied by 392 cycle / yr.

s Annual Water.Consumption is equal to the total gallons per cycle multiplied by 392 cycles / yr.

9 Cunuilative annual operating cost (based on combined electric/gas water heaters and dryers).

l0 Cost/Savings Ratio = (Change in manufacturer cost relative to baseline) - (Change in annual energy & water cost relative to baseline); (based on combined electric/gas vwater heaters and dryers).

9

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

No. I>esi!!n Option 

incr. 

Mfr. 

Cost 

I 1994$ 

Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data 

loial 

Mfr. 

Cos(' 

1994$ 

1I0t Tot .. 1 'Total wI I'ereent 

! Water Mach! Washer Dry('r' Dryer Impro\'.·, 

! HVhlcl'c kWh/crc kWh/cl'c kWh/cl'c kWhlcvc % 

I 1.554 0.220 1-.774 u:n 3.306 

MEr' 

(t'lkWh 

Totlll 

. GaUons 

gaVC}'c 

Annunl 

Energy 

WCF' i Consumption' 

gaVa' , kWhlvr . 

13.3 1296 

Annunl i Annunl 1 

Water I Operating 

i ConsUmptlon'l Expense' 

! gallons/vr ! J 994$ 

i 15257 I 117 

.\ .) 

Cost! 

Savings 

Ratio" 

years 

o 

la 

2a 

Baseline (verticllI axis) 

0+ 5P%RMC 9.60-

39.78 

225 

235 

275 

1.554 0.226 1.780 1.295 3.074 7.0 

_ 13.5 

0.885 

0.952 

1.024 

38.92 

38.92 

35.23 

13.3 1205 15257 1 112 1.7 

-Ia -I Auto Fill-l TCMV 1.339 0.226 . 1.565 1.295 2.860 12.0 1121 i 13810 I 103 3.6 

3a la + Improved Fill lU8 246 1.436 0.226 1.662 1.295 2.957 10.6 0.990 36.77 12.6: . 1159 i 14415 I J07 2.1 1 I 'I 

4a la + 40% RMC 'I 8.52 243 I 1.554 0.234 1.788 1.097 2.884 12.8 1.015 38.92 13.3! 1131 I 15257 107 1.8 

5a 4a + Auto Fill + TCMV i 40.21 284! 1.339 0.232 1.57i 1.097 2.667 19.3 r 1.097 _ i 35.23 . 12.0. 1046 '_1 13810 99 3.1 

. --~~-. ~:~;;~~i!:J1L_:-). I~::~~ -~~~ '+i:~~1"'- -%'~1'--~:~~:- ---}~j~.- ~:~~. "-"1~~~---~~+~~~-+' jt~~ ---):.: ___ ~_..=.18.:c°58::"'74,--_+1_-'_:-'~---'-~!::':~'---l-_-,.1"'~1-=-2_-L.--!~=-:;:~::"'.- '2b Ib + Auto FiIl I 34.15 361 i 0.423 0.193 0.616 1.533 2.149 35.0! 1.287 25.00 9.0: 842 9800 I' 79 3.6 

3b Ib + 50% RM_C 8.66 336 I 0.461 0.204 0.665 1.295 1.960 40.7 1.411 25.73 9.3 768 10086 75 2.6 

4b 3b + TCMV I 8.16 344 I 0.450 0.204 0.654 1.295 1.949 41.1 1.419 25.73 9.3 764 10086 I 75 2.8 

. 5b 4b + Auto FiIl I 31.62 375 i 0.397 0.204 0.601 1.295 1.896 42.7 1.459 25.01 9.0 743 9804' 73 3.4 

6b 3b t 40% RMC . \ I \ 7.49 343 I 0.461 0.209 0.670 1.097. 1.767 46,6 1.566' 25.73 9.3 693 10086' 70 2.5 I 

7b 6b + TCMV _' I. 8.16' 351 J 0.450 0.209 0.659 1.097 1.756 46.9 1.575 25.73 9.3 688; 10086 70 2.7 

.... .!~ . ..:. . ..1!l::!: Auto FJ!I ___ j ._.;:-. ___ \ ____ !2.05. 383 '-1 0.397 0.209 ._Q:~~6 1.097 1.703 48.5 1.624, 25.01 9.0 f---.• ____ 66_8 ___ · L_._9::.:8::.;:0:..;4_-+_.--=.68::...._--+ 3.2 

Ic Horizontal Axis·""" 'IOU7 327 0.461 0.193 0.654 1.533, 2.187 33.9 1.265 '1'25:73- 9.3 i 857 10086 81 2.8 

2c Ic + Horz. Axis wlrecirc. 3.28 330 i 0.371 0.202 0.573 1.533 2.106 36.3 1.299 21.78 8.0 .825 8539 I 75 2.5 

3c 2c t 50% RMC: 8.66 339 0.371 0.213 0.584 1.295 1:879 - 43.2 1.456 21.78 8.0 736 i _ 8539 I 69 2.4 

• _. _r 

4e ___ ... ___ 3c+ ~. • 40%RMC 

••• __ • ,_, ___ -_ •• 1 .... 

.. .: _.~_ . "_0. __ ! I o. i t 

1 d 0 + Tighter Tub _ 

2d Id + Improved Fill .. 

7.09 

\\.58 

8:16 

232 

244 

252 

::;:i ~:~~~ ::;~! :.~~~ -t~!~ -I~O ~£! ,~H~ ~r!. --:t~I~ .. ~! .--~8f!rT--! -':ft!--~t~-- 3d 2d+TCMV. J.3 I 8 0.220 L538 1.-533 3.071 7. I 0.953 34.07 11.6 1204' 13354 I 107 - 2.7 

4d Id+TCMV 8.16 241 1.426 

I 

0.220 1.646 1.533 3.179 3.9 0.921 - i 36.05 12.3 1246 14131 I 112 2.7 

5d 4d + Auto Fill '. 31.62 272 I 1.259 

. __ 6d ___ Id + A~~itL._ .. : .. _~ __ L 34.15_._.167 ... ~ ! .. ~91_ 

0.220 1.479 1.533 3.012 8.9 0.972 32.63 . 11.1 1181 12791 I 104 3.7 

Ie 0+ IncrMotorEffidency! 9.51 235, U54 

0.220 1.513 1.533 3.046 7.9Q..2~L .. ~.]1:~.L_I1.:!._ 1194 _-+! _..:ci.=.27'-'-9""1_--c1i-------=--'10'-"S_-_:---,3,-,-,.4_ 

0.200 1.754 1.533 3.2860.6 0.891 38.92 13.3' 1288 15257 I 117 _16.1 

2e 0 + Direct Drive Motor 70.88 296 i 1.554 0.086 1.640 1.533 3.172 4.1 0.923 38.92 13.3 1244 15257 I 113 17.9 

3e 0 + Advanced Controls 60.75 286 1.1.541 0.220 1.761 1.533 3.294 0.4 0.889 38.92' 13.3- 1291 15257 I 117 254.0 

4e 0 + Added Insulation I 48.77 274 ! 1.554 0.220 1.774 1.533 3.306 0.0 0.885 38.92 13.3 1296 i.' 15257 r 117 N/A 

I Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars; actual values as provided by AHAM are· used in. all calculations. 

2 Machine Energy Use. 

J'Dryer Energy Use (D.) based on 62% initial moisture content. DUF (tile ratio of dryer c)'cles to clothes washer cycles per year) = 0.84 (See Appendix E). 

4 Percent Improvement over the baseline total with dryer energy use... . . 

5 Clothes Container Volume: Vertical Axis Designs = 2.927 ft'. Horizontal Axis Designs = _2.766 ft', Horz. with Recirculation Designs =·2. 736 ft'; same clothes load capacity is assumed for all design 

options for purposes of calculating energy use. 

6 WCF = Water Consumption Factor. 

7 Annilal Energy Cmisumption is equal to the total (with dryer) el;ergy per cycle JUuitiplied by 392 cycleS I yr. 

8 Alumal Water-Consumption is .equal to the total gallons per cycle mUltiplied by 392 cycles I yr. 

9 Cumulative aru1llal operating cost (based on combined electric/gas water heaters and dryers). 

10 CostlSavings Ratio = (Change in manufacturer cost relative to basdinc) -f (Change in annual <!n<!rgy & water co,;t rdati\'~ to hasdine): (bas~d on combined el~ctric/gas \vater heaters and dryers). 

9 
Headings used in Table 2 are described below:

Incremental Manufacturer Cost. This is the cost that would be incurred ifthe design option were

required to meet a minimum efficiency standard and would therefore be mass-produced approximately

at the same level as current production levels. For this reason some prices for models, such as

horizontal axis washers, would be substantially lower than' those currently on the market due to

economies of scale. These values are based on data provided by AHAM.

TotalManufacturer Cost. This cost is determined by adding a design option incremental cost to the

total manufacturer cost of the previous design option.

Hot Water Energy Use. This is the energy content of the hot water supplied by the water heater

external to the washing machine.

Machine Energy Use. This is the electrical energy input to the washer during a washer test cycle.

Total. Washer Energy Use. This is the sum of the hot water and machine energy use.

Dryer Energy Use. This is the amount of energy needed to complete the drying of the test load in

a clothes dryer after the final spin cycle.

Total Energy Use with Diyer. This is the sum of hot water energy, machine energy, and dryer energy

use.

Percent Improvement. This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy)

over the baseline case.

Modified Energy Factor (MEF). This is the ratio of washer volume in cubic feet to total energy

where the total energy includes the dryer (moisture removal) energy. MEF differs from EF in that

the energy needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. MEF is given

in units of cubic feet per kWh per cycle. The following equation demonstrates how MEF is

calculated.

Clothes Container Volume MEF (2) Hot Water Energy + Mechanical Energy + Dryer Energy

Total Gallons. This is the total amount of water used per cycle, both hot and cold.

Water Consumption Factor (WCF). This is the total gallons of water used in a test cycle divided by

the clothes container volume in cubic feet.

10

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Headings used in Table 2 are described below: 

incremental Manufacturer Cost. This is the cost that would be incurred ifth'e design option were 

required to meet a minimum efficiency standard and would therefore be'mass-produced.approximately 

at the same level as current production levels. For this reason some prices for models, such as 

horizontal axis washers, would be substantially lower than' those currently on the market due to 

leconomies of scale. These values are based on data provided by AHAM. 

Total Manufacturer Cost. This cost is determined by adding a design option incremental cost to the 

total.manufacturer cost of the previous design option .. 

, Hot Water Energy Use.' This is the energy content of the hot water supplied by the water heater 

external to the washing machine . 

. Machine Energy Use. This is the electric'al energy input to the washer during a washer test cycle. 

Total. Washer Energy Use. This is the sum of the hot water and machine energy use. 

Dryer Energy Use. This is the amount of energy needed to complete the drying of the test load in 

a clothes dryer after the final spin cycle. . 

Total Energy Use with Dlyer. This is the sum of hot water energy, machine energy, and dryer energy 

use. 

Percent Improvement. This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy) 

over the baseline case, 

Modified Energy Factor (MEF). This is the ratio of washer volume in cubic feet to total energy 

where the total e,nergy includes the dryer (moisture removal) energy. MEF differs from EF in that 

the energy needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use, MEF is given 

in units of cubic feet per kWh per cycle, The following equation demonstrates h01N MEF is 

calculated. ' ' 

MEF = 

Hot Water Energy + MechaniCal Energy + Dryer Energy 

Clothes Container Volume 

(2) 

Total Gallons. This is.the total amount of water used per cycle, both hot and cold. 

Water Consumption Factor (WCF). This is the total gallons of water used in a test cycle divided by 

the clothes 'container volume in cubic feet.' 

10 

'j 
AnnualEnergy Consumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year

based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year.

Annual Water Consumption. This is the total water consumption in gallons (both hot and cold) in

an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year.

Annual Operating Expense. This is cost in fuel and water to run a washing machine for one year plus

the cost to dry the clothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars.

Cost/Samings Ratio. This ratio describes the increase in manufacturer cost for one or more design

options relative to the savings in annual operating expense.

8b a

s400

.5b ,

t ,,

lb . 3b

'' 3c '/

S320

E S300 /

s . r ' *

S280

as as 9 1. Li 2 . 3 14 15 1.6 L7,

Modified Eergy Factor (cubic feet / kWh)

S260 / // / ^t '6a

a8 0Fg9 1.0 Llan f 1.2 3 4 Lv5 1.6 7M

Modified Energy Factor (cbic feet kWh)

Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor

11

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Annual Energy Consumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year 

based on 39~ clothes washer cycles per year. . 

. Annual Water Consumption. Thi~ is th~ total ~ater consumption in gallons (both hot and cold) in 

an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year. ' 

Annual Operating Expense. This is cost in fuel and water to run a washing machine for one year plus 

the cost to dry the clothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars. 

Cost/Savings Ratio. This ratio describes the increase in manufacturer cost for one qr more design 

options relative to the savings in annual operating expense. ( 

S4OO, 

I 

I :t 

r;; SJ-ll ~ 

C'I 

C'I 

.... 

'-' S320 

-'" 8 

b S300 + 

\.. , := 

... . (,J I 

.= S200 + 

:= ! 

c i ~ i 

~ S2{j) l' 

I I 

S2-ll t 

i 

S220 ~ : 

I 

Sho 

2b 0 

4b o' 3c 

o 

8b o 

7b r;j' 4c 

I . I 

I 

\ 

I I 

i 

I 

i . I 

! 

~ . 

! 

5200 ~l--~~+;-'-----+'----~~------~-----r------~-----+------+-----~ Q8 Q9 1.0 11 . 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7. 

,Modified Energy Factor (cubic feet I kWh) 

' . 

. . Figure 1. ~lanufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor 

11 
4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN

The maximum technological feasible design based on energy use per cycle is a horizontal axis

washer with recirculation and a RMC of 40%. This design would reduce total laundry energy

consumption (for both washing and drying) by 49.0% and washing energy alone by 66.8%. The MEF

for this design is 1.62.

12

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASmLE DESIGN 

The maximum technological feasible design based on energy use per cycle is a horizontal axis 

washer with recirculation and a RMC of 40%. This design would reduce total laundry energy 

consumption (for both washing and drying) by 49.0% and washing energy alone by 66.8%. The MEF 

for this design is 1.62. 

12 
REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1996a. Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes

Washers, October 1996.

2. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Procedures, Interpretations and Policiesfor Consideration of New or

Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products; Final Rule. Federal

Register Vol. 61, No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 -- July 15, 1996.

3. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Clothes Washers and Reporting Requirement for Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, and

Dishwashers. (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Appendices

J & J1, Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A.

4. U.S. Office of the Federal Register. i994. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix

J to Subpart B or Parr 430 -- Uniform Test Methodfor Measuring the Energy Consumption

of Automatic and Semi-automatic Clothes Washers, January 1, 1994.

5. U.S. Office of the Federal Register. 1995. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430,

Vol. 60, No. 56, p. 15335, Proposed Rules, March 23, 1995.

6. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit.

7. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995a. Comments on the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #27, May 8,

1995.

8. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit.

9. U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration. 1996. Annual Energy Outlook 1996 with

Projections to 2015 Washington, D.C., DOE/EIA-0383(96), January.

10. Ibid.

11. Seattle Water, Comments on the Advcance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE Docket No.

EE RM-94-403, comment #29, May 8, 1995.

12. U.S. Office of the Federal Register. 1994. Op. cit.

13. Ibid.

14. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit.

15. Ibid.

13

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

REFERENCES 

1. U. S. Department of Energy (POE). 1996a. Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes 

Washers, October 1996. 

2. U. S. POR 1996b. Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards for. Consumer Products; Final Rule. Federal 

Register Vol. 61, No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 -- July 15, 1996. 

3. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure 

for Clothes Washers and Reporting Requirement for Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, and 

Dishwashers. (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Appendices 

J & 11, Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A. 

4. U.S. Office of the Federal Register. i994. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix 

J to Subpart B or Parr 430 -- Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption 

of Automatic and Semi-automqtic Clothes Washers. January 1, 1994. 

5. US. Office of the Federal Register. 1995. Code,ofFederal Regulation~,. Title 19, Part 430, 

Vol. 60, No. 56, p. 15335, Proposed Rules, March 23, 1995. 

6. US. DOE. 1996c. Op: cit. 

7. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995a. Comments 011 the Advance 

Notice o/Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #27, May 8, 

1995. 

8. US. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit. 

9. U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: 1996. Annual Energy Outlook 1996 wiih 

Projections to 2015. Washington, D.C., DOEIEIA-0383(96), January. 

10. Ibid 

11. Seattle Water, Comments 011 the Advwlce Notice of Proposed Rulem~killg. DOE pocket No. 

EE RM-94-403, comment #29, May 8,1995 .. 

12. US. Office of the Feder~l Register. 1994. Op. cit . 

. 13. Ibid. 

14. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit. 

15. Ibid 

13 
16. AHAM. 1995b. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket

No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995.

:17. Ibid.

18. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit.

19. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit.

20. Ibid.

'14

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

, , 

16. AHAM. 1995b. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket 

No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995. 

17. "Ibid 

18. AHAM. 1995a. Op: cit. 

19. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit. 

20. Ibid 

"14 

.... :.. 
APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA

Table A. 1 shows the manufacturer costs for standard clothes washers by design option. The

cost data provided by AHAM are disaggregated into variable and fixed costs. The AHAM variable

cost data were supplied as per unit costs and were disaggregated into the following three categories:

material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, not supplied on a per unit basis',

were disaggregated into the following three categories: tooling, capital costs, and other. AHAM also

provided a total per unit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option.

The columns labeled "Total Variable" and "Total Fixed" in Table A. 1 were derived by LBNL

and represent the per unit cost for each design option. The total per unit fixed cost was determined

by subtracting the total per unit variable cost from the total incremental manufacturer cost.

This was due to AHAM's need to keep the data confidential and also from complications arising from how the

data was collected.

A-I

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

~ . 

- . -

APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA 

Table A I shows the manufacturer costs for standard clothes washers by design option. The 

cost data provide4 by AHAM are disaggregated into variable and fixed costs. The AHAM variable 

cost data were supplied as per unit costs and were dis aggregated into the following three categories: 

material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, qot supplied on a per unit basisl, 

were disaggregated into the following three categories: tooling, capital eosts, and other. AHAM also 

provided a total per unit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option. 

The columns labeled "Total Variable" and "Total Fixed" in Table A.I were derived by LBNL 

and represent the per unit cost .for each design option. The total per unit fixed cost was determined 

by subtracting the total per unit variable cost from the total incremental manufacturer cost. 

lThis was due to AHA1v1's need to keep the data confidential and also from complications arising from how the 

data was collected. . 

A-I 

\ , . 
Table A.1 Disaggregated Cost of Efficiency Improvements for Standard Clothes Washers

Design Design Option Variable Costs Fixed Costs ! Increm. Total

No. Costs per Unit Costs (in Thousands) Per Unit per Unit Mfg.

Material/Parts Labor Shipping Total Tooling Capital Other' Total , Mg. Cost

Variable Costs' Fixed' Cost

1994$ 1994S 1994S 1994$ 1994$ 1994S 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) 225

la RMC = 50% .. 4.50 0.31 0.00 4.81 35843 14950 2474 4.79 9.60 235

2a la + Auto Fill, TCMV 34.93 1.49 0.00 36.42 69009 27745 14581 3.36 39.78 275

3a la + Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 0 124 0.05 11.58 246

\

4a la+ RMC=40% 7:82 0.01 0.00 7.83 41437 17618 3658 0.69 8.52 243

5a 4a + Auto Fill, TCMV 35.28 1.49 0.00 36.77 75170 30744 15824 3.44 40.21 284

6a 4a + Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 0 124 0.05 11.58 255

b Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 0.56 76:78 86852 125690 15717 24.79 101.57 327

2b lb+ AutoFill 30.12 1.24 0.00 31.36 97957 143847 17038 2.79 34.15 361

3b lb + 50% RMC 7.70 0.17 0.06 7.93 97089 143588 16626. 0.73 8.66 336

4b 3b +TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03 0.13 8.16 344

5b 4b+ Auto Fill 27.23 0.85 0.00 28.08 3.54 31.62 375

6b 3b + 40% RMC 6.90 . 0.00 0.00 6.90 103056 146564 19619 0.59 7.49 343

7b 6b+ TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03 0.13 8.16 351

8b 7b + Auto Fill 27.58 1.15 0.00 28.73 3.32 32.05 383

Ic Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8,24 0.56 76.78 86852 125690 15717 24.79 101.57 327

2c Ic * Horz. Axis w/recirc. . 3.28 0.00 0.00 3.28 95728 134844 21727 0.00 3.28 330

3c 2c - 50% RMC 7.70 0.17 0.06 7.93 97089 143588 16626 0.73 . 8.66 339

,4c 3c - 40% RMC 6.90 0.00 0.00 6.90 103056 146564 19619 0.59 7.49 346

Id 0 + Tighter Tub Tolerance 4.61 0.22 -0.00, 4.83 15239 17137 836 2.26 7.09 232

2d Id - Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 0 124 0.05 . 11.5 244

3d 2d- TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03 0.13 8.16 252

4d Id * TCMV 1 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03. 0.13 8.16 24!

5d 4d + Auto Fill 27.23 1.16 0.00 28.39 3.23 .31.62 272

6d Id Auto Fill 30.12 1.24 0.00 31.36 29719 11769 6061 2.79 34.15 267

le 0+Increase Motor Efficiency . 8.78 0.07 0.00 8.85 3043 2678 1373 0.66 ,9.51 235

2e . 0Direct Drive Motor 68.87 0.74 0.00 59.61 8617 8528 4353 1.27 70.88 296

3e 0-Advanced Controls 54.98 1.24 0.00 56.22 45668 15131 .16068 4.53 60.75 286

4e 0-Added Insulation 43.22 0.90 0.00 44.12 58226 45 8662 4.65 48.77 274

' Assumes a five-year regulatoly life.

2 Includes production machinery, plant upgrade, and/or expansion.

3 Includes R&D, product certification, and administrative overhead.

' Fixed costs = total costs - variable costs.

A-2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Table A~l Disaggregated Cost of Efficiency Improvements for Standard Clothes Washers 

Design 

No. 

0 

la 

2a 

3a 

4a 

5a 

6a 

Ib 

2b 

3b 

4b 

5b 

6b 

7b 

8b 

Ie 

2c 

3c 

,4, 

Id 

2d 

3d 

4d 

5d 

6d 

Ie 

2e 

3e 

4e 

Design Option Variable Cosu Fixed Costs ,I 

, Costs Der Unit Cosu (in ThousandS) 

MateriallParts Labor Shipping Total Tooling 

Variable 

1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 

Baseline (Vert. Axis) 

RMCc 50% " 4.50 0.31 0.00 4.81 35~43 

la + Auto Fill. TCMV 34.93 1.49 0.00 36.42 69009 

I a + Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 It.S3 139 

la + RMC =40% 7;82 0.01 0,00 7.83 41437 

4a .. Auto Fill. TCMV 35.28 1.49 0.1)0 36.77 75170' 

4a .. Improved Fill Cont~ol 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 

Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 0.56 76:78 86852 

Ib+ AutoFill 30.12 1.24 0.00 31.36 97957 

, Ib" 50%RMC 7.70 0.17 0.06 7.93 97089 

3b.;.TCMV 7.70 <l.33 0.00 11.03 

4b+ Auto Fill 27.23 0.85 0.00 28.08 

3b+40%RMC 6.90 0.00 . 0.00 6.90 103056 

6b+ TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03 

7b + Auto Fill 27.58 1.15 0.00 28.73 

Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 0.56 76,78 86852 

Ie" Horz, Axis w/recire. 3.28 0.00 0.00 3.28 95728 

2c + 50% RMC 7.10 0.17 0.06 7.93 97089 

3c + 40% RMC 6.90 0.00 0.00 6.90 103056 

0.;. Tlght« Tub Tolerance 4.61 0.22 '0.00, 4,83 ,15239 

I d - Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0,00 11.53 139 

2d + TeMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 g,03 

Id" TCMV I 7.70 0.33 0.00 I 8.03. 

4d ... 'Auto Fill 27.23 1.16 0.00 28,39 

Id" Auto Fill 30.12 1.24 0.00 31.36 29719 

O+increase Motor Efficiency . 8.78 0,07 0.00 8.85 3043 

O+D,rect Drive Motor 68,87 0.74 0.00 69,61 8617 

0:" Advanced Controls 54.98 1.24 0.00 I· 56.22 45668 

O+Added insulation 43,22 0,90 0.00 I 44.12 58226 

1 Assumes a five-year regulatory life. 

2 Includes production machinery, plant upgrade, and/or expansion. 

~ Includes R&D, product certification. and administrative overhead. 

, Fixed costs == total costs - variable costs. 

A-2 

Capital Other' 

Costs ' 

1994$ 1994$' 

14950 2474 , 27745 14581 

0 124 

17618 3658 

30744 15824 

0 124 

125690 15717 

143847 17038 

143588 16626. 

146564 19619 

125690 15717 

134844 21727 

143588 16626 

146564 19619 

17137 836 

0 124 

11769 6061 

2678 1373 

8528 4353 

15131 ' 16068 

45 8662 

Increm. 

Per Unit per Unit 

Total , Mfg. 

Fixed' Cosu 

1994$ 1994$ 

4.79 9.60 

3.36 39.78 

0.05 IJ.S8 

\ 

0,69 8.52 

3.44 40.21 

0.05 11.58 

24.79 . 101.57 

2.79 34.\5 

0.73 . 8.66 

0.13 8.16 

3·54 31.62 

0.59 7.49 

0.13 8.16 

3.32 32.05 

24.79 101.57 

0.00 3.28 

0.73 . 8.66 

0.59 7.49 

2.26 7.09 

0.05 . 11.58 

0.13 8.i6 

0.13 8.16 

3,23 31.62 

2.79 34.15 

0.66 ,9.51 

1.27 70,88 

4,53 60,75 

4,65 48,77 

Total 

Mfg. 

Cost 

1994$ 

225 

235 

275 

246 

243 

284 

255 

327 

36\ 

336 

344 

375 

343 

351 

383 

327 

330 

339 

346 

232 

244 

252 

24! 

272 

267 

235 

296 

286 

274 
APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA

Several adjustments were'made to the data submitted by AHAM. These adjustments were

made for the following reasons: 1) statistical variations, 2) normalizing, and 3) differences between

the proposed' AHAM and future DOE (Appendix J1) test procedures.

B.1 Adjustments due to Statistical Variations

The first step in the analysis was to review the AHAM data. In some cases not all

manufacturers responded to a particular design option. Because manufacturers provided different

energy and water use estimates, an energy or water use change due to a design option modification

can arise simply because a different number of responses are being used to calculate the shipmentweighted average. This situation arose in the analysis of several design options and, as a result, the

energy or water use had to be adjusted.

The hot water energy and total water use for all vertical axis RMC design options were set

equal to the baseline values. Hot water and total water use for horizontal axis designs with 50% and

40% RMC were set equal to that reported for the stand-alone horizontal axis design option. Total

water use for the added insulation and direct drive motor design options were set equal to the baseline

value. The mechanical energy for the added insulation design option was also set equal to the

baseline value.

The clothes container volume (wash basket capacity) also varied due to statistical reasons.

Where the clothes container volume differed, values were equalized and the MEF was recalculated.

For the engineering analysis, clothes container volume was allowed to vary based on 1) axis

orientation (vertical or horizontal) and 2) whether a recirculation design was incorporated. Thus,

only three clothes container volumes were analyzed; one for vertical axis designs, another for

horizontal axis designs, and one for horizontal axis with recirculation designs. Although the volume

was adjusted as described above for the MEF calculation, it was assumed that all design options

washed the same amount of clothes for purposes of calculating the clothes dryer energy required to

dry the clothes. The issue of clothes load is discussed further in Appendix F.

B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization

In AHAM's Phase II data submittal, not all manufacturers provided data for every design

option. However, a separate baseline (except for cost data) was provided for each "Phase IF' design

option. The energy use data for this separate baseline were based only on those responses from

manufacturers who provided data for that design option. These "separate" baseline data were used

to normalize the "Phase II" design.option.data-to the five-respondent baseline used throughout the

1In this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version of the AHAM test procedure which

was used by manufacturers to submit data.

B-1

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

APPENDIX H. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA 

Several adjustments were'made to the data submitted by AHAM. These adjustments were 

made for the foHowing reasons: ,1) statistical variations, 2) normalizing, and 3) differences between 

. the proposed I AHAM and future DOE (Appendix 11) test-procedures. 

B.I Adjustments due to Statistical Variations 

The first step in the analysis was to review the AHAM data. In s~me cases n9t all 

manufacturers responded to a particular design option. B~cause manufacturers provided different 

energy arid water use estimates, an energy or water use change due to a design option modIfication 

can arise simply l?ecause a different number of responses ar:e being used to calculate·the shipment-

. weighted av~rage. This situation arose in the analysis of several design options and, as a result, the 

energy or water use had to be adjusted .. 

The hot water energy and total water use for all vertical axis RMC design options were set 

equal to the baseline values. Hot water and total water use for horizontal axis designs with 50.% and 

40%'RMC were set equal to that reported for the stand-alone horizontal axis design option. Total 

water use for the added insulation and direct drive motor design options were set equal to the baseline 

value. Themechanica'\ energy for the added insulation 'design option was also set equal to the 

baseline value. . . . 

The clothes container volume (wash basket capacity) also varied due to statistical reasons. 

Where the clothes container volume differed, va]ues were equalized and the MEF was recalculated. 

For the .engineering analysis, clothes container volume ·was allowed to vary based on 1) axis 

orientation (vertical or horizontal) and 2) whether a recirculation design was incorporated .. Thus, 

only three clothes container volumes were analyzed; one for vertical axis designs, another for 

~orizontal axis designs, and one for horizontal axis with recirculation d~signs. Although the volume 

was adjusted as described above for the MEF calculation, it was assumed that all design options 

washed the same amount' of clothes for purposes of calculating the clothes dryer energy required to 

dry the clothes. The issue of clotlies load is discussed further in Appendix F. . 

B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization 

In AHAM's Phase II data submittal, not all manufacturers provided data for every design 

option. However, a separate baseline (except for cost data)was provided for each "Phase If' design 

option. The energy use data for this separate. baseline were based only on those responses from 

manufacturers who pro\ ided data for that. design option: These "separate" baseline data were used 

to normalize the "Phase II"design.optlon.datatothe five,.respondent baseline used throughout the. 

lIn this rep~rt "pro?osed'AHAM test procedur~" refers to an early version of the AHAM test procedufe which 

was used by manufacturers [0 submit data.' . ..... 

B-1 
-analysis., The following "Phase IF' design option data were normalized: 1) hot water energy use, 2)

clothes container capacity, and 3) total water use. The basic normalization equation is shown below:

V a = e Valu ujusted ( Baseline-respondent ) (B.1) adjusted nBaselinea

aselunadjusted

where Valueated = Design option hot water energy use, water use, or clothes

container capacity normalized to 5-respondent baseline.

Value,,adj,dsed = Original, Phase II, AHAM design option hot water energy use,

water use, or clothes container capacity (unadjusted for number

of respondants)..

Baselines respo,,dn, = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container

capacity based on data supplied by all five manufacturers,

i.e., the data for the five-respondent baseline.

Baselinerd, d = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container

capacity based on data supplied by the number of manufacturers

providing data for Value',adited

B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes

All of the data submitted by AHAM that was used in the analysis was based on a proposed

AHAM test procedure. Thus, adjustments had to be made to the AHAM data so that they were in

accordance with the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1). This included adjusting the hot water

energy use to reflect changes in both inlet water temperature assumptions and temperature use factors

(TUFs). It also included changing the dryer usage factor (DUF) from 0.83 to 0.84. The hot water

energy use adjustments are detailed below.

The future DOE test procedure assumes a value of 1350F for the hot water inlet temperature.

The proposed AHAM's test procedure used a value of 130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use of ail

the AHAM design option data was corrected by using the following equation.

B-2

B-2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

, :analysis., The following "Phase If' design option data were normalized: 1) hot water energy use, 2) 

clothes container capacity, and 3) total water use. The basic normalization equation is shown below: 

I I Baselines_respondent ) 

.va ueadfusted = Va ueunadiusted • ( -~---,.--'---

Baseline unadfusted (B.l) 

where Valueadjusted = Design option, hot water energy use, water use, qr clothes 

container capacity normalized to 5-respondent baseline, 

Valueunadjusted = Original, Phase II, AHAM design option hot water energy use, 

water use, or clothes container capacity (unadjusted for number 

ofrespondams)" , 

Baseline5_respondent = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container 

capacity based on data supplied by all five· manufacturers~ 

i.e:, the data for the five-respondent baseline. 

Ea$elineunadjusted· = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container 

capacity based on data supplied by the number of manufacturers 

proVIding data for Value,;nad)lIsled' ' ' . 

B.3 Adjustments due to Test. Procedure Changes' 

All of the data submitted by AHAM th,at was used in the analysis was based on a proposed 

AHAM test procedure. Thus, adjustments had to be made fo the AHAM data so that they were in 

accordance with the future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11). This included adjusting the hot water 

energy use to reflect changes in both inlet water temperature assumptions and temperature use factors 

(TUFs), It also included changing the ,dryer usage factor (DUF) from 0.83 to 0,84, The hot water 

energy use adjustments are detailed below. 

The future DOE test procedure assumes a value of 135 OF for the hot water inlet temperature. 

The proposed AHAM's test" procedure used a value of 130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use of ail 

the AHAM design option data was corrected by using (he following equation. 

B-2 

: 
A TDOE

HWadjusted = HWnadused ( ) (B.2)

AHTAAM

where HW,,d = Adjusted hot water energy use.

HW..,dfited = Hot water energy use unadjusted for changes in test procedure

~TDOE T= Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water

inlet according to proposed DOE test procedure

= 135F - 60 0F= 75°F

ATAM · = Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water

inlet according to proposed AHAM test procedure

= 130F - 60F = 700F

The above adjustment not only affects total energy consumption but also the cost-effectiveness of

certain design options. For example, in the case of TCMV, a higher assumed inlet water temperature

results in greater energy savings.

The hot water energy use for the AHAM design 'option data were also multiplied by a

correction factor that accounted for changes in assumptions regarding TUFs. The following table

details the differences in the TUFs between the proposed AHAM and the future DOE test.

procedures.

Table B.1 Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE Test Procedures

Temperature Use Factors

Wash/Rinse Selection Proposed AHAM' Test Procedure - Future DOE Test Procedure

Hot/Cold 14% 14%

Warm/Cold 50% 49%

Cold/Cold 36% 37%

Warm Rinse 21-33% 27%

'As noted on page B- , in this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version of the AHAM test

procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data.

Based on the TUFs in the future DOE test procedure, a correction factor of 0.987 was derived and

used to adjust the AHAM hot water energy- use data. The derivation of this correction factor is

outlined below:

B-3

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

,,' ". 

, , 

llTOOE 

HWadjusled = HWunadjusled'· ( llT ) , AHAM 

(B.2) 

= Adjusted hot water energy u~e , 

= Hot water energy use unadjusted for changes in test procedure 

= Temperature difference between hot water"inlet and cold wat~r ' 

iriIet according to proposed DOE test procedure 

= 135°F - 60°F == 75°F 

= ,Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water 

inlet according to proposed AHAM test procedure 

= 130°F - 60°F = 70°F 

The above adjustment not only affects total energy consumption but also the cost-effectiveness of 

certain design option's. For example, in the case of TCMV, a higher assumed inlet water temperature 

results in greater energy savings. 

The hot water energy use for the AHAM design option data were also multiplied by a 

correction factor that accounted for changes in assumptions regarding TUFs. The following table 

details the differen,ces in the TUFs between the propos~d AHAM and the future DOE test , 

procedures. 

Table B.t Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE Test Procedures 

, Temperature Use Factors 

WashlRinse Selection 

Hot/Cold 

WannlCold 

Cold/Cold 

WannRinse 

P.roposed AHAMI Test Procedure 

14% 

50% 

36% 

21-33% 

Future DOE Test Procedure 

14% 

49% 

37% 

27% 

I As noted on page B-1, in this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version of the AHAM test 

procedure which was used by manufacrurers to submit data, ' 

Based on the TUFs ih the-future DOE test procedure, a correction factor of 0.987 was derived and, 

used to adjust the AHAM hot wa~erenergy use data. ' The. derivation of this correction factor is 

outlined below: ' I., , 

B-3 
First, the following assumptions were made:

1) Clothes washer is a three-selection machine, i.e., wash/rinse temperature selections are

hot/cold, warm/cold, and cold/cold.

2) Baseline hot water energy use is 1.574 kWh/cycle (note that this value has already been

corrected for the future DOE test procedure's hot water inlet temperature).

'The following equation for the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption is then taken from the

proposed AHAM test procedure [1].

E = VhAHA AT -K (B.3)

where E = Baseline hot water energy use (kWh/cycle)

VIy A m = Baseline hot water use based on proposed AHAM test

procedure (gallons)

AT = Temperaturerise (135°F - 60°F)= 75°F

K = Water specific heat (kWh/gal ° F) = 0.00240

Substituting the appropriate values in Eq. B.3 for E, AT, and K, one can solve for V4,A,.

'/ E 1.574 kWh/cyc 8.74 gal Vh,„.„ H = ---- ---------- =A---- = 8.74 g lolons (B.4), hHnM -AT- K 750F · 0.0024 kWh/gal-°F

The average amount of hot water used is equal to the amount used for both the hot and warm wash

cycles multiplied by their respective TUFs. This is represented by the following equation.

-'VhAf = (Hho TUFho) + (Har' TUF, ar) (B.5)

where H^ = Hot water use for hot wash cycle (gallons)

TUF^ =- Temperature Use Factor for hot wash cycle

Han, = Hot water use for warm wash cycle (gallons)

TUF,, = Temperature Use Factor for warm wash cycle

B-4

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

First, the following assumptions ~ere made: 

1) Clothes washer is a three-seI.ection machine, i.e., wash/rinse temperature selections are 

hot/cold, warrnJcold, and cold/cold. 

, - -

2) Baseline hot water energy use is 1.574 kWh/cycle (note that this value has already been 

corrected for the future DOE test procedure's hotwater inlet temperature). I 

'The following equation for the total per-cycle hot w~ter energy consumption is then taken from the 

proposed AHAM test procedure [1]. 

where 

E = v: . ~T' K h,AHAM (B.3) 

E 

v,I.AHAM 

LiT 

K 

= Baseline hot water energy use (kWh/cycle) 

= Baseline hot water use' based on proposed AHAM test 

procedure (gallon's) 

= Temperature rise (135 of - 60°F) = 75 of 

= ~ater specific heat (kWh/gaIO F) = 0.00240 

Substituting the appropriate values in Eq. B.3 for E, LJ.T, and K, one can solve for V,l.AHAM' 

= l.S74kWh/Cyc = 8.74 galions 

75°F' 0.0024 kWh/gal' of· (B.4) I \ Vh,AHAM = ~T'K 

E 

The average amount of hot water used is equal to the amount used for both the hot and warm wash 

- cycles multiplied by their respective TUFs. This is represented by the following equation. -

(B.5) 

where H hoi = Hot water use for hot wash cycle (gallons) 

TUFhoI = Temperature Use Factor for hot wash cycle 

Hwarm = lIot water use for warm wash cycle (gallons) 

TUF"";'" = Temperature Use Factor for warm wash cycle 

. B-4 
The warm wash temperature is assumed to be the average of the cold and hot water inlet

temperatures (i.e., a 50/50 mix of hot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount of hot water used

for the warm water wash is equal to half of that used for the hot water wash. This can be expressed

with the following equation.

Hh

H ,,Hr t (B.6) 2

Substituting Eq. B.6 for H,,,, in Eq. B.5 we get the following equation:

.;,AA = (Hhot TUFho) + (.^ . -t TUFwar,) (B.7) 2

Substituting both the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs and the baseline hot water use in Eq.

B.7, we can solve for H;,4.

Hh -= VhAHAM _ 8.74 gal 22.42 galons

_;,ot 22.42 gallo=

.T&UFh + TUFann 0.14 050 (B.8)

R h,, + 2 2

Since H,,, is one-half of H,, H,,,,, is equal to 11.21 gallons.

Since the amount of water used in a hot wash cycle and a warm wash cycle is independent of the

TUFs, the future DOE test procedure TUFs can be substituted into Eq. B.5 to determine the total hot

water energy use based on the future DOE test'procedure.

Vh.E = (22.42 gal · 0.14) + (11.21 gal · 0:49) = 8.63 gallons (B.9)

The correction factor (0.987) is simply the ratio of the total hot water use as determined with the

future DOE test procedure TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided by the total hot water use as determined with

the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons).

B-5

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

" 

The warm wash temperature is assumed to be the average of the cold and hot water inlet 

t·emperatures (i.e., a 50150 mix of hot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount of hot water used 

, for the wann water wash is equal to half of ~hat used for the hot water wash. This can be expressed 

with the following equation.' . 

(B.6), 

Substituting Eq. B.6 for Hwarm in Eq. B.5 we get the following equation: 

(B.7) 

Substituting both the propos.ed AHAM test procedure TUFs and the baseline hot water use in Eq. 

B.7, we can solve for H;,:,. 

= 8.74 g.al 2242 It ------!::~- = . gaol1s 

0.14 T 0.50 

2 

(B.8) T[ TL' TUFlI'orlll , JF hot + --~ 

2 

Since Hwaml is one-half of H hot> Hwarm is equal to 11.21 gallons. 

Since the amount of water used in a hot wash cycle and a Warm wash cycle is independent .of the 

TUFs, the future DOE test procedure TUFs can be substituted into Eq. B.5 to determine the total hot 

water energy use based' on the future DOE test'procedure. 

VhDOE = (12.42 gal' 0.14) +(11.21 gal· 0'.49) = 8.63 gallons (B.9) 

The correction factor (0,987) is simply the ratio of the total hot water use as determined with the 

future DOE'test procedure TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided by the total hot water use as determined with 

the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons). 

B-5 
REFERENCES

1. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (section 4.1.1.1) DOE; Docket No. EE RM-94-403,

comment #36, July 5, 1995.

B-6

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

REFERENCES 

1. . Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on the Advance 

Notice of Proposed Ru/emaking. (section 4.1.1.1) DOR Docket No. EE RM-94-403, 

comment #36, July 5, 1995. _ 

) . 

B-6 
APPENDIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM

Table C. 1 shows cost, energy, and water use data submitted by AHAM; these data were used

in the Engineering Analysis.

C-1

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

APPE:\DIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM 

Table C.1 shows cost, energy, and water use data submitted by AHAM; these data were used 

in the Engineering Analysis. 

C-1 
TABLE C. I Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis

Cost Data Washer Energy Use Data - Proposed Test Procedure Water Use Data

Cost per Un![it' hvcstmcnt lon "Tofil! I in! Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons

Mtl/Part Labor" Shipping Tooling Capital d Otherc per Unit". Water 8 Machineh Total' Container Factor1 Sourcek Energy9 Gallons per cu.ft.

Design Option 1000's 1000's 1000's kWiv/cvc kWh/cvc kWh/cvc cu.f. ft'/kWh kWh/ycvc Iallcv gal/cu.f.

Baseline Compm - - - - 5 5 5 5 5 5 ' 5 5

SWA" - - - - - 1.469 0.220 1.689 2.927 1.733 C,C,C,T,C 0.000 39.921 13.372

-STD' .. ...... - - 0.350 0.038 0.379 0.173 0.000 3.338 2.037

New BaselineP' 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 ' 38.304 12.973

Improved Comp i 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Fill Control SWA $10.98 $0.55 $0.00 $139.31 $0.00 $123.55 $11.58: 1.409 0.221 1.631 2.960 1.816 C,C,C,E 0.000 i 36.189 12.261

. _-.....S.TD 10.931 3.943 0.000 139:164 0.000 199.264 14.668 0.278 0.044 0.320 0.095 0:000 1.284 0.727

Config/Tolerance Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

of Inner& Outer SWA j$4.61 $0.22 $0.00 $15,239.0 $17,137.10 $836.20 $7.09 i 1.382 0.220 1.602 2.927 1.827 C,C,C,T,E 0.000 36.049 12.378

Tubs-reduce water STD 4.008 0.239 0.000 11032.202 14463.:!92 339.621 4.567 0.435 0.038 0.463 0.173 0.000 4.079 1.651

Added Comp : 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Insulation SWA $43.44 $0.90 $0.00 $68.226.0 $44.59 $8,662.04 $48.77 1.599 0.236 1.835 2.941 1.603 CE 0.000 39.883 13.634

S TD .. 31.537 0.495 0.000 56568.540 '214.253 3428.308 35.377 0.580 0.021 0.601 0.283 0.000 i 4.243 3.048

Increased Motor Comp! 5 5 .5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Efficiency SWA $8.78 $0.07 $0.00 $3.042.74 $2,678.43 $1.373.33 $9.51 1.468 0.200 1.668 2.927 1.754 C,C,C,C,E 0.000 38.921 13.372

STD 9.641 0.230 0.000 2141.152 2230.583 2265.312 10.088 0.353 0.035 0.379 0.173 0.000 3.338 2.037

Thermostatically Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .5 5 5 5

Controlled _ SWA ,$7.70 $0.33 $0.00 $75.09 S1.72 $363.26 $8.16 1.426 0.220 1.645 2.927 1.780 C,C,C,C,C 0.000 i38.921 13.372

Mixing Valves_ STD. 6.570 0.454 0:.000 161.222 4.472 1133.239 7.1 9 0.:352 0.038 0:383. .... 0:173 ______ __ 0.000 _ 3.338 2.037

Improved Water Comp 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 -5

Extraction SWA .,$4.50 $0.31 $0.00 $35,843.0 $14,950.39 $2,473.88 $9.60 : 1.469 0.226 1.694 ' 2.927 1.728 T,E,E,C,C -0.383 138.921 13.372

._RzMCQ=50%/-_.......STD_ ... j 3.677' 1.045 0.000 24314.178 10613.869 2695.075 4.677 ; 0.350 0.029_ 0.372 0.173 0.245. 3.338 2.037

RMC =40% Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5. 5 5 5 5

SWA' j $12.32 $0.32 $0.00 $41,437.0 $17,618.02 $3,658.27 $18.12 .1.469 0.234 1.702 2.927 1.720 T,E,E,C,C -0.677 38.921 `13.372

STD 7.493 2.156 0.000 27468.394 11923.857 259 9 .578 8.936 0.350 0.026 0.360 0:.173 0.309 3.338 2.037

Horizontal Axis Comp i 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Design SWA . $67.98 $8.24 $0.56 $86,852.27 $125,689.6 $15,716.65 $101.57' 0.436 0.193 0.599 2.766 4.618 E,E,E,C,C 0.000 25.730 9.325

STD i62.648 30.463 0.487 59228.735 82027.537 5771.343 110.138. 0.163 0:276 0.184 0.067 0.000 6.296 2.378

Assumes a constant production volume at a 1994 level of 6,576,346. Production Sum of hot water and machine energy used in test procedures.

volume applies only to baseline and includes all models in the product class. J Energy factor should be no less than current minimum efficiency standard.

b Burdened labor rate. Source of energy use data: test data (T), calculations (C), or estimation (E).

For purposes of this analysis, assumes a five-year regulatory life. Based on energy calculated at 0.5 kWh/lb water removed when compared to baseline.

d Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/or expansion. " Number of companies providing data.

Includes research & development, product certification, administrative overhead. " Shipment-weighted average value.

. Total of material/parts, labor, and shipping, plus per unit allocation of investment costs. o Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value.

Includes only externally applied hot water. P For energy data where less than five companies reported, a new baseline is calculated

Includes internal hot water. based only on those companies providing data for the design option.

(Table C. 1 continues on nbxt page)

C-2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

TABLE C.l Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis 

Cost Dntll Wnsher Enl'rgy Use Dntn - Proposed Test Procedure : Water Use Data 

Cost per Unit' liwcs!mcn! D~t~"" Tot"! Hot· Clothes E!wrgy Drver : Total Gallons 

En;rgy ! Gallons per cu.ft. 

kWh/C)1C I gaVC)1C gaVeu.ft. 

MtVPart Labor' Shipping Tooling Cnpitald Other< per Unitf, Wate~ Machineh Totali Container Facto~ Source" 

Design Option 1000's 1000's 1000's i kWh/cye kWhlcye kWh/eye eu.fi. !flkWh 

Baseline Compm: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5' 5 5 I SWAn; 

STDO 

New BaselincP' 

1.469 

0.350 

1.525 

0.220 

0.Q38 

0.221 

1.689 2.927 1.733 C,C,C,T,C 0.000' I 39.921 13.372 

0.379 0.173 0.000 I 3.338 2.037 

1.747 2.960 1.695 I 38.304 12.973 

Improved Comp i 4 .' 4 4 4 

$139.31 

139'.164 

4 4 

$123.55 

4 ~ 4 

0.221 

4 

1.631 

4 / 

2.960 

4 4 4 i 4 4 

Fill Control SWA' $10.98 $0.55 $0.00 so.oo 

0.000 

$11.58 1.409 1.816 C,C,C,E 0.000 i 36.189 . 12.261 

.. _. ____ . ..:..:,_._ ... _.~I.Q. .. _l .. lq.931 ___ 3.9~. ___ ..9:.9_0Q. .. 199.264 14.668 0.278 .. 0_._04_4_ ... _0_._32_0_ ... __ 0._09_5 ___ . _. 0:000 I 1.284 0.727 ~ ... ~.-- ... ----- ConfiglTolerance Comp! 4' 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 I· 5 5 

1.827 C,C,C,T,E 0.000 I 36.049 12.378 

0.000 I 4.079 1.651 

ofInner & Outer SWA ! $4.61 $0.22 $0.00 $15,239.0 $17,137.10 $836.20 $7.09 1.382 0.220 1.602 2.927 

TlI.~s-redu.ce .~~~~~ ... ~!'Q_ J...~:QQL_ 0.239 __ ..9.,QOQ. 11032.202 14463.192 339.621 4.567 ._-----_. ..---. .--~-.'."'.-".--'~'-~~ _. 0.435 ___ 0._03_8_ .. _0._46_3 .... _.0:173. __ _ 

Added Comp: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 I 2 2 

Insulation . SWA i $43.44 $0.90 $0.00 $68,226.0 $44.59 $8,662.04 $48.77 1.599 0.236 1.835 2.941 1.603 C,E 0.000 I 39.883 13.634 

STD : 31.537 0.495 0.000 56568.540 '214.253 3428.308 35.377 0.580 0.021 0.601 0.283 0.000 i 4.243 3.048 I;;~;;ased M;;t~-;:- .. 'C~mp "'r .. ·-·5----5-------· 5-' .. ..... 5-_ .. · 5 5 5 5 . "5" ..... ---5-.. ·-.. 5-·---5---- 5 5 I 5 5 

Efficiency SWA $8.78 $0.07 $0.00 $3.042.74 $2,678.4.. $1373.3.3 $9.51 1.468 0.200 1.668 2.927 1.754 C,C,C,C,E 0.000 I 38.921 13.372 

STD 9.641 0.230 O.flOO 2141.152 2230.5!!" 2265312 10.088 0.353 0.035 0.379 0.173 0:000 .1}:.3.3~_ ... __ ~:0;J?.; 

Thermostatically Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 : 5 5 

Controlled SWA I $7.70 $0.33 $0.00 $75.09 $1.72 $363.26 $8.16 1.426 0.220 1.645 2.927 1.780 C,C,C,C,C' 0.000 I 38.921 13.372 

~~~~~~;~a\~:;~~ ~~~p .. 6·.rg . O.~54 O.~OO 1615222 4.~72 113~.239 7.~19 O.~52 0.~3~ . q:}~.: . Q~?.L'-_--5-"'''''.--5 ... - . ..J?~OQ.-i 3.~38 2.~37 

Extraction SWA .;. $4.50 $0.31 $0.00 $35,843.0 $14,950.39 $2,47:1.88 $9.60 1.469 0.226 1.694 2.927 1.728 T ,E,E,C,C -0.383 i 38.921 13.372 

~~:10~;'~--"'-: ~~~p·t·3.~77..: .. -J~%45 --_Q .. ~QQ. 2_4~!~:E~.JQ~1~:.~§2. 26?~:Q7.? .... ,!:~77 ; 0.~50 .. _.9.~2~ _____ 0.~7L ._g.~73 5 5 0.~45i 3.~38 2.~37 

SWA i $i2.32 $0.32 $0.00 $41,437.0 $17,618.02. $3,658.27 $18.12'.1.469 0.234 1.702 2.927 1.720 T,E,E,C,C -0.677 i 38.921 13.372 

.. -.-.. ---.--.-.... .- STD _Jl~4_9_3 __ 2_.1_56 __ ... J2:Q2Q_ .~J~658.39~ !.l9235J1~7 .. ~S.295·:578 ~:?536. ... i .. 9.L

5

5\!. ... .. .9:.o

5

-2..§.. .... -..Q.3

5

60 -.-..9.:1

5

73 5 . 5 0.3

5

09 i 3.3

5

38 2.0

5

37 

Horizontal Axis. Comp. 5 5 5 

Design . SWA ! $67.98 $8.44 $0.56 $86,852.27$125,689.6 $15,716.65 $101.57' q.436 0.193 0.599 2.766 4.618 E,E,E,C,G 0.000 25.730 9.325 

STD i 62.648 30.463 0.487 59228.735 82027.537 5771.343 110.138: 0.163 0:276 0.184 0.067 0.000 6.296 2.378 

Assumes a constant production volume at a 1994 level of6,576,346. Production 

volume applies only to baseline and includes all models in the product class. 

Burdened labor rate. 

For purposes of this analysis, assumes a 'five-year regt!latory life. 

Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade andlor expansion. 

Includes research & development, product certification, administrative overhead. 

f Total of materia lip arts, labor, and shipping, plus per unit allocation of investment costs. 

g . Includes only externally applied Iiot water. 

Includes internal hot water. 

Sum of hot water and machine energy used in test procedures. 

j Energy factor should be no less than current minimum efficiency standard. 

k Source of energy use data: test data (T), calculations (C), or estimation (E). 

Based on energy calculated at 6.5 kWhflb water removed when compared to baseline. 

m Number of companies providing data. 

Shipment-weighted average value. , 

Standard deviation on shipmerit .. weighted average value. 

For energy data where less than five companies reported, a new baseline is calculated 

based only on those companies providing data for the design option. 

(Tnble C.I continues ori next pnge) 

C-2 

. , 
TABLE C.1 Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis (cont.).

Cost Data Washer Energy Use Data - Proposed Test Procedure Water Use Data

Cost per Unit' Investment Data" Total Hot Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons

Mtl/Part Labor" Shipping Tooling Capitald Other' per Unift Waters Machine"' Total' Container Factori Source' Energt Gallons per cuft.

Design Option 1000's O 1000's 1000's i kWh/cvc kW1a/cvc kWh/cvc cu.ft. ft'/kWh kWh/cvc _I/CVc allcu.l.

New Baselinep " 1.520 0.219 1.739 2.960 1.703 38.299 12.971

Advanced Comp"m 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Controls SWA" ; $54.98 $1.24 - $0.00 $45,667.95 S15,130.95 $16,068.24 $60.75 1.508 0.219 1.727 2.960 1.714 E,E,E 0.000 38.299 12.971

STD" 28.991 0.707 0.000 41627.376 14142.136 11419.775 26.290 0.321 0.035 0.353 0.115 0.000 1.424 0.822

Direct Drive Comp 2 2 2 2' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Motor SWA $68.87 '$0.74 $0.00 $8,617.44 $8,528.26 $4,353.32 $70.88 1.618 0.086 1.703 2.941 1.727 C,E 0.000 39.883 13.634

STD 1 53.457 1.273 0.000 6642.561 7071.068 3107.027_ 55.451_ 0.587 0.021 0.608 0.283 0.000 4.243 3.048

Horizontal Axis Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4' 4 4 1 4 '4

with SWA $74.92 $6.00 $0.17 $95,727.83 $134,844.25 $21,727.10 $104.53 0.348 0.260 0.608 2.736 4.503 C,C,E,E 0.000 21.782 8.034

Recirculation STD 31.182 11.644 0.500 63393.182 95407.456 8952.979 28.273 0.126 0.166 0.185 0.144 0.000 3.389 1.637

New Baselinci 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 i 38.304 12.973 -

Automatic Fill Comp 4 4 4 4' 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 : 4

Control SWA $30.12 $1.24 $0.00 $29,719.00 $11,768.72 $6.060.81 $34.15 . 1.350 0.221 1.571 2.995. 1.906 E,E,E,C 0.000 134.672 11.620

:STD_ ...i.J.280J7 3._637 0.000 24676.399 9995.003 4775.921 L15.124 0.255 0.044 0.290 0.165 0.000 1.969 1.004

New Baseline 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973

Horizontal Axis Comp 4. 4 4 4 4 4- 4 .4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 .4 .4

with 50% RMC SWA $75.68 $8.41 $0.62 $97,088.68 $143,588.49 $16,626.00 $110.23 0.445 0.205 0.621 2.778 4.474 C,C,C,E,E -0.317 27.181 9.808

STD 84.857 34.558. .515 62337.699 88404.374 4867.152 139.390. 0.160 0.297 0.161 0.058 0.219 3.392 1.361

New Baseline| 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973

Horizontal Axis Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

with 40%RMC SWA $82:58 $8.30 $0.62 $103,056.3 $146,564.13 $19,619.04 $117.72 : 0.445 0.210 0.626 2.778 4.434' C,C,C,E,E -0.595 i 27.181 9.808

-.. STD 93.164 34.587 0.515 63613.907 90683.111 5107.837 148.284 0.160 0.293 0.152 0.058 0.368 3.392 1.361

New Baseline; , .1.520 0.219 1.739 2.960 1.703 38.299- 12.971

Horizontal Axis Comp 3 3 3, 3 3 3 3 3 3 · 3 3- 3 3 3 .3 3

with Automatic SWA $67.21 $5.36 $0.65 $97,956.79 $143,847.18 $17,038.09 .$95.83 i 0.414 0.169 0.583 2.782 4.771 C,C,EE 0.000 .26.430' 9.515

Fill Control . STD 34.036 ._13.426 .0.520 60563.595 104969.425 3110.307 26.065 0.064 0.021 0.079 0:058 0.000 3.023 1.090

.New Baselinel . . 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 '38.304 12.973

Vertical Axis, Comp J 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4

AutoFill, TCMV, SWA ! $39.43 $1.80 $0.00 $69,008.50 $27,744.51 $14,580.77 $49.38 1.314 0.227 1.541 2.995 1.944 C,C,E,E -0.361 34.672 11.617

50% RMC ... _STD 17.642 5.277 0.000 47604.864 19080.927 9727.611 22.798 0.278 0.034 0.301 0.165 0.289 1.969 1.004

.New Baseline 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973

Vertical Axis,. Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA $47.60 $1.81 $0.00 $75,170.29 $30,744.42 $15,823.87 $58.33. 1.314 0.233 1.546 2.995 1.937 C,C,E,E -0.666 34.672 11.617

40% RMC .STD . 20.009 0.583 0 51452.143 21061.697 10556.755 26.893. 0.278 0.028 0.294 0.165 0.313 1.969 1.004

Assumes a constant production volume at a 1994 level of 6,576.346. Production Sum of hot water and machine energy used in test procedures.

volume applies only to baseline and includes all models in the product class. Energy factor should be no less than current minimum efficiency standard.

b Burdened labor rate. k Source of energy use data: test data (T), calculations (C), or estimation (E).

For purposes of this analysis, assumes a five-year regulatory life. Based on energy calculated at 0.5 kWh/lb water removed when compared to baseline.

Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/or expansion. "' Nuiber of companies providing data.

Includes research & development, product certilication, a;dministraiv'c overhead. .. " Shipinenl-weighlld average value.

Total ofmaterial/parts, labor, and shipping, plus per unit allocation of investment costs. " Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. -. Includes only exlenally applied hlol water. i'or energy data where less than five companies reported. a new baseline is calculated

Includes inlternal hot water. . based only on those companies providing data obr the design option.

C-3*

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

TABLE C.l Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis (cont.) . 

Cost Data Washer Energy Use Data - Proposed Test Procedure 

Cost per Unit' Invclltment Datal.C Total Hot Clothes Energy 

MillPort Labof Shipping Tooling Cllpitald Other per Unit' Wate~ Machine"' Total' Container Factot Soured' 

Design Option; 1000's 1000's 1000's i kWh/eve kWh/eye kWh/eye eu.ft. rtlkWh 

New BaselineP: . 1.520 0.219 1.739 2.960 1.703 

Advanced Compm : 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 

Controls SWAn: $54.98 $1.24 $0.00 $45,667.95 $15,130.95 $16,068.24 $60.75 1.508 0.219 1.727 2.960 1.714 

STDo i 28.991 0.707 0.000 41627.376 14142.136 11419.775 26.290 0.321 0.035 0.353 0.115 ..... -.. -.-----·-.-.. ·--.·----·-T---·· .oo .... --... oo·······oo···- ............. -....... - ... --.... _. -.... - .. oo-.. oo .. oooo .. ···oo .... --.... - .. oo ... __ · ....... oo_ -.-_.... ..:..:..:=--__ _ Direct Drive Comp ~ 2 2 2 2' 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Motor SWA : $68.87 '$0.74 $0.00 $8,617.44 $8,528.26 $4,353.32 $70.88 1.618 0.086 1.703 2.941 

SrD . t 53.457 J .27~ .. oo...J?:Q.Q.Q oo .. 6~2·?~! .. _J()1LQ<?8. ~ looO?:O~?_oo.?~~_L +_.9...:?..!!.L:_Q:..Q.~L.oo 0.608 0.283 

H~·rizont~i-A~i~·-OOOOComp I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

with SWA ; $74.92 $6.00 $0.17 $95,727.83 $134,844.25 $21,727.10 $104.53: 0.348 0.260 0.608 2.736 

Recirculat.ion SrD, 31.182 1\.644 0.500 63393.182 95407.456 8952.979 28.27:i! 0.126 0.166 0.185 0.144 

Ncw Baseline\ 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 

Automatic Fill Comp: 4 4 4 4' 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Control SWA : $30.12 $\.24 $0.00 $29,719.00 $11,768.72 $6.1)60.81 $34.15 1.350 0.221' 1.571 2.995 

1.727 

4' 

4.503 

1.695 

4 

1.906 

._ ..... _ oo._§TD_oo .. L.ooJ~:~(noo 3.637 0.000 24676.399 9995.003 4775.921 15.124 0.255 0.044.9:~Q._ .. !U.~ __ _ Ncw Baseline! 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 

3 

E,E,E 

2 

C,E 

4 

C,C,E,E 

4 

E,E,E,C 

Horizontal Axis Comp: 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 

with 50% RMC SWA $75.68 $8.41 $0.62 $97,088.68 $143,588.49 $16,626.00 $110.23 0.445 0.205 0.621 2.778 4.474 C,C,C,E,E 

. STD 84.857 . ..3,!.5.s~ 0.515 62337.699 88404.374 4867.152 139.390; 0.160 0.297 0.161 :O.Q~~.oo. ______ _ 

New Baselinel 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 

Water Use Data 

Dryer . Total Gallons 

Eners1 ! Gnilons peT cu.ft. 

kWh/eye; galleye gallcu.ft. 

3 

0.000 

0.000 

2 

0.000 

0.000 

4 

0.000 

0.000 

i 38.299 12.971 

3 3 

38.299 

i 1-.424 .. 2 

I 39.883 

I I 4.243 

4 

21.782 

3.389 '·4 _ .. _._. __ , 

38.304 

12.971 

0.822 

2 

13.634 

3.048 

'4 

8.034 

1.637 

12.973· 

4 ; 4 4 

0.000 ! 34.672 11.620 

0.000 1.969 1.004 

138.304 12.973 

4 i. 4 .4 

-0.317 I 27.181 9.808 

0.219..J.....=c3=.3=.:;92=--oo....;I:..:.:.3:..:;6-=..1_ 

I 38.304 12.973 

Horizontal Axis Comp: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 4 

. with 40% RMC SWA ! $82:58 $8.30 $0.62 $103,056.3$146,564.13 $19,619.04 $117.72: 0.445 0.210 0.626 2.778 4.434 C,C,C,E,E -0.595 

. oo .. __ oo. __ ... _.~:r!? __ oo._ . .9.}c!~_oo .. oo}1.:i8} 0.515 63613.907 90683.111 5107.8F. li~.}84 : .. o.:!~~ ... o.:~93 .... 2 .. 152 .... ..Q.05~ _____ ._ 0.368 

New Baseline; .. 1..520 0.219 1.739 2.960 1.703 

Horizontal Axis Comp 3 3 3 ( 3 3 3 . 3 3 3 . 3 3- 3 3 3 

with Automatic SWA: $67.21 $5.36 $0.65 $97,956.79 $143,847.18 $17,038.09$95.83 ! 0.414 0.169 0.583 2.782 4.771 C,C,E$ 0.000 

Fill Control STD: 34.036 13.426. 0.520 60563.595 104969.425 3110.307 26.065 0.064 0.021 0.079 0;058 0.000 . oo. - .. -. oo·oooo· .. N~~·B~~li~~i-------·- .. - .... oo-- - . . .... . . .--.. . ----1:525' -0.221 .. ·-1 ... 747· .... · 2.960- 1.695 

Vertical Axis, Comp I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 4 

! 27.181 i . 

I 3.392 

1 38.299" 

; 3 

I· 26.430' 

1. 3.

023 

I 38.304 

! 4 

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA $39.43 $l.80 $0.00 $69,008.50 $27,744.51 $14,580.77 $49.38 1.314 0.227 1.541 2.995 1.944 C,C,E,E -0.361 34.672 

50% RMC STD; 17.642 5.277 0.000 47604.864 129.~o.:?27 9727.6!L._~~Z?..!!._..9 . .27~ _ .. ..Qm~ __ oo2.301_._0.1§2.... __ . __ . 0.289 ! 1.969 ·oo-·-·----oo-:N~~-B;scli;;~:---oo .. -·-·-·-.. oo·oo--- --.. -- _.-00.. 1.525 . 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 : 38.304 

Vertical Axis, Comp 4 4· 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA $47.60 $1.81 $0.00 $75,170.29 $30,744.42 $15,823.87 $58.33 1.314 0.233 1.546 2.995 1.937 C,C,E,E -0.666 ! 34.672 

40% RMC . SID 20.009 0.583 . 0 51452.143 21061.697 10556.755 26.893 0.278 0.028 0.294 0.165 0.313 : 1.969 

Assumes a constant production volume at a 1994 level of6,576.346. Production 

~olume applies only to baseline and includes all models in the product class. 

Burdened labor rate. 

For purposes of this analysis, assumes a five-year regulatory life. 

Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/or cxpanSittli. 

'lricludes research & development, product ccrtilieation, administwtil'e overhe .. ". 

Total ofmaterial/paits. labor, and shipping, plus per unit allocation ofinvel'tm<!nt costs. 

Includes only e~1cmally applied hoi water. 

Includ,,'S inlcmal hoi Willer. 

C-J 

Sum of hot water and machine energy used in test procedures. 

Energy fm .-tor should ~ no less than current minimum efficiency standard. 

Source of energy use data: test data (T), calculationS (C), or estimation (E). 

Based on energy ca.lculated at 0.5 kWhllb water removed when compared to baseline. 

n, Numll<:r or compani,,'!< providing data. . 

Shil'mentoowcight,,-d awrage value. . 

.. Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. 

For .:nergy datn where lc~~ Ihan liw cllmpaniCl; reported. a new hal'eline i~ calCulated 

has.:d only on those cIl11lpani,,'S prllviding data ",r th.: (l..'Sign option. 

9.808 

1.361 

12.971 

3 

9.515 

1.090 

12.973 

4 

11.617 

1.004 

12.973 

4 

11.617 

1.004 

• I 

I 
Table C.2 provides data supplied by AHAM showing confidence levels on the design options

listed in Table C. 1. For each design option, the confidence levels provided in Table C.2 indicate how

confident manufacturers are in 1) the accuracy of their cost and investment data and 2) their success

at mass-producing and marketing a clothes washer with the prospective design option. Confidence

levels are expressed as percentages with a higher value indicating increased confidence. Also

included in Table C.2 are limiting performance factors for incorporating the design options in clothes

washer designs.

Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data

Confidence Levels Limiting

Cost and Mass Production Marketing Performance

Design Option Investment Data Success Success _Factors

Improved Fill Compb 4 4 4 4

Control SWA' 66.781% 79.579% 47.637% 1,1,4,4,4,7,8,12,

.. . ..... STDd_ 0.150 0.075 0.210 .15,15,16,17

Config/Tolerance Compb 4 4 4 5

of Inner & Outer SWA' 69.340% 54.540% 87.030% 1,2,4,5,5,5,7,10,10,

Tubs-Reduce Water STDd__ _ _0075 _0.217 0.075 11,11,13;14,15,16

Added Compb : 2 2 2 2

Insulation SWA' 53.680% 37.360% 39.570% 0,0,2,6,7,9,14

STD6 0.177 0.354 0.460

Increased Motor Compb 5 5 5 5

Efficiency SWA' 77.680% 91.900% 75.690% 0,2,2,2,5,6,6,10,12

STD"10 110 0.0259

Thermostatically Compb 5 5 5 5

Controlled SWA' 62.590% 97.840% 56.430% 1,1,1,7,13

Mixing Valves STD' 0.084 0.055 0.246

Improved Water Compb 5 5 5 5

Extraction SWA' 71.170% 78.840% 76.860% 3,5,5,5,9,10,10,10,15

RMC = 50% STDd 0.061 0.124 0.190

RMC=40% Compb 5 5 5 5

SWA' 48.280% 61.260% 64.590% 3,3,3,5,5,5;10,10,10,

STD" 0,045 0.199 0.135 12,14,15

Horizontal Axis Compb 5 5 5 5

Design SWA' 62.438% 91.899% 67.942% 1,1,2,5,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9,910

STDd 0.152 0.292 0.313 , 10.11.14.16.16.16.17.17

Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number of companies listing the factor as a concern.

1. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention

2. Physical Size 8. Tangling 14. Capacity

3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear

4. Gentleness of Action 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing

5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity

6. Servicing/Installation 12: Safety

b Number of companies providing data.

Shipment-weighted average value.

d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value.

(Table C.2 continues on next page)

C-4

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Table C.2 provides data supplied by AHAM showing confidence levels on the design options 

listed in Table C.l. For each design option, the confidence levels provided in Table C.2 indicate how 

confident manufacturers are in 1) the accuracy of their cost and investment data and 2) their success 

at mass.;.producing and marketing a clothes washer with the prospective design option. Confidence 

levels are. expressed as percentages with a higher value indicating increased confidence.· Alsoincluded in Table C.2 are limiting performance factors for incorporating the design options in clothes 

washer designs. 

Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data i I 

: Confidence Levels 1 Limiting 

Design Option 

Improved Fill 

Control 

Cost and .. 

I. Investment Data 

Compb 

SWN 

.~TD~_. 

Configffolerance Compb 

4 

66.781% 

0.150 

4 

ofInner & Outer SW N 69.340% 

TuJ?sJ~.e.du~~Water.~IDd __ ; . ___ O,O}~_._ 

Added Compb 2 

Insulation SW N 

STD" 

53.680% 

0.177 

Increased Motor 

Efficiency 

Thermostatically 

Controlled 

Mixing Valves 

Improved Water . 

Extraction 

RMC = 50% 

RMC=40% 

Compb 

SWN 

STDd 

Compb 

SWN 

STDd 

Compb 

5 

77.680% 

0.110 

5 

62.590% 

0.084 

5 

SWN 71.170% 

STDd 0.061 

Compb 5 

SWN 48.280% 

STDa 0.045 

Compb 5 

Mass Production 

Success 

4 

79.579% 

0.075 

4 

54.540% 

0.217 

2 

37.360% 

0.354 

5 

91.900% 

0.110 

5 

97.840% 

0.055 

5 

78.840% 

0.124 

5 

61.260% 

0.199 

5 

Marketing Performance 

Success Factor' 

4 4 

47.637% 1,1,4,4,4,7,8,12, 

0.210 15,15,16,17 ... -- ----_. 

4 5 

87.030% 1,2,4,5,5,5,7,10,10, 

0.075 11,11,13;14,15,16 

2 2 

39.570% 0,0,2,6,7,9,14 

0.460 

5 5 

75.690% 0,2,2,2,5,6,6,10,12 

0.259 

5 5 

56.430% 1,1,1,7,13 

0.246 

5 5 

76.860% 3,5,5,5,9,10,10, I 0,15 

0.190 

5 5 

64.590% 3,3,3,5,5,5; I 0;1 0,1 0, 

0.135 12,14,15 

Horizontal Axis 5 5 

Design SWN 62.438% 91.899% 67.942%· 1,1,2,5,6,7,7,8,8,9,9,9,10 

STD" 0.152 0.292 0.313! 1O,l1,l4,l6,l6,l6,l7,17 

• Factors that are repeated indicate mUltiple number of companies listing the factor as a concern. 

I. Soil Removal 7. Consumer InteIface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 

2. Physical Size 8. Tangling 14. Capacity 

3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear 

4. Gentleness of Action 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 

5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity 

6. ServicinglInstallation 12: Safety 

b Number of companies providing data. 

C Shipment-weighted average value. 

d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. 

(Table C.2 continues on next page) 

C-4 
Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data (cont.)

Confidence Levels Limiting

Cost and Mass Production Marketing Performance

Design Option tInvestment Data Success Success Factors

Advanced Compb 3 3 3 2

Controls SWA' 38.390% 35.955% 26.217% | 1,4,7,9

STDd 0.389 0.318 0.035 __

Suds Savings Compb - 4 4 4 4

SWAc 72.040% 97.860% 19.280% 0;1,1,2,6,7

STDd 0.050 0.096 0 354 1

Direct Drive Compb 2 2 2 2

Motor SWA' 45.150% 55.890% 90.740% 0,2,2,5,6,8

. _.. __._ STDd_ 0.247 _._8_ 0.2035__. L:_.

Horizontal Axis Compb 4 4 4 4

with 40% RMC SWA' 38.797% 64.070% 51.508% 1,3,3,3,5,5,6,7,7,8;8,9,9

STDd _ 0.111' .0.216 0.229 .. 0,j 0,14,15,16,16 1

Horizontal Axis Compb i 3 3 3 3

with Automatic SWA' 64.353% 90.534% 71.289% 1,6,7,7,8,8,9,10,11,

Fill Control S.TDd _ 0.100 0.153 _.150 0. . 16,16,17

Vertical Axis, Compb 4 4 4 4

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA' . 32.851% 35.988% 29.249% 1,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,13,15,

50% RMC STDd _ 0.247 _.i89 0.138 i _ 16,16,17

Vertical Axis, Compb 4 4 4 4

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA' 2-.852% 32.203% 29.249% 1,1,3,3,4.5.7.8,10,13,14,

40% RMC STDd 0.125 0.171 0.138 15.16.17

Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number of companies listing the factor as a concern)

i. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention

2. Physical Size 8. Tangling . 14. Capacity

3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear

4. Gentleness of Action 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing

5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity.

6. Servicing/Installation 12. Safety

b Number of companies.providing data.

Shipment-weighted average value.

d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value.

C-5

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Liinitin 

Confidence Levels 

Cost and Mass Production 

tion InyestmentData Success 

Controls 

Suds Savings 

. . Direct Drive 

Motor 

Compb 3 

SWN 38.390% 

STDd 0.389 

Compb!. 4 

SW A" I 72.040% 

STDd i 0.050 -----_._- - .. - .. 

. compbj 2 

SWN i 45.150% 

3 

35.955% 

0.318 

4 

97.860% 

0.096 

STDd I 0.247 . -.---_ ... ,_._-.- . ---.-.------+~------------ --.-.. -- -- -

2 

55.890% 

0.283 

Horizontal Axis Compb : 4 

with 40% RMC SWA" : 38.797% 

... '. __ ... ________ ._ STDd-L.:. ___ .9..:11_1' ____ . __ . 

Horizontal Axis' Compb i, 3 

4 

64.070% 

__ . Q.2J§... .. 

3 

Marketing 

Success 

3 

26.217% 

0.035 

4 

19.280% 

0.354 

2 

I 

Limiting 

Performance 

Facto'" 

2 

I . 1,4,7,9 10--.--- , 0;1,1,2,6,7 I 

.... ~ 2 

90.740% I 0,2,2,5,6,8 I 

... _.9.0~_~ _____ . ~ :. _____ . 

4 : 4 

51.508% ! 1,3,3,3,5,5,6,7,7',8;8,9,9 

. 0.229 i 1010 11 14,15,16,16 _ .... ------_·-----·1-· . -,~.-,- .. 

3 i 3 

with Automatic SWA" ; 64.353% 90.534% 71.289% i 1,6,7,7,8,8,9,10,11, I 

Fill.~o!lt!()I ... __ ... _ST12~_~ ____ . . 9·IQQ __ ~ . ..0.cL?1 _____ . __ .. _ .....Q·l~.Q __ .. _ .1 ____ . J,§,J6,17 

Vertical Axis, Compbi 4 

Auto Fill. TCMV, SWN. ~2.851% 

~Orcd~¥~<: STDd 0.247 .. _----_. --

Vertical Axis, Compb 4 

Auto Fill, TCMV, SWN :-.852% 

40%RMC STDd 0.125 

4 

35.988% 

0.189 

4 

32.2030/0 

0.171 

4 

29.249% 

0.13.8. . 

4 

29.249% 

0.138 

! .4 

\" 1, 1 ,3,4~5,7 ,8,10, 13, 15~ 

___ .. .l§,16,17 

4 

: 1,1,3,3,45.7.8,10.13.14, 

. 15,16.17 

• Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number of compan~es listing the factor as a concern) , 

. i. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 

2. Physical Size 8. Tangling '14. Capacity 

3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear 

4. Gentlene~s of Action 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 

5. Noise II. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity. 

6. Servicing/lnstallation 12. Safety 

b Number of companies providing data. 

Shipment-weighted average yaiue. 

Standard deviation on shipm~nt-\\'eighted average value. 

:'.~ . 

C-5 
APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION

DERIVATION

An adjustment to the De(the amount of energy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was

required for gas dryers because the value of 0.5 kWh/lb used in the future DOE test procedure

(Appendix J1) was determined based on the use of an electric dryer. A correction factor was derived

from data submitted by AHAM as part of their dryer data submittal [1]. The data is summarized in

the following table.

Table D.1 Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content

Clothes Dryer Type Gas Energy Electric Energy Total Energy

kWHlf/cycle kWh/cycle kWVh/cycle

Electric 2.210 2.210

Gas 2.379 0.102 2.481 .

A simple ratio of the total drying energy can then be used as a correction factor to the Del.

GC-F .GCF = =' Gas Dryer Total Energy _ 2.481 =1.12 12 (D.1) Electric Dlyer Total Energy 2.210

where GCF = Gas Correction Factor

Thus, the energy required to remove moisture in a.gas clothes dryer is represented by the following

equation.

Def, ga .Def GCF (D.2)

where Dega = gas dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWh/lb)

Df = electric dryer-energy required to'remove moisture (kWh/lb)

To simplify the calculation of the energy expense of drying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used

by a gas dryer is assumed to be priced at the cost of gas (including the small amount of electricity that

is used).

D-1

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

, 

APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION 

DERIVATION 

An adjustment to the D q(the amount of energy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was 

, required for gas dryers because the value of 0.5 kWhllb used in the future DOE test procedure 

(Appendix ]I) was determined based on the use of an electric dryer. A correction factor was derived 

from data submitted by AHAM as part of their dryer data submittal [1]. The data'is s~mmarized in 

the following table. 

Table D.1 Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content 

Clothes Dl'yer Type Gas Energy Electric Energy Total Energy 

kWhicJ!.cle kWhlcJ!.cle kWhl2,de 

Electric 2.210 2.210 

Gas 2.379 0.102 2.481 . ' 

A simple ratio of the total drying energy can then be used as a correction factor to the Del 

. GCF = Gas Dlyer ,Total Energy 

Electric Dlyer Total Energy 

i' 

= 

2.481 

2.210 

where GCF = Gas Correction Factor 

= 1.12 (D.1) 

Thus, the energy required to r~move moisture in a.gas clothes dryer is represented by the following 

equation. 

Def.ga5 = . De! . GCF 

where Def,gas = gas dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWhllb) 

Dq = electric dryer,energy required to 'remove moisture (kWh/lb) 

(D.2) 

To simplify the,calculation of the energy expense of drying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used 

by a gas dryer is assumed to be priced at the cost of gas (including the small amount of electricity that 

is used). . . .r. 

0-1 
REFERENCES

1. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemdking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27,

1995.

D-2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

;: . 

REFERENCES 

1. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on the Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemdking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 

1995. . '. ' 

, .: 

I . 

D-2 
APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER

EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION

In calculating the benefits of improved water extraction, several parameters were taken into

consideration. These include 1) the amount of energy saved in the clothes dryer for every extra

pound of moisture removed in the washer, 2) the fraction of clothes dryer loads per washer load

(some clothes are line-dried), 3) the average load size, 4) the moisture content of the clothes before

entering the clothes dryer, and 5) the fraction of time the lower RMC option is used. These are

described in greater detail below.

The dryer energy (D,) is defined as the amount of energy needed to completely dry the test

load in a clothes dryer after the washer final spin cycle. The amount of energy needed to dry clothes

after they are removed from the clothes washer depends on how much moisture is retained after the

final spin. The remaining moisture is specified as a percentage of the "bone dry" weight of a standard

test load. For this analysis, a baseline RMC of 62% after the final spin cycle was assumed. This is

based on data AHAM submitted on shipment-weighted averages for a baseline washer. A 62% RMC

means that the weight of a wet test load weighs 62% more than a bone dry test load (1.62 x dry test

load). After being dried in a clothes dryer, the test load is assumed to have a residual RMC of 4%.

The future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) provides a table that specifies the maximum

clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9 to 3.0 ft3 washer, the maximum load is 12.1

lbs. The average load to maximum load fraction, 0:52, was derived from Procter & Gamble data and

made part of the proposed and future DOE test procedures. The'dryer energy is sometimes also

referred to as moisture removal energy. The equation describing the dryer energy is given below.

where:

De= LAF * (Max. Load) (RMC - RMC4 ,) De DUF (E. )

/ .

LAF = Load Adjustment Factor = 0.52

Max. Load. = Maximum clothes load = 12.1 lbs/cycle

RMC = Remaining Moisture Content after final spin cycle, (expressed as a fraction)

RMC4% = Remaining Moisture Content with a 4% residual, (expressed as a fraction)

De = 0.5 kWh/lb of moisture (nominal energy required for clothes dryer to remove

moisture)

DUF = Dryer Usage Factor = 0.84. DUF is the ratio of dryer cycles to clothes

washer cycles per year.

Since it is not expected that consumers would use higher spin speed or other options to

reduce the remaining moisture content 100% of the time, the future DOE test procedure

E-1

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

. 

APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR.lMPROVED WATER 

EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION 

In calculating the benefits of improved. water extnictioIl; several p~rameters were taken into 

consideration. These include 1) the amount of energy saved in the clothes dryer for every extra 

pound of moisture removed in t~e washer, 2) the fraction of clothes dryer loads per washer load 

(some clothes are line-dried), 3) the average load size, 4) the moisture content of the clothes before 

entering the clothes dryer, and 5) the fraction of time the lower RMC option is used. These are 

described in greater detail below. 

The dryer energy (D.) is defined as the amount of energy needed to completely dry the test 

load in a clothes dryer after the washer final spin cycle. The amount of energy needed to dry clothes 

after they are removed from the clothes washer depends on how much moisture is retained after the 

final spin. The remaining moisture is specified as a percentage of the "bone dry" weight of a standard 

test load. For this analysis, a baseline RMC of 62% after the final spin cycle was assumed. This is 

based on data AHAM submitted on shipment-weighted averages for a baseline washer. A 62% RMC 

means that the weight of a wet test load weighs 62% more than a bone dry test load (1.62 x dry test 

load). After being dried in a clothes dryer, the test load is assumed to have a residual RMC of 4% .. 

The futute DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) provides a table that specifies the maximum 

clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9 to 3.0 ft3 washer, the maximum load is 12.1 

lbs. The average load to maximum loadfraction, 0~52, was derived from Procter & Gambledata and 

made part of the proposed and future DOE test procedures. The 'dryer energy is sometimes also 

referred to as mOIsture removal energy. The equation describing the dryer energy is given belpw. 

where: . 

De = LAF . (Max. Load) . (RMC - RMC4o/) • De! . DUF (E.l) 

LAF = Load Adjustment Factor = 0.52 

Max. Load = Maximum clothes load = 12.1 lbs/cycle 

RMC = Remaining Moisture Content after final spin cycle, (expressed as a fraction) 

·RMC4'Jf, = Remaining Moisture Content with a 4% residual, (expressed as a fraction) 

. De! = 0.5 kWMb of moisture (nominal·energy required for clothes dryer to remove 

. moisture) . 

DUF = pryer Usage Factor = 0.84. DUF is t~e ratio of dryer cycles to clothes 

washer cycles per year. 

Since it is not expected that consumers would use higher spin speed or other options to 

reduce the remaining moisture content 100% of the time, the future DOE test procedure 

·E-l 
(Appendix J1) assumes that consumers will use the lower remaining moisture content option 75% of

the time and the baseline case of 62% remaining moisture content the remaining 25% of the time.

The adjusted dryer energy is shown in the equation below.

Dea ed -0.75 Dred.ced + 0.25 * D % (E.2)

where:

De,redd = the dryer energy required with using a improved moisture

extraction design option (lower RMC option).

De,6 = the dryer energy required with the baseline RMC of 62%.

E-2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

(Appendix 11) assumesthat consumers will use the lower remaining moisture content option 75% of 

the time and the baseline case of 62% remaining moisture content the remaining 25% of the time. 

The adjusted dryer energy is shown in the equation below. . 

where: 

D = 0 75 . D + 0 25 . D e,adjusred • e,reduced . e,62% (E.2) 

D e.reduced the dryer energy required with using a improved moisture 

extraction design option (lower RMC option). 

De.62% = the dryer energy required with the baseline RMC of 62%. 

E-2 
APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY

Although the proposed DOE test procedure specifies different amounts of cloth test loads

varying with clothes container volume, for purposes of this analysis the amount of clothes washed

per cycle was assumed to be the same for all design options. Consideration was given to adjusting

the energy use values to account for-the slightly smaller horizontal axis clothes.container capacity,

and therefore, smaller test load size in accordance with the fiture DOE test procedure (Appendix J1).

However, because of disagreements over clothes container capacity measurement and clothes loading

in vertical and horizontal axis washers, adjustments to the horizontal axis clothes container capacity

were not made.

With regard to vertical axis washers, clothes container capacity-as measured according to

the future DOE test procedure-includes volume above the water line. Some argue that including

volume above the water line overstates the usable clothes container capacity. But others claim that

this volume should be included since clothes above the water level will be pulled down into the water

as they become wet and compacted. This of course assumes that clothes filled to this level will still

receive an adequate wash. With regard to horizontal axis washers, claims have been made that for

the available clothes container capacity, more clothes can be loaded into a horizontal axis washer'than

in a vertical axis machine while still achieving satisfactory wash performance.

Another consideration for assuming a constant load size is to allow for fair comparisons

between different design options. For example, assuming a smaller clothes load for horizontal axis

washers would reduce its calculated wash and drying energy. This would overstate the energy

savings of horizontal axis washers relative to that of vertical axis washers. It should be noted,

however, that the MEF normalizes the energy usage to the rated volume by dividing the clothes

container volume by the total energy use.

/FF-I

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55B

APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY 

Although the proposed DOE test procedure specifies different amounts of cloth test loads 

varying with clothes container volume, for purposes of this analysis the amount 'of clothes washed' 

per cycle was assumed to be the same for all design options. Consideration was given to adjusting 

the energy use values to account fonhe slightly smaller horizontal axis clothes.container capacity, , 

and therefore, smaller test load size in accordance with the future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11). 

However, because of disagreements over clothes container capacity measurement and clothes loading 

in vertical and'horiZontal axis washers, adjl:lstments to the horizontal axis clothes container capacity' 

were not made. 'J 

With regard to vertical axis washers, clothes· container capacity-' as measured according to ' 

the future DOE test procedure-includes volume above the water line. Some argue that including 

vQlume above the water line overstates the usable clothes container capacity. But others 'claim that 

this volume should be included since clothes above the water level will be pulled down into the water' 

as they become wet and compacted. This of course assumes that clothes filled to this level will still 

receive an adequ,at~ wash, With regard to horizontal axis washers, claims have been made that for 

the available clothes container capacity, more clothes can be loaded into a horizontal axis washer'than 

in a vertical axis machine while still achieving satisfactory wash performance. 

Another consideration for assuming a constant load size is to allow for fair comparisons 

between different design options. For example, assuming·a smaller clothes load for horizontal axis 

washers would reduce its calculated wash and drying energy. This would overstate the energy 

savings of horizontal axis washers relative to that of vertical axis washers. It should be noted, 

. however, that the MEF normalizes the energy usage to the rated volume by dividing the clothes , - . . 

container volume by the total energy use. . 

/ 

F-I