### 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 ofCodes and Standards 

### DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERINGANALYSIS 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 ofCodes and Standards

### TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS
1. OV ERVIEW
...................................................... 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
. ................................ .... E

### APPENDIX 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 ofEfficiency 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 LISTOF FIGURES Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor
................ .. 10

i TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFTREPORT ON THE PRELIMINARYENGINEERINGANALYSIS FOR CLOTHESWASHERS
l. 

### OVERVIEW
...................................................... 1 2. TESTPROCEDURE
.............................................'
... 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-Vse and Cost Results
................................... 8 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASmLEDESIGN
.................. 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. DRYEREFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION
.... D-l APPENDIX E. 

### CALCULATIONS'FOR IMPROVED WATEREXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION
................ '**.~**

### ............... , .... E-l APPENDIX F. 

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

### LIST OFTABLES 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 ofEfficiency Improvements for Standard Clothes Washers
............................................ A-2 Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHANI 

### and Future DOE Test Procedures
................ , ............................ B-3 Raw DataProvided byAHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis
.... C-2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting PerformanceFactorData
....... C-4 DryerEnergy at 70% Initial Moisture Content
..................... D-l

, , 

### LIST OFFIGURES Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor
..................... 10

i

### Clothes Washer PreliminaryEngineering Analysis 1.OVERVIEW The Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturer costs, and other characteristics ofthe 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 ofinformation 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 ofdata 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 ofmajor American manufacturers? models: Design Options Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were established inDraftReportonDesignOptionsforClothes Washers [1]. This report also discussed design options which were screened out from further analysis based on provisions detailed in the Department ofEnergy's Interpretive Rule [2]. Analysis ofeconomic criteria will be found in a future report. Maximum TechnologicallyFeasible Designs A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting ofa combination ofindividual design options was identified. This option, or combination ofoptions, results in the highest energy

1 

### Clothes,WasherPreliminaryEngineeringAnalysis
1. 

### OVERVIEW TheEngineering Analysis.providesinfomiation on efficiencies, manufacturer costs, and other c:haracteristics ofthe appliance class being analyzed. For clothes washers, there are two classes: standard and compact. Since data werenot 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 theincreasein manufacturer co.st for a design option divided by the redtiction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings,
. A significant amount ofinformation 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 ofdata 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'yefficiency no lower than the minimum required by the amended NationaLAppliance Energy Conservation Act
... (NAECA) (Energy Factor**~** 1.18 ft3/kWh). The baseline energy use is based on the**shipme~t~** weighted average ofmajor American**manufacturers~** models:
. 

### Design Options Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were established in

### DraftReport onDesign 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 ofEnergy's InterpretiveRule [2]. Analysis ofeconomic criteria will be found in a future report. 

### il1aximum Technologically FeasibleDesigns A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting ofa combination ofindividual design options was identified. This option, orcombination ofoptions, 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. CostEstimates Estimates ofmanufacturer 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-EfficiencyRelationships The results oftheEngineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which show the efficiency and manufacturer cost ofthe design options. Outputs from theEngineering Analysis For each combination ofdesign 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 ofEnergy (DOE) test procedure, it is important to discuss proposed changes to the test procedure. TheDepartment has proposed two new

' The Modified Energy Factor is ameasure ofenergy efficiency derived from the future DOE test procedure for each product type. 

### 2 · . " efiiciency. Themaximum**t~hnologically** feasible efficiencylevel mustbe 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 

### CostEstimates Estimates ofmanufacturer 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 optioncosts wereused for design options combined in this analysis (i.e., those not**previou~ly** combinedby AHAM or manufacturers). 

### Cost.;.Efficiency Relationships The results oftheEngineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which show tile efficiency and manufacturer cost ofthe design options. 

### Outputs from theEngineeringAnalysis· For each combination ofdesign 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 costsfor**~anufacturers;** • annuaLenergy consumption perunit (based on DOEtest 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 ofEnergy (DOE) test procedure, it is importantto discuss proposed changestothe test procedure_ TheDepartment has proposed two new

I The Modified Energy Factor is a measure ofenergy efficiency derived from the future, DOE test procedure for each product type.'
.. 

### 2

### clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking; Appendices "J" and "Jl" [3]. Inthis report, the two new versions ofthe 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 Registeras 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 ofenergy savings predicted but also because it has the potential to change the ranking ofdesign options. For example, the energy savings due to a thermostatically controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent on the hot water temperature set point ofthe water heater. Existingtest procedure The existingtest procedure specifies 140°F inlet water and 416 clothes washer cycles peryear [4]. The existing test procedure is carried out without a cloth test load for vertical axis clothes washers. Proposed testprocedure(Appendix J) The Appendix Jtest procedure will not alter the existing energy factor ofany clothes washer that is required to meet the current efficiency standard, except for clothes washers with temperature selections which are locked out ofthe normal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes washer use of392 cycles peryear, 2) clarification ofwash/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. Futuretestprocedure (AppendixJl) 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 ofthe 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 ofthe inlet hot water temperature from the existing 140°F to 135°F, 3) a water temperature rise change from90 °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 clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking; Appendices "f' and "JI" [3]. Inthis report, thetwo newversions ofthe 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 afterbeing completed and published in the

### FederalRegister as a final rule. The "future" (AppendixJI)test procedure

### will take effect onlywhen 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 ofenergy savings predicted but also because it has the potential to change the ranking ofdesign options. For example, the energy savings due toa thermostatically controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent onthe hot watertemperature set point ofthe water heater. 

### Existing testprocedure The existing test procedure specifies 140°F inlet water and 416 clothes washer cycles peryear [4]. The existing test procedure is carried out without a cloth test load for vertical axis clothes washers. 

### Proposedtestprocedure (Appendix J) The Appendix

### J test procedurewill not alter the existing energy factor ofany clothes washer that is required to meet the current efficiency**standard~** except for clothes washers with temperature selections which are locked out ofthe nonnal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes washeruse of392 cycles peryear, 2) clarificationofwashlrinse 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 theMEF will not be mandatory. 

### Future testprocedure (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 ofthe 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 ofthe inlet hot watertemperature from the existing 140°F to 135OF, 3) a water temperature rise change from 90°Fto 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 ofthe energy factor (EF) will be kept for voluntary programs.) The above changes should result in a more accurate prediction ofactual clothes washer and clothes dryer energy use. 3,.ENERGY-USE AND COSTANALYSIS 3.1 Introduction C 

### A cost and efficiency questionnaire sentto 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 future DOE test procedures are discussed in Appendix B. After LBNL performed an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested on combinations ofdesignoptions, particularly for design options that could be used onboth 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 ofthe 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 oflarge differences (in some instances) in cost and energy use data provided by manufacturers itis important to analyze the effect ofvariability 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 ifin some cases the manufacturers know how much a design option would cost themto 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 ofhow a data value mayvary ifthe exact value is unknown. For example, although all manufacturers might agree on the probable cost ofa design option, the exact cost may be unknown. Parameters with

21n this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data. 4 , factor (EF) for standard compliance. (Reporting ofthe energyfactor (EF) will be kept for voluntary programs.) The above**chang~s** should result in a more accurate prediction ofactual clothes washer and clothes dryer energy use. . 3
.. ENERGY-USEAND COSTANALYSIS 3
..1 Introduction 

# c

-, A cost and efficiency questionnaire senttoAHAMwasresponded toby five AHAM member manufacturers, however not every manufacturerprovided 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 proposed2AHAM testprocedure. Differences betweenthe proposed AHAM.and fiJture DOEtest procedures are discussed in Appendix B. AfterLBNL performed an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested on combinations ofdesign options,**p~icularly** for design optiops that could beused onbothvertical and horizontal axis washers. Additional data were desired because inherent design differences
. betweenvertical 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 ofthe**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** wereused. 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 oflarge differences (in some instances) in cost and energy use data provided by manufacturers it is important to analyze the effect ofvariability 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 casesthe manufacturers know how much a desigr:t option would cost themto 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 orgas utilities. Uncertainty is a measure ofhow a datavalue may vary 

### ifthe exact value is unknown. For example, although all manufacturers might agree on the probable cost ofa design option, the exact cost may be unknown.· Parameters with

2In thisrepolt "proposed'AHAM test**pro~edure"** refers to an early version·ofthe AHAM test procedurewhich 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 ofthe data was also provided (see Appendix C). Howthese data should be used andwhether or not an alternative metric (such as a range ofsubmitted values) can be provided is open fordiscussion. Differences in how fixed and variable costs were submitted by AHAM may also be discussed (see Appendix A). Datawere also provided onconfidence factors for: cost and investment data, mass production success, and marketing success. Ofthese, 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 ofthe engineering analysis.. This approach could similarly be used to measure the effect ofinput paramenter variability on the metrics used in determining what the appliance standard should be, ifone is promulgated. This statistical approach could alsobe used to determine the frequency ofoccurrence oflife-cycle cost reduction or ofpayback being greater than a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been used on other products to determine the affect ofvariability and uncertainty on consumer impacts (i.e., payback and life-cycle cost). However, these metrics are currently not the subject ofthe 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 inEq. 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

- !~~~~~~~\- 

### variability and uncertainty applicableto the engineering analysis include manufacturer cost, fuel 'price, usage in cycles peryear, predicted energy savings, and water price. To avoid releasing confidential information, AHAM submitted manufacturing costs and energyusage data as shipment weighted averages. Along with the actual values, information on the standard deviation ofthedata was also provided (see Appendix C). Howthese data should be used andwhether ornot an alternative metric (such as arange ofsubmittedvalues) 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). Datawere also provided on confidencefactors for: cost and investment data; mass production success, and marketing success. Ofthese, 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 ofthe engineering analysis., This approach could similarly be used to measure the effect ofinput paramenter variability on the metrics used in determining J.,hat the appliance standard should be, ifone is promulgated. This statistical approach could also be used to determine the frequency ofoccurrence oflife-cycle cost**reduc~ion** 

### or ofpaybackbeing greaterthan a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been used on other products t() determine the affect ofvariability and uncertainty on consumer impacts
. (i.e., payback and life-cycle cost). However, these metdcs are currently not the subject ofthe 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 Adjustmentshad to bemadeto the data submitted by AHAMbecause .1) 

### not all manufacturers provided data:for all design options and2) 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 ofcombinations. 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 ifgreater 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 ofgreater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds (which is one method ofachieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control were considered two distinct methods ofachieving the same goal and were, therefore, not combined with each other. Cost/savings ratios were calculated forvarious combinations ofgas 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 ofthe cost/savings ratio werebased on a weighted average ofboth 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 ofgas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars per year for water heating and clothes drying is then the sum ofthe 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 ofadding on a RMC feature, horizontal axis was placed ahead ofit. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM (some were submitted precombined in Phase II), ifthey 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 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/savingsratios were identified and not combined with otherdesign options in ordertoreduce thetotal number ofcombinations. Those not combined were: 1) added insulation, 2) increased motor efficiency, 3) direct drive motor, and 4) advanced controls. Individual design options were also combinedwhere possible to determine ifgreater possible energy savings were feasible. However, in some instances design options were not considered compatible with each other. Forexample, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with lowerRMC options or horizontal axis designs because ofgreater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds (1¥hich is onemethod ofachieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control were considered two distinct methods ofachieving the same goal andwere, therefore, not combined with each other. Cost/savings ratios were calculated for various combinations ofgas 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 portionofthe cost/savings ratio were based on a weighted average ofboth 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 peryear were calculated for pairings of gas and electric water heaters, with similar averages calculated for combinations ofgas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars peryear for water heating and clothes drying is then the sum ofthe 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 ithas 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 wasplaced ahead ofit. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM (some were submitted precombined in Phase II), ifthey 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 correctto simply add individual energy orwater 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 energyfor the individual design option was determined. Next,
6

### the ratio ofthe individual design option's energy usetothe baseline's energy use was calculated. This ratio wasthen used to multiply the energy use ofthe 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. GeneralAssumptions Table 1shows 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 PriceMultiplier 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 ofClothes Dryer 0.5 kWh/lb. Future DOE Test Procedure [20] Gas Dryer Correction Factor (GCF' 1.12 See Appendix D Percentage ofTime RMC Option Used 75% See Appendix E 

### It was assumed for this analysis that the clothes load was not a function ofclothes 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~~ --**-~-----** 

### ,

the ratio ofthe individual design option'serrergy usetothebaseline's energy use was calculated. This ratio was then used to multiply the energyuse oftheimmediately preceding design option to arrive atthe lowerenergy 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. 

### (reneralAssumptions, Table 1 shows the assumptions made in orderto 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 PriceMultiplier Natural Gas Price Multiplier Water and Sewage Cost

,WaterHeaterEfficiency, Electricic:, Water HeaterEfficiency, 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 ofClothes Dryer Gas Dryer Correction Factor (GCF Percentage ofTime 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] ExistingDOE Test Procedure [12] Existing DOE Test Procedure [13] ,AHAM [14] AHAM [15] AHAM [16] AHAM [17] AHAM [18] FutureDOE TestProcedure (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 ofclothes containervolume. Appendix F discusses this assumption. 3.4 CostingData All·incrementalmanufa.cturer cost d.ata arebasedoll. 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 ofdesign 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 ofdesign options, additional design paths were created. For example, horizontal axis with recirculation was branched offofthe basic horizontal axis path (itselfa branch) to enable analysis ofthe 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 ofthe design options in Table 2 is shown graphically in Figure 1.

8**~'.5** 

### Energy-Use and Cost Results The energy use and cost ofdesign 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 optionsby lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Although this wasthebasic approachused, wherethis would limit choices ofdesign options, additional design paths were created. Forexample,

.horizontal axis with recirculation was branched offofthebasic horizontal axis path (itselfa branch)

1to enable'analysis ofthe different RMC options with horizontal axis without recirculation. Table 2 separatesthe design options into five categories**(a~b,c,d,e)**.. They are:

of Category a: Vertical axis with RMCdesign options;
f Category b: Horizontal axiS;
. • Category c: Horizontal axis with recirculation; • . Category'd: Vertical axis with tightertub 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 ofthe design OPtions in**Tabl~** 2 is shown graphically in Figure 1.

".: 

### 8Table 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 -Totalw/ 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 36.77 12.6 1084 1 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 inrounded dollars; actual values as provided by AHAM are-used in all calculations. 2Machine Energy Use. 3 'Dryer Energy Use (D.) based on 62% initial moisture content. DUF (theratio ofdryer cycles to clotheswasher cycles peryear) =0.84 (See AppendixE). 4Percent Improvement over the baseline total with dryer energy use. sClothes 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 alldesign options forpurposes ofcalculating energy use. 6WCF = 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 tothetotal gallons per cycle multiplied by 392 cycles /yr. 9Cunuilative 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 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 'TotalwI 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 

### IOperating 

### iConsUmptlon'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 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 3a 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 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 2c 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 i 

# t 4e 3c+ 40%RMC
.. . !

• _. _r___ ... ___**~.** •••• __ • ,_,___ -_ ••1
.....:**_.~_** "_0.
__I
o. 1 d 0 +TighterTub
_ 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 EnergyUse (D.) basedon62%initial moisture content. DUF (tileratio ofdryer c)'clesto clotheswasher cycles per year) =0.84 (See Appendix E). 4 Percent Improvement overthe baseline total with dryer energy use... . . 5Clothes 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 purposesofcalculatingenergyuse. 6 WCF = Water Consumption Factor. 7 Annilal Energy Cmisumption is equal tothe total (with dryer) el;ergy per cycle JUuitiplied by 392 cycleS I yr. 8 Alumal Water-Consumption is.equal tothetotal gallons per cycle mUltiplied by 392 cycles Iyr. 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 ManufacturerCost. This isthe cost that would be incurred ifthe design option were required tomeet a minimum efficiency standard and would therefore bemass-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 ofscale. 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 ofthe previous design option. Hot WaterEnergy Use. This is the energy content ofthe hot water supplied by the water heater external to the washing machine. MachineEnergy Use. This isthe electrical energy input to the washer during a washer test cycle. Total.WasherEnergy Use. This is the sum ofthe hot water and machine energy use. DryerEnergy Use. This is the amount ofenergy needed to complete the drying ofthe test load in a clothes dryer after the final spin cycle. TotalEnergy UsewithDiyer. This isthe sum ofhot water energy, machine energy, and dryer energy use. PercentImprovement. This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy) over the baseline case. ModifiedEnergy Factor(MEF). This is the ratio ofwasher 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 + MechanicalEnergy + DryerEnergy TotalGallons. This isthe total amount ofwater used per cycle, both hot and cold. WaterConsumptionFactor(WCF). This is the total gallons ofwater used in a test cycle divided by the clothes container volume in cubic feet.

10**------~--- --~,-~**  --- -



### Headings used in Table 2 are described below: incrementalManufacturer Cost. 

### This is the cost that would be incurred ifth'e design option were required tomeet a minimum efficiency standard and would thereforebe'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 ofscale. These values are based ondata provided by AHAM. TotalManufacturer Cost. 

### This cost is determined by adding a design option incremental costtothe total.manufacturer cost ofthe previous design option
..

,Hot Water Energy Use.' 

### This is the energy content ofthe 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 washertest cycle. Total. WasherEnergy Use. 

### This is the sum ofthe hot water and machine energy use. DryerEnergy Use. 

### This is the amount ofenergy needed to completethe drying ofthe test load in a clothes dryerafterthe final spin cycle.
. TotalEnergy Use withDlyer. 

### This is the sum ofhot waterenergy, machine energy, and dryer energy use. PercentImprovement. 

### This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy) over the baseline case, Modified Energy Factor (MEF). 

### This is the ratio ofwasher 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 ofwaterused per cycle, both hot and cold. Water ConsumptionFactor (WCF). 

### This is the total gallons ofwaterused in a test cycle divided by the clothes 'container volume in cubic feet.'

10 'j

### AnnualEnergyConsumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year. Annual WaterConsumption. Thisis the total water consumption in gallons (both hot and cold) in an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year. AnnualOperating Expense. This iscost in fuel and water torun a washing machine for one year plus the cost to dry the clothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars. Cost/SamingsRatio. 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 EergyFactor (cubicfeet/kWh) S 260 / // / ^t '6a

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

### Modified EnergyFactor (cbicfeet kWh) 

### Figure 1. ManufacturerCost vs. Modified Energy Factor

11 ,-----;-

AnnualEnergy Consumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year based on**39~** clothes washer cycles peryear. .

.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 peryear. ' AnnualOperatingExpense. This is cost in fuel and watertorun a washing machine for oneyear plus the cost to dry theclothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars. Cost/SavingsRatio. This ratio describes the increase in manufacturer cost for one qrmore 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 4bo ' 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. ,ModifiedEnergyFactor(cubicfeet IkWh) '

.



### . .Figure 1.**~lanufacturer** 

### Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor

11

### 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN The maximum technological feasible designbased 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% andwashing energy alone by 66.8%. The MEF for this design is 1.62.

12 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLYFEASmLEDESIGN Themaximum technological feasible designbased onenergyuse per cycle is a horizontal axis washer with recirculation and a RMC of40%. This design would reduce total laundry energy consumption (forboth washing and drying) by49.0% and washing energyalone by 66.8%. TheMEF for this design is 1.62.

12

### REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1996a. DraftReportonDesign Options for Clothes Washers,October 1996. 2. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Procedures, Interpretations and PoliciesforConsiderationof New or Revised Energy ConservationStandards for Consumer Products;FinalRule. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 136, Appendix Ato Subpart C ofPart 430 -- July 15, 1996. 3. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products:TestProcedure forClothes WashersandReporting Requirement for Clothes Washers,ClothesDryers,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 ofthe Federal Register. i994. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix Jto Subpart B or Parr 430 -- Uniform TestMethodforMeasuringthe Energy Consumption of AutomaticandSemi-automaticClothes Washers,January 1, 1994. 5. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1995. Code ofFederal 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 ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995a. Comments on theAdvance Noticeof 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. AnnualEnergy Outlook 1996with Projectionsto2015 Washington, D.C., DOE/EIA-0383(96), January. 10. Ibid. 11. SeattleWater, Commentson theAdvcance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #29, May 8, 1995. 12. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1994. Op. cit. 13. Ibid. 14. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit. 15. Ibid.

13 REFERENCES 1. 

### U.S. Department ofEnergy (POE). 1996a. DraftReport on Design Options for Clothes Washers, 

### October 1996. 2. U. S. 

### POR 1996b. Procedures, Interpretations andPolicies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standardsfor. Consumer Products; Final Rule. 

### Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 136, Appendix Ato Subpart C ofPart 430

-- July 15, 1996. 3. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Energy ConservationProgram for ConsumerProducts: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers andReportingRequirement for Clothes Washers, ClothesDryers, and Dishwashers. 

### (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Appendices J & 11, DocketNo. EE-RM-94-230A. 4. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. i994. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix Jto SubpartB orParr 430

-- Uniform TestMethod forMeasuring the Energy Consumption of AutomaticandSemi-automqtic Clothes Washers. 

### January 1, 1994. 5. US. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1995. Code,ofFederal**Regulation~,.** 

### Title 19, Part 430, Vol. 60, No. 56, p. 15335, ProposedRules, 

### March 23, 1995. 6. US. DOE. 1996c. Op: cit. 

### 7. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers(AHAM). 1995a. Comments 011 theAdvance Notice o/ProposedRulemaking. 

### 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. AnnualEnergy Outlook 

### 1996 wiih Projections to 2015. 

### Washington, D.C., DOEIEIA-0383(96), January. 10. Ibid 

### 11. SeattleWater, Comments 011 theAdvwlceNotice of Proposed**Rulem~killg.** 

### DOEpocketNo. EE RM-94-403, comment #29, May 8,1995
.. 12. US. Office ofthe**Feder~l** 

### Register. 1994. Op. cit
.

. 13. Ibid.



### 14. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit. 15. Ibid

13

### 16. AHAM. 1995b. Commentson theAdvance 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 -- - - ---- ------ 

### , ,



### 16. AHAM. 1995b. Comments on theAdvanceNotice of ProposedRulemaking. 

### 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.1shows 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 perunit costs and were disaggregated into the following three categories: material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, not supplied on aper unit basis', were disaggregated into the following three categories: tooling, capital costs, and other. AHAM also provided a total perunit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option. Thecolumns labeled "Total Variable" and "Total Fixed" inTable A. 1were derived by LBNL and represent the perunit 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**~** .

- . - 

### APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COSTDATA
Table A I showsthe manufacturercosts for standard clothes washers by design option. The cost dataprovide4 by AHAM are disaggregated into variable and fixed costs. TheAHAMvariable cost datawere supplied as perunit costs and were disaggregated into the following three categories: material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, qot supplied on a perunit basisl, were disaggregated into thefollowing three categories: tooling, capital eosts, and other. AHAM also provided a total perunit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option. Thecolumns labeled "Total Variable" and "TotalFixed" in Table 

### A.I were derived by LBNL and represent the perunit cost.for each design option. The total perunit fixed cost was determined by subtracting the total perunit 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 ofEfficiency 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 afive-year regulatoly life. 2Includes production machinery, plant upgrade, and/or expansion. 3Includes R&D, product certification, and administrative overhead. ' Fixed costs = total costs
- variable costs.



### A-2 Table**A~l** 

### DisaggregatedCostofEfficiency 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 VariableCosu 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. 2Includes 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 byAHAM. These adjustments were made forthe 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 aparticular 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 ofresponses are being used to calculate the shipmentweighted average. This situation arose inthe analysis ofseveral design options and, as a result, the energy or water use had to be adjusted. The hot water energy andtotal water use for all vertical axis RMC design options were set equal tothebaseline 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 axisdesigns, and one for horizontal axis with recirculation designs. Although the volume was adjusted as described above for the MEF calculation, itwas assumed that all design options washed the same amount ofclothes for purposes ofcalculating the clothes dryer energy required to dry the clothes. The issue ofclothes load isdiscussed 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 ofthe AHAM test procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data. 

### B-1 

### APPENDIX H. 

### ADJUSTMENTS TOAHAM DATA
Several adjustments were'made to the data submitted by AHAM. These adjustments were made forthe foHowing reasons: ,1) 

### statistical variations, 2) normalizing, and 3) differences between

.theproposedI 

### AHAM and future DOE (Appendix 11) test-procedures. 

### B.I Adjustments dueto Statistical Variations The first step in the analysis was to review the AHAM data. In**s~me** 

### cases n9t all manufacturersresponded to a particular design option.**B~cause** 

### manufacturers provided different energy arid wateruse estimates, an energy orwateruse change due to a design option modIfication can arise simply l?ecause a different number ofresponses ar:e being used to calculate·the shipment-

. weighted**av~rage.** 

### This situation arose in the analysis ofseveral design options and, as a result, the

energy orwateruse had to be adjusted
.. The hot water energy and total wateruse for all vertical axis RMC design options were set equal tothe baseline values. Hot water and total wateruse for horizontal axis designs with 50.% and 40%'RMC were set equal to that reported for the stand-alone horizontal axis design option. Total wateruse 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. Wherethe 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'ofclothes

### for purposes ofcalculating the clothes dryer energy required to dry the clothes. The issue ofclotlies 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 separatebaseline (except for cost data)was provided for each "PhaseIf' design option. The energy use data for this separate.baselinewere 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.datatothefive,.respondent baseline used throughout the.

lIn this

### rep~rt "pro?osed'AHAM test

### procedur~" refers to an earlyversion ofthe 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 wateruse. The basic normalization equation is shown below:
Va = Valu e 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 ofrespondants).. Baselinesrespo,,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 ofthe 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 useto 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 of1350

### Ffor the hot water inlet temperature. The proposed AHAM's test procedure used a value of 130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use ofail the AHAM design option data was corrected by using the following equation.

B-2 

### B-2 - -- -- --- -,----------;---------

, :analysis., Thefollowing "Phase If'design option data were normalized: 1) hot water energyuse, 2)

clothes containercapacity, and 3)total wateruse. The basic normalization equation is shown below: 

### I I Baselines_respondent ) .va ueadfusted 

## = Va ueunadiusted • (**-~---,.--'---** 

### Baselineunadfusted (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 energyuse, wateruse, orclothes 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· = Baselinehot water energy use, water use, orclothes container capacitybased on data supplied by thenumber of manufacturers proVIding data for 

### Value,;nad)lIsled' ' ' .


### B.3 Adjustments due to Test.Procedure Changes' All ofthe 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 accordancewiththefuture DOEtest procedure (Appendix 11). This included adjusting thehot water energy use to reflect changes in both inlet watertemperature 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 DOEtest procedure assumes a value of135OF for the hot water inlet temperature. The proposed AHAM'stest"procedureused a value of130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use ofail 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 useunadjusted 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 0 

### F= 75°F ATAM · = Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water inlet according to proposed AHAM test procedure = 130F

- 60F = 700

### F The above adjustment not only affects total energy consumption but also the cost-effectiveness of certain design options. Forexample, in the case ofTCMV, ahigher 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 TemperatureUse Factors for Proposed AHAM and FutureDOE Test Procedures Temperature Use Factors Wash/Rinse Selection Proposed AHAM' Test Procedure

- FutureDOE 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 ofthe AHAM test

procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data.


### Based on the TUFs in the future DOE test procedure, a correction factor of0.987 was derived and used to adjust the AHAM hot water energy-use data. The derivation ofthis correction factor is outlined below:

B-3 ,,' ". , ,



### llTOOE HWadjusled 

## = HWunadjusled'· ( 

### llT )

, AHAM (B.2)



## = Adjusted hot water energy**u~e**, = Hotwaterenergy useunadjusted for changesintest procedure
= Temperaturedifferencebetween hot water"inlet and cold**wat~r** ' iriIet accordingto proposed DOEtestprocedure 

## = 135°F

- 60°F

### == 75°F 

## = ,Temperaturedifferencebetweenhot waterinlet and cold water inlet according to proposed AHAMtest 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. Forexample, in the case ofTCMV, a higher assumed inlet watertemperature 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 TestProcedure 14% 49% 37% 27% I Asnoted onpageB-1, in this report "proposed AHAM testprocedure"refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test

procedure which was used by manufacrurers to submit data, '
Based onthe TUFs ih the-future DOEtest procedure, a correction factor of0.987 was derived and, used to adjust the AHAM hot**wa~erenergy** use data. 'The.derivation ofthis 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 750

### F · 0.0024 kWh/gal-°F
The average amount ofhot 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 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 (notethat this value has already been corrected for thefuture DOEtest procedure'shotwaterinlet temperature). I 

### 'The following equation for thetotal per-cycle hot**w~ter** 

### energy consumption is then taken fromthe proposed AHAMtest 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 (135of

- 

### 60°F)

## =75of 

### =**~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 ofhot waterused 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 Hhoi 

## = Hot wateruse for hot wash cycle (gallons) TUF hoI 

## = Temperature Use Factorfor hot wash cycle 

### Hwarm 

## = lIotwateruse 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 ofhot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount ofhot water used forthe warm water wash is equal to halfofthat 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 = (Hho t 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 forH;,4.
Hh -= VhAHAM

_ 8.74 gal 22.42 galons 

### _;,o t 

### 22.42 gallo= .T&UFh + TUFann 0.14 

### 050 (B.8) 

### R h,, + 2 

### 2
Since H,,, is one-half ofH,, H,,,,, is equal to 11.21 gallons. Since the amount ofwater used in a hot wash cycle and a warm wash cycle is independent ofthe 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 ofthe total hot water use as determined with the futureDOE test procedure TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided bythe total hot water use as determined with the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons).

B-5 "**-~** -

The warm wash temperature is assumed to be the average of the cold and hot water inlet t·emperatures (i.e., a 50150 

### mix ofhot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount ofhot waterused

,forthewannwaterwash is equal to halfof

### ~hat usedforthe hot waterwash. This canbeexpressed

withthefollowing equation.'
. (B.6),
Substituting Eq. B.6 for 

### Hwarm in Eq. B.5 we get thefollowing equation: (B.7)
Substituting both the propos.ed AHAM test procedure TUFs and the baseline hot wateruse 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

, JFhot +**--~** 2
Since

### Hwaml is one-halfof

### Hhot> 

### Hwarm is equal to 11.21 gallons. Since the amount ofwater used in a hot wash cycle and a Warm wash cycle is independent .ofthe TUFs, the future DOEtest procedure TUFs can be substituted into Eq. B.5 to determine the total hot water energy use based'on the future DOEtest'procedure. 

### V

hDOE = (12.42 

### gal' 0.14) +(11.21 

### gal· 0'.49) = 8.63 

### gallons (B.9) The correction factor (0,987) is simply the ratio ofthe total hot wateruse as determined with the future DOE'testprocedure

### TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided by thetotal hot water use as determined with the proposed AHAMtest procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons).

B-5

### REFERENCES 1. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Commentson theAdvance Notice ofProposedRulemaking. (section 4.1.1.1) DOE; Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #36, July 5, 1995.

B-6 -- ".--



### REFERENCES 1.
. AssociationofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. 

### Comments on theAdvance Notice ofProposed 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. 1shows cost, energy, and wateruse data submitted by AHAM; these datawere used in the Engineering Analysis.

C-1 ------------,-------

---------



### APPE:\DIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM
Table C.1 shows cost, energy, and wateruse data submitted by AHAM; these datawere 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 WaterUse Data Cost per Un![it' hvcstmcnt lon "Tofil! I in! Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons Mtl/Part Labor" Shipping Tooling Capitald 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 ofInner& 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 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 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 5 5 55 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 .57 8 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 ata 1994 level of 6,576,346. Production Sum ofhotwater and machine energy used in test procedures. volume applies only to baseline and includes allmodels intheproduct class. J Energy factor should be no lessthan currentminimum efficiency standard. b Burdened labor rate. Source ofenergy use data:test data (T), calculations (C), orestimation (E). For purposes ofthisanalysis, assumesafive-year regulatory life. Based on energy calculated at0.5 kWh/lb water removedwhen compared to baseline. d Includes investment in suchitems asproduction machinery andplant upgrade and/or expansion. " Number ofcompanies providingdata. Includes research &development, product certification, administrative overhead. " Shipment-weighted average value.

. Total ofmaterial/parts, labor, and shipping, plusperunit allocation ofinvestment costs. o Standard deviationon shipment-weighted average value. Includes onlyexternally applied hotwater. P For energydata whereless than fivecompanies reported, a newbaseline iscalculated Includes internal hot water. basedonly onthose companies providing data for the design option. (Table C. 1 continues on nbxt page) 

### C-2 TABLE C.l Raw Data Provided 

### by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis Cost Dntll Wnsher Enl'rgy Use Dntn

- Proposed TestProcedure : WaterUse Data Cost per Unit' liwcs!mcn!**D~t~""** Tot"! Hot· Clothes E!wrgy Drver : Total Gallons En;rgy 

### !Gallons percu.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 ikWh/cye kWhlcye kWh/eye eu.fi. !flkWh Baseline Compm: 5 5 5 5 5 5 5' 5 5 

### I SWAn; STDO NewBaselincP' 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

..

0_._04_4_
... _0_._32_0_
... __

0._09_5
___ . _. 0:000 

### I 1.284 0.727 .._.____...:..:,_._...**_.~I.Q.**.._l
..lq.931
___**3.9~.**___..9:.9_0Q.

.. 199.264 14.668 0.278**~**...**~.--** ... ----- 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 

## I36.049 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Comp: 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·.r

### g

.

### 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 aconstantproduction volume at a 1994 level of6,576,346. Production volume applies only to baseline and includes all models inthe productclass. Burdened laborrate. Forpurposes ofthis analysis, assumes a'five-yearregt!latory life. Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade andlorexpansion. Includes research & development, product certification, administrative overhead. f Total ofmaterialiparts, labor, and shipping, plus perunit allocation ofinvestment costs. g . Includes only externally appliedIiotwater. Includes internal hot water. Sum ofhot waterand machine energy used intest procedures. j Energy factor should be no less than currentminimum efficiency standard. k Source ofenergy use data: test data (T), calculations (C), orestimation (E). Based on energy calculatedat 6.5 kWhflb waterremovedwhen comparedto baseline. m Numberofcompanies providingdata. Shipment-weighted average value. , Standarddeviation on shipmerit
..weighted average value. Forenergy data where less than five companies reported, anewbaseline is calculated basedonly onthose companies providing data for the design option.
(Tnble C.I continues ori next pnge) C-2 

## . ,

### TABLE C.1 Raw DataProvided 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 O 1000's 1000's 1000's ikWh/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 153.457 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 aconstant production volumeat a 1994 level of6,576.346. Production Sum ofhot water and machine energyused intestprocedures. volume applies only tobaseline and includes allmodels inthe product class. Energy factor should be no less than currentminimum efficiency standard. b Burdened labor rate. k Source ofenergy usedata: testdata (T), calculations (C),or estimation(E). For purposes ofthis analysis, assumesafive-year regulatory life. Based onenergy calculated at0.5 kWh/lb water removed when compared tobaseline. Includes investment insuch items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/or expansion. "' Nuiber ofcompanies 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 ofinvestment costs. " Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value.

- . Includes only exlenally applied hlol water. i'or energy datawhere less than five companies reported. a newbaseline is calculated Includes inlternal hot water. . based only on those companies providing data obr the design option. 

### C-3* TABLE C.l Raw DataProvided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis (cont.)
. Cost Data WasherEnergy Use Data

- Proposed TestProcedure 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 WaterUse 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.....=c 3=.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 0.313 : 1.969 40% RMC
. SID 20.009 0.583 . 0 51452.143 21061.697 10556.755 26.893 0.278 0.028 0.294 0.165 Assumes aconstantproduction 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. Forpurposes ofthis 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 perunit allocation ofinvel'tm<!nt costs. Includes only**e~1cmally** applied hoi water. Includ,,'S inlcmal hoi Willer. C-J Sum ofhot water and machine energy used in test procedures. Energy fm
. -tor should**~** no less than current minimum efficiency standard. Source ofenergy use data: test data (T), calculationS (C), orestimation (E). Based on energy ca.lculated at 0.5 kWhllb waterremoved when comparedtobaseline. n, Numll<:r

### orcompani,,'!< providing data.
. Shil'mentoowcight,,-d awrage value.
.

.. Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. For .:nergy datn where**lc~~**Ihan liwcllmpaniCl; reported. anew hal'eline**i~** calCulated has.:d only on those cIl11lpani,,'S prllviding data ",rth.: (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 oftheir cost and investment data and 2) their success atmass-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 ofInner & 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 0.0 259 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 ofcompanies 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 ofAction 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity 6. Servicing/Installation 12: Safety b Number ofcompanies providing data. Shipment-weighted average value. d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. (Table C.2 continues on next page) 

### C-4 Table C.2providesdatasuppliedby AHAM showing confidence levels on the design options listed in Table C.l. Foreach design option, the confidence levels provided in Table C.2 indicate how confident manufacturers are in 1) the accuracy oftheir cost and investment data and 2)their success atmass.;.producing and marketing a clothes washerwith the prospectivedesign option. Confidence levels are.expressed as percentages with a higher value indicating increased confidence.· Alsoincluded in Table C.2 arelimiting performance factors for incorporating the design options in clothes washer designs. Table

### C.2 AHAM ConfidenceLevel and Limiting PerformanceFactorData 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 SWN 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,I0,15

0.190

5 5 64.590% 3,3,3,5,5,5;I0;10,10,

0.135 12,14,15

5 5 Horizontal Axis 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 ofcompanies 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 ofAction 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity 6. ServicinglInstallation 12: Safety
b Number ofcompanies providing data.

C Shipment-weighted average value. d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. (Table C.2 continues on next page) C-4Table 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 SWA c 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 with40% 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 1 0,14,15,16,16 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 0. _.150
. 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 AutoFill, 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 ofcompanies listingthe factor as aconcern) 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 ofAction 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity. 6. Servicing/Installation 12. Safety
b Number ofcompanies.providing data. Shipment-weighted average value. d Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value.



### C-5 Table C.2 AHAM ConfidenceLevel 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 SWA" 

## 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 aconcern) ,

. i. SoilRemoval 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 2. Physical Size 8. Tangling '14. Capacity 3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear 4.**Gentlene~s** ofAction 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise II. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity. 6. Servicing/lnstallation 12. Safety

b Number ofcompanies 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 totheDe(the amount ofenergy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was required for gas dryers because the value of0.5 kWh/lb used in the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) was determined based onthe use ofanelectric dryer. A correction factor was derived fromdata submitted byAHAM as part oftheir dryer data submittal [1]. The data is summarized in the following table. Table D.1 Dryer Energy at 70% InitialMoisture Content Clothes DryerType 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 ofthe total drying energy can thenbe used as a correction factor to the Del. GC-F =' GasDryer Total Energy
_ 2.481 

### 12 .GCF = =1.12 (D.1) Electric Dlyer Total Energy 2.210 where GCF = Gas Correction Factor Thus, the energy required to remove moisture ina.gas clothes dryer isrepresented 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 simplifythe calculation ofthe energy expense ofdrying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used bya gas dryer isassumedto be priced at the cost ofgas (including the small amount ofelectricity that isused).

D-1 

### , ,



### APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION

Anadjustment tothe

### Dq(the amount ofenergy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was

,required for gas dryers because the value of0.5 kWhllb used in the future DOE test procedure

(Appendix

### ]I)was determinedbased ontheuse ofan electric dryer. A correction factor was derived from data submitted byAHAM as part oftheir dryer data submittal [1]. The data'is**s~mmarized** in the following table. 

### TableD.1 DryerEnergy at 70% Initial Moisture Content Clothes Dl'yerType 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 ofthe total drying energy can then beused as a correction factor to theDel



### .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 oftheenergy expense ofdrying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used by a gas dryer is assumed tobe priced at the cost ofgas (including the small amount ofelectricity that is used).
. . .r.

0-1

### REFERENCES 1. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on theAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemdking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995.

D-2 ;: . 

### REFERENCES 1. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on theAdvance Notice of ProposedRulemdking. 

### DOE DocketNo. EERM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995.
. '. '

, .:

I .
D-2

### APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION
In calculating the benefits ofimproved water extraction, several parameters were taken into consideration. These include 1) the amount ofenergy saved in the clothes dryer for every extra pound of moisture removed in the washer, 2) the fraction ofclothes dryer loads per washer load (some clothes are line-dried), 3) the average load size, 4) the moisture content ofthe clothes before entering the clothes dryer, and 5) the fraction oftime the lower RMC option is used. These are described in greater detail below. 

### The dryer energy (D,) isdefined as the amount ofenergy needed to completely dry the test load in a clothes dryer afterthe washer final spin cycle. The amount ofenergy 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 moistureis specified as a percentage ofthe "bone dry" weight ofa standard test load. For this analysis, a baseline RMC of62% 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 ofawet 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 of4%. 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 ft 3 

### 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 ofthe 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

- RMC 4

### ,) De DUF (E. )

/
. 

### LAF = Load Adjustment Factor = 0.52 Max. Load.= Maximum clothes load = 12.1 lbs/cycle 

### RMC = RemainingMoisture Contentafter final spin cycle, (expressed as a fraction) RMC4% = Remaining MoistureContentwith a 4% residual, (expressed as a fraction) De 

### = 0.5 kWh/lb ofmoisture (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 '.



### APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR.lMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION
In calculating thebenefits ofimproved.water extnictioIl; several

### p~rameters weretaken into consideration. These include 1) the amount ofenergy saved in the clothes dryer for every extra pound ofmoisture removed in**t~e** washer, 2) the fraction ofclothes dryer loads per washer load (some clothes are line-dried), 3)the average load size, 4) the moisture content ofthe clothes before entering the clothes dryer, and 5) the fraction oftime the lower RMC option is used. These are described in greater detail below. The dryer energy 

### (D.) is defined as the amount ofenergy needed to completely dry the test load in a clothes dryer after thewasherfinal spin cycle. The amount ofenergy needed to dry clothes afterthey areremoved from the clothes washer depends on how much moisture is retained after the final spin. The remaining moisture is specified

# as a percentage ofthe "bone dry" weight ofa standard test load. Forthis analysis, a baseline RMC of62% after the final spin cycle was assumed. This is based on dataAHAM submitted on shipment-weighted averages for a baseline washer. A 

### 62%RMC means that the weight ofa 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 of4%
.. 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 ofthe proposed and future DOE test procedures. The'dryer energy is sometimes also referred to as mOIsture removal energy. The equation describing the dryer energyis given belpw. where:
. 

### De 

### = LAF
. (Max. Load)
. (RMC

- RMC 4o

/) • 

### De!
. DUF (E.l)


### LAF 

## = LoadAdjustmentFactor

## =0.52 

### Max. Load = Maximum clothes load = 12.1 lbs/cycle 

### RMC = 

### RemainingMoisture Content afterfinal spin cycle, (expressed as a fraction) 

### ·RMC4'Jf, 

## = RemainingMoisture Content with a 4% residual, (expressed as a fraction)



### . De! = 0.5 kWMb ofmoisture (nominal·energy required for clothesdryerto remove

. moisture)
. 

### DUF = 

### pryer Usage Factor = 0.84. DUF is**t~e** ratio ofdryer cycles to clothes washer cycles peryear. 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 thatconsumers will use the lower remaining moisture content option 75% of the time and the baseline case of62% remaining moisture content the remaining 25% ofthe time. The adjusted dryer energy is shown inthe 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 (Appendix 11) assumesthat consumers will use the lower remaining moisture content option 75% of the time and the baseline case of62% 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)



### De.reduced 

### the dryer energy required with using a improved moisture extraction design option (lowerRMC 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 ofcloth test loads varying with clothes container volume, for purposes ofthis analysis the amount ofclothes washed per cycle was assumed tobe 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, andtherefore, smaller test load size inaccordance with the fiture DOE test procedure (Appendix J1). However, because ofdisagreements over clothes container capacity measurement and clothes loading invertical 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 beincluded since clothes above the water level willbe pulled down into thewater astheybecome wet and compacted. This ofcourse assumes that clothes filled to this level will still receive an adequate wash. With regard to horizontal axiswashers, claims have been made that for the available clothes container capacity, more clothes can be loaded into a horizontal axis washer'than ina 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 ofhorizontal axis washers relative to that ofvertical 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

### F-I 

### APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINERCAPACITY Although the proposed DOEtest procedure specifies different amounts ofclothtest loads varying with clothes container volume, for purposes ofthis analysis the amount'ofclothes washed' per cycle was assumed tobethe same for all design options. Consideration was givento adjusting the energy use values to account fonhe slightly smaller horizontal axis clothes.container capacity, , and therefore, smallertest load size in accordancewith thefuture DOEtest procedure (Appendix 11). However, because ofdisagreements overclothes containercapacity measurement and clothes loading 

### invertical and'horiZontal axis washers, adjl:lstments to the horizontal axis clothes container capacity' werenot made.
'J Withregard to vertical axis washers, clothes·container capacity-' as measured according to ' the future DOEtest procedure-includesvolume above the water line. Some argue that including vQlume abovethe waterline overstatesthe usable clothes container capacity. But others'claim that this volume should be included since clothes abovethe water level will be pulled down into the water' as theybecomewet and compacted. This ofcourse 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 containercapacity, more clothes canbe loaded into a horizontal axis washer'than in a vertical axis machine while still achieving satisfactory wash performance. Another consideration for assuming 

# aconstant load size is to allow for fair comparisons between different design options. Forexample, assuming·a smaller clothes load forhorizontal axis washers would reduce its calculated wash and drying energy. This would overstate the energy savings ofhorizontal axis washers relative to that ofvertical axis washers. It should be noted,

.however, that the MEF normalizes the energy usage to the rated volume by dividing the clothes 

### , - . . containervolume by the total energy use. .

/

F-I