Reference!

AlllDl 7ETM7T

NB3

PuNicatlons

NATL INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C.

A11105 DBtfitO

NBSiR 80-1994

Househoid Appliance Usage"

Aian 0. Davies

Rudolph V. Kelly

y Alvin C. Lewis

r^Coipnel D. Lovett

D Theodore J. Wang

-TU - • ata

rnJm

Center for Consumer Product Technology

Aiationai Engineering Laboratory

Natvonai Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

February 1980

Final Report

Issued March 19^

tor lUU

.U56

80-1994

1980

Departmentjpf Energy

ingtofi, DC 20545

if Jf

Nitfenil Bureau of Statidarcte Ifbrary, E-01 Admin. Bldg.

NBSIR 80-1994

HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE USAGE DATA

OEC 4 1980

no '

f •

• U c>

Alan D. Davies

Rudolph V. Kelly

Alvin C. Lewis

Colonel D. Lovett Theodore J. Wang

Center for Consumer Product Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

February 1980

Final Report

Issued March 1 980

Prepared for The Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20545

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
I

I
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE USAGE DATA

Alan D . Davies

Rudolph V. Kelly

Colonel D. Lovett

Theodore J. Wang

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA) requires the development of test procedures

for the meas-urement of the energy efficiencies and

the computation of Estimated Annual Operating

Costs -(EAOC ' s) of consumer products covered by the

EPCA. These products are refrigerators, refrigerator

freezers, dishwashers, clothes dryers, water

heaters, room air conditioners, home heating

equipment, television sets, kitchen ranges and

ovens, clothes washers, hiomidif iers , dehumidifiers,

central air conditioners and furnaces

Each test procedure contains one or more

factors that are determined by the consumer's usage

conditions and include such items as uses per

year, outdoor and indoor environment, household

operating practices and ground water temperature

This report is a compilation of the sources and

background for the consumer usage factors contained

in the current test procedures. Uncertainties in

these factors are discussed, and for selected base

cases , the corresponding 'uncertainties in EAOC ' s are computed

The purpose of the report is to provide

perspective in selecting usage factors for future

study and refinement. The items found to be most

in need of refinement were factors bearing on

temperature and humidity control and on water

heating, both on national and regional bases.

Key words: Appliances; consem/ation ; costs;

energy; EPCA; residential; 'jsage.
I. Introduction

The Energy Policy and Convervation Act, December 22, 1975,

or SPCA (PL 94-163) calls for the preparation of standard

test procedures by which Estimated Annual Operating Costs

(SAOC*s) may be calculated for 13 major types of household

consumer products . Each test procedure includes one or more

factors that affect the EAOC ' s for that product type and

that are determined by consumer choices or usage conditions

,

as opposed to product features determined by the manufacturer or unit costs of energy determined by other parties.

These usage factors include such items as uses per year,

climate parameters determined by the consumer's area of

residence, indoor temperature and humidity control practices

and the like . The product types and the corresponding

appendices in this report are:

1. Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers (Appendix A)

2. Freezers (Appendix B)

3. Dishwashers (Appendix C)

4. Clothes Dryers (Appendix D)

5. Water Heaters (Appendix E)

6. Room Air Conditioners (Appendix F)

7. Home Heating Equipment (Appendix G)

8. Television (Appendix H)

9. Kitchen Ranges and Ovens (Appendix I)

10. Clothes Washers (Appendix J)

11. Humidifiers (Appendix K) , Dehumidifiers (Appendix L)

12. Central Air Conditioners (Appendix M)

13. Furnaces (Appendix N)

Appendix 0 contains some usage factor data related to

income level and Appendix P combines the references and a bibliography.

This report is a minor revision of a 1978 report prepared

by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) for the Department

of Energy (DOE) and is presented in this form to permit

wider accessibility to industry and others. It covers usage

factors and energy costs employed in the final test procedures

in effect as of mid-August 1978. Test procedures and related

materials are published in the Federal Register and are

available from DOE. DOE has since issued proposed and final

test, procedures for central air conditioners , including heat

2
pumps [184, 186] and revised representative average unit

costs of energy [185].* 1977 energy costs are used in this

report.

The DOE assignment to NBS was to:

"Assemble and review usage data for the various covered

products and recommend, where appropriate, changes to

the usage factors defined by the DOE test procedures....

This task includes analysis of regional usage factors

for products 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 and heat pumps .

The work was done in support of DOE ' s continuing responsi

bility to review and improve the test procedures , of which

consumer usage factors are integral parts. Objectives were

to present a collected record of the background, sources,

strengths and weaknesses of the factors then in use and to

contribute to planning for test procedure improvements. The

emphasis was on bringing out the effects of uncertainties in

usage factors on uncertainties in the associated EAOC's.

The structure of the Estimated Annual Operating Cost

(EAOC) calculation in the test procedure requires a statement

of "the energy which is likely to be consumed annually in

representative use of a consumer product" (Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, Sec. 321(a) (7))

The function of such

statements is to provide a standardized basis for comparing

competing products and does not imply that all, or even most

consumers, will experience the stated energy usage.

II . Technical Approach

The general procedure followed for each product type

was to

1. Review the existing final test procedure for factors

and considerations affecting the SACC that are dependent

on how the consumer uses the product. These factors

are somewhat arbitrarily called primary or secondary

usage factors, depending on their role in the prescribed EAOC calculation and on their general importance

*1979 values include 4.97<: per kWh, 36. 7<: per therm (lOQ 000 3tu)

of natural gas, 62. OC per gallon of n\2mber 2 heating oil and

54. 5<: per gallon of propane. 1977 values [33] include 3.3<:

per kWh and 20. 7^ per therm of natural gas.

3
2. Describe the background and source for the factor

currently appearing in the test procedure, and where

possible estimate the uncertainty in the numerical

value of the factor.

3 . Present data from other sources that either directly

or indirectly might have provided a basis for estimating

the factor.

4 . Estimate the impact of the factor uncertainty on

the EAOC.

Base case assumptions and EAOC ' s were used solely as

aids in studying relative effects of usage factor uncertainties

and should not -be considered "typical" or national average

values. Only one or two base cases were evaluated for each

product type even though each type includes many variations

that could be examined. No weighting by annual production

or by existing inventory was attempted.

Ill . Discussion

Usage factor values are much easier to criticize than

to generate and defend. The general approach has been to

use the value judged to be the best available at the time a commitment was required. Usage factors are subject to

review and change in the same way as other parts of test

procedures

.

The ideal factor would be a national (or regional)

average value among all potential buyers of a given product

for the lifetime of the product after purchase. The corresponding factor for products already in use is not necessarily

the same for several reasons . Estimating future usage

practices presents obvious risks. Future buyers may differ

from past buyers in objectives for the product, method of

operating the home, family size, region of the country or

other characteristics bearing on the factor.

The usage factors in the test procedures come from

several sources, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

The broad categories of source are field survey data, analysis,

and professional judgment or assumption. Some factor estimates

involve a combination of these categories to arrive at their

basic values. These preliminary values are reviewed for

reasonableness and consistency with other factors and

assumptions. Frequently some dimensional conversions,

adjustments and rounding are needed to meet the needs of the

test procedure.

4
Field Survey Data:

Field measurement suirvey data were the preferred basis

for factor estimation. Most data of this kind were, gathered

by industry, professional consultants and other nongovernmental

groups prior to the existence of EPCA or its test procedures.

In only a few cases are these data provided even in the same

terms or dimensions as needed in the test procedures, and

without exception some major inferences or assumptions are

necessary to obtain the needed factor. In many cases the

alternative was to have no data at all. Date or period of

the survey, method of sample selection, sample size, method

of measurement, data on statistical distributions, weather,

relevant house characteristics, household size, conversion

to the general population and method of data reduction are

usually missing. Many field surveys deal with energy input

to a product, whereas the usage factors in the test procedures

are in terms of output service to the consumer. Input and

output are related by product efficiency, making the usage

factor accuracy dependent on both the test method for measuring

efficiency and the efficiencies of the particular products

in the survey at the time of the survey. Data of this kind

are also uniformly missing. Surveys covering less than a whole year may miss seasonal effects. Some factors are

based on four-person households, whereas average household

sizes were 3.38 in 1960 and 2.94 in 1976 [155]. Average

household sizes for purchasers may be different from those

of current owners of products , may vary by product and

probably differ from overall national averages . Suir'/eys

based on questionnaires are suspect for many reasons.

Responses are often subjective, require recall over extended

periods and sometimes even depend on reactions to the

intsr^/iewer and the phrasing and sequence of the questions.

Weather and economic conditions during the period of a survey may not be representative and may bias the results

Analytical Estimates

Several important usage factors are based mainly on

analytical procedures combined with official weather data,

and professional estimates , recommendations or assumptions

for other factors needed in the analysis. Considerable

judgment is also exercised in selecting the degree of detail

for the analyses. Where weighted averages are required, the

available data may be inadequate to isolate buyers or

cxirrent owners from the general population or may be given

in groupings that are incompatible with the factor being

examined. (For example, popularions and sales are usually

based on states or groups of states whereas weather data do
not follow regional boundaries of this kind.) The major

strength of analytical methods is that the analyst can

insure equality of treatment within the boundaries of the

data and assumptions

.

Judgments and Assumptions:

These bases for a usage factor are the least satisfactory

of all and are a last resort. They are reserved for those

factors known to have minor effects on the EAOC or for cases

where a better estimate is impractical to obtain because of

time, cost or other constraints. For example, furnace and

air conditioner sizing factors are not really known from

systematic fields studies . Such determinations would require

considerable time-consuming field work. (Sizing factors are

ratios of actual equipment capacity to the actual design

requirements .

)

IV. Results

The principal results are given in Table 1. The

numbering system for the product types follows the sequence

given in the EPCA. The appendices are in the same order.

The nominal EAOC ' s are those used in the appendices and are

solely for analytical convenience. They are not necessarily

typical, nor are all fuel types, output capacities or

combinations of features treated. For example, only one

configuration of clothes washer water temperature controls

is treated.

The usage factors (UF's) are identified and the values

used in the test procedures or assumed to apply to field use

axe given. The error propagation factors were derived from

analyses of the EAOC formulas and relationships defined

within the test procedures. In some cases it was necessary

to further specify the characteristics of the base case

model in order to evaluate an error propagation factor.

These factors can be considered as partial derivatives of a percentage change in EAOC with respect to a percentage

change in the usage factor, evaluated under base case

conditions

.

Data were available in some cases to permit the estimation of the standard deviations of the samples and the

sample means of the field survey data. In most cases these

standard deviations refer to metered input data, not to

outputs to the consumer. Efficiencies of the individual

’^its involved and other data on operating conditions would

6
Kiior i

on

KdoLoi - (

AliAOC/KAOC) (

UK/Allh')

iinlesii

sLdLei.1

ulliorwise.

IC:iliiiiak>id

AUf's

die

deilved

from

survey

sldLlstlcs.

HA

no!

louiul

or

esLliiidteil.

Assunii^d

Aut"s

ate

used

alini>ly

asa

basis

Lo

Indicate

sensitivity.

t^stlmated

AlJFone

standard

deviation

unless

stated

utlieiwiue.

AfaiX.' =

nominal

EAUC x

Error

rro(<a<jat

ion

Factor x

AUF

or

See

a(>t>endices

for

descriptions

of

enliies.

computed

directly. A

positive

AUK

leads

loa

positive

AEAOC

except

us

noted. S 0.

Eu. O0

*0 <<

Q) ^ S e . s 3 •«( aa < a < X 0 I O

V fn o o o'sd o O M o c

>0 ^ ^ /S < < a 0 ^ ^

jj dj

u

u c c

>*

a 3 >3 ^ U O < U kd W ^ ^ ^

;n ^ O «N o —

r -s

a.

w< < < < w 3 >1 iu 3^ a Cu U« o T3 o o 3 3

a. fo 0 Chi < < < z z z i H ! 5 :;^

fN <N

</> </>

aU 3

hd S 3 a *3

41 4> 3 H ‘J > 3 O r* o d

.a 3 a o

vo -• a* a. ^ r** O ^

Vi I 03aVu

u

a

u 3

S* <hd 3a3 3 a3 3 ^

-i 3 0 - 3 2 0 3 3 2 a a.— - 3 a -B 3> a -* 3 -3

'15 ^ -d 3 "3 3 0 3 3 3 — ^ ^ ^ ia 'M

VU 3 3 M 3

d.1 3 ki B w 3 ^ 3 W B 3 Od 3 ^ a 2 a, 3 3 3 2 a. 3 2 a w 3 a

kd3S - 3 a 3

a* ad 0 id - \ B -4

•- 0 3 «

31

B

aw

a

Ui3>0

'J 3B2

.T)
'liV

w'iiP

'a| M:

m

"A

^

** ' ;.tt\ '. .

-J.

:

;»tV *V» 'XJU::<'

' ^1,

V f%.' :«-<R- ^Tr.

r5 • *!

'»-‘^"i }^k*

•: •*

^*5S>-.

•• :-'3i i* 1:

r-flfl:

— -

'* r‘*"ii I

' ’*'- ^ \vhasi«^^.vK‘ty^

t-c^-

J ri-» »'•'•'?% ii 'i. :9

^it

,-^-r;,v

Lv ^ ^

0 r»

ra

r 2t'-

.*'i^

s

"

K />;!> I :.?'. wX'ia^ "ai

'•

*t

fta
T<il>le

1.

bIftecLs

ot

IJsjyo

Faclot

(UK)

Uiice i

la i

nt

iiis

cm

Kutl

mated

Annual

0(Joratlncj

Cost,

E'AUC

(continued) • «J > 3 0 4J a a 0 3 C 3 4i» a 0 0 0 0

O'

a

a s a c JO ^ s a

X . C 0 3 a

a

a

aa <4.

a o a ^ • *0 <44 4J

h

u o •94 0 O'

a 0 2 0

(C o X > 3 a< c U

V *

<44 rN 2 9i < c ^ a

V

U &3

C 3 "0 0 u

OS % 3 u 0 0 3 fl >« 3 0 a V a w \ rtj 3 a -i 4^ 0 d a

4J Z 3 3 0 a

aa

Jj

a <w

u o • 0 0 ^ <44 (9 0 -u a a s > a • a 0 -1 4J a U <M a 3 0 0) 0 0 T? 3 m4 4J

a 3 <M • fl cj a z 0 .^4 3 S U •n rs o w Ul 4J 3 3 u 0 < 0 -w 'O 0 <N 0 a

cn a. z U VM ^ < <44 s a

a

U 4«

y >. >1 >< > >1 >< > >. o

CO \ V. \ \ \ < 3 3 3 fN JN r»*

Cs3 3 r*i

® CN uy o < d o 3 -I < 3 3 d 3 3 d '1 </> <j> </> Z </>• v> v> </> <J> v> v> <y>

Cs3 < < :i3

A < < a 3 Lri u a >t <9 < u A a a 3 \ V u 43 U < B 3 Ib a > a a a 3 u r*- 3# >1 > 44 a < 3 u r>» m X ry X X a a a < V 3 r** u in O 3 3 c a a

>- < X 0 3 d z - d

dd 0 3 M- u 2 44 a 0

«4U

a

k4 ^ 0 3 3 3 w «J 3 O 3 tn 3 Q 0 3\ ^ • a < M a p4 V z d

3. ^ a

u 0 4*

V

w

4« c a

X 3< 0 u —* 3 o -4 ^ * V, (**! ry (N (N 3 C > 3 C 3 3 3 jy >• r«* O 3 s < \ o rM

ji v> 3 - </> </> v>

w o> </> <A v> V> <> v> </>

u

a >• a 3 u rr 3 a 3 3 fN X a a 9 u X •>% H a > 3 3 N «T r** r** 3* 0 jy 3 rN w J4 r- >4 rN r> fN

rN

a

fN -i

>i

7) 1a

w 4J 3 k« 0 4J 3 4J

4* 0 a

a 3 3 3 a 3 S a a r* 3 T5 - «) » W u a 44 0 3 3

14 3 w

w

a 0 0 a 0 •1 3« ^ w

9} 3 ^ O' >. > 3 3 a a 3 3 a 4 >» O' a a '9 3 0 n w \ H M > &4 3 w a a Ji a - • • a a s 3 C 3 y) a a <4) U c U -N a 3 3 3 a a a a a c

•3

a s 3

•—

r? <w 3 3

O' O'

w3 u

O' 3 a

j: 3 3 3. 3 3 3 3 a

a

a 01 3 B a a a

4i x4 4J ^ \ X 3 «• N a 3 a 0 0 3 a a a a 3i 0 3 >. >« < S 3 3 Ss X X 3 > j£ J X u a) n B 3 2, a a a P 3 o X w •• a

V 2 d a O'

>* -*- Zt2 3 O' J£ 2 3 ’1 2 > c a a X

r* = 3 3 > 'N 3 3 > 3 X 0 3 3 3 3 a 3 2 a a 2C > 4) 3 3 3 3 O 3 a

*o

a 3 a 3 3 2 2 V. O' 0 < a a 3 2 2 a a 44 a > 5 a > > 5 a a M a 44 4) 3 3 2 s — — ji 3 3 3 3 5 > "*•* 0 d w •V a a a a 4 a a a 2 > 0 a VI a a > > > 4 a 0 3 a a *J j 3] a d

:d

—

y Lj *3.11 > 3
I

i

t
Tdblu

1.

EfftcLs

ot

Uyatje

h'ai.tor

(Uf)

(Iik.'oi

la

iiil

lea

on

estinialed

Annual

Opcralln^

Cutit,

EAtx:

(continued)

1) 'H I I 3 M < M a a < u w « 0 o

>,w ry C

w ^ a u

a,w

a 3 — 3 J

Ui

A

Vu

0. O

u

O^ 0 a ^^ < 3 a 3O M a 0 o <2 I

5S >4 i s;:? z a

is ^ w 3 3 a -3 -( a y a

rU > 3^ 3

416

0.72

Xy

*jyy

VI

700 700

1300

.4

B/.

0001

U

u

U 3 a a a

a

u

y

y

y 3 3 > > >*

Ut 3 3 —

yw W|

u

a

y

y

y

y

y *4^ 24

W

U

a 0 3 3 y a a a a w w •w a u a a 0 a 3 3 3 3 y u a a » 3 3 “ M y

>’

w

y 0 a

5) •iJ 3 3 V S' O' 3 y ? i' y a 4J > y «7 a 3i a 3 a a U a 4J ^ u 3 0 y a a a a 3 a 3 3 2

•3

y

y

y •-< 3 y 3 3*

—

=" V3 3 o o <5 -• a y - 3 y «) 'j ^

-3 9

Tahlu

1.

klCtectu

ot

Usd 9e

Factor

(UF)

Uncertainties

on

Fstiiiiated

Annual

Oporating

Cost,

FAOC

(continued)

10

be needed in order to properly estimate standard deviations

of outputs. In the absence of such information, standard

deviations from the best available sources are assigned to

apply to outputs

Some entries in the AUF column are labeled (E) , meaning

that they were estimated from available data and calculated.

Most of the E entries are standard deviations , but some

indicate systematic differences between results from field

data and values used in the test procedures. Two examples

are the operating hours for room and central humidifiers.

Other entries are labeled (A) to designate differences that

were assumed for the purpose of indicating the sensitivity

of EAOC to errors in these factors. The values that were

assumed do nofimply any knowledge by NBS of the real

magnitude of uncertainties in these factors.

The AEAOC column contains estimates of the effects on

EAOC of the information provided in the other columns. This

column is the main output of the study and is intended to

provide perspective in the selection of usage factors for

more intense investigation. Each is subject to the assumptions and uncertainties described in the appendices and

should be used with suitable restraint. Several of them

could be in error by a factor of two or more and still not

qualify for early attention.

11
•

' ,r r^'

It. . ,

. .< .'fl/

’ 'An *.« S’-

»r.^

.

«aoxd«Jv9fc b's;,J&3-'l£i:^e s:?feai,:}!es v

cr t^qqm

(1l

,' ,:«.» ^

*•. ^,- < yp.

' tSSf^ScO- 4i : 'h4^ !t^/

casi*r&^ , (3^ -bd'laiifci sx5\, .mitu^'O^ '; i>«:?xl£r:i*4^ f».'t&- S3s2> dilcl?.,i.^ 9Vfi mtiyX'S:', Aflios ^sic '*Sc Iso

51.3.:,^ (no's! rs^'^*3;»d''

owe

, £ zzi^zaw/. ,1600A»o _ :zpt . ^xoc^;-

*5iO aJ&rtol&Bb €53 . (Ai

VOi\‘>oOffi&*. ©t!i pnioaol^ci io' »l

»3»w^i-A/tO a»L*.;xx:,,.62!e, fciEoi'dclfljiAjifrii'. fii^i<„6O03:3.F^'<

ip BSi*. xd SfPb6iy^oi^ >iPM' x^q/^'lSiOd -hb^

c-xoo^a* '»8rs^ .a±^ '^^6,,j

/V ^ ^ . i^T”^ Rc. S0:>9.>5ff »ffOr^o ,'aa3JifCioat# DOAE^a ,,*!{,?

^i,riX ^,fcarai;i^co , oedob ni , .*.«.« co.^oskOn.ftOai bft». ^o . tti;.^)*;' f

3^5 £,:ccrpx5 a^fceb ,5 q rwJiyp«Jt^ ?ii- -q/nireef e/io o3 ei- 4®«?E: .,iibl04»'if.!trfM»va'i: s«'d*OT-i ^^x^ ^ns s^zlf).cmqtqs sdz nz -b&dlptr^^ ' ikX:^pJt^:iri’9pr4Ji him r^.-np;

_i tn©fi3 iC X.aidV^E"" . .oaX^lOJR#! ©idfdijyt

ron ftooffi 3c owo !to ,«,

' .bboat^ :',..au<

• A %Pt TgJ^iiai

»^i

, tv-

, „ =^'. ^ - <5 ; M. : “f,. , *2' i
APPENDIX A. REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

1. References: 68, 74, 87, 123, 143

2. Test Procedures: Final [87] September 14, 1977

Proposed [74] April 27, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factor: 365 cycles per year

Field energy consumption per cycle = 1.00 x test energy

consumption per cycle.

One cycle = 24 hours of operation.

3 . 1 Value

The use of a dimensionless correction factor of 1.00 is

implied in the test procedure. Estimated consumer energy

use per cycle equals correction factor times energy use per

cycle measured in test.

3.2 Basis

In the interests of economy and simplicity in testing,

the laboratory test procedure is designed to avoid the need

for door openings and food loadings. This is done using an

elevated ambient temperature and leaving the door closed

throughout the test. Then a correction factor is used to

convert the laboratory test results to an estimated energy

consumption rate under consumer use conditions. Use of the

correction factor bypasses the need to consider individually

the variety of consumer usage factors that may affect energy

usage.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

Data comparing energy usage in laboratory tests with

field metering results were obtained from several sources

and aggregating 512 refrigerator-freezer units in all.

Based on these data, the average correction factor for

refrigerator-freezers was 1.02 and the average test energy

consumption rate was 5.62 kWh per day. For refrigerators,

based on 13 units, the average correction factor was 0.38

and the average energy cons'umption rate was 1.61 kWh per

day. These correction factors were booh rounded to 1.00 for

test procedure purposes. The choice of the 365 cycles per

year is based upon continuous operation of the unit.
3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

The average per cycle energy consumption correction

factor was obtained by dividing the average energy

consiamption value of actual home use by the consumption

value of the laboratory test for each unit. This average

ratio for refrigerator-freezers was 1.02 with a standard

deviation the sample ratios of 0.0946 and a standard

deviation of the sample mean ratio of 0.0042. For

refrigerators the average ratio was 0.88 with a standard

deviation of the sample ratios of 0.109 and a standard

deviation of the mean sample ratio of 0.030.

3 . 3 Parallel Estimates

Additional field usage data were found, but did not

include matching laboratory test data.

Midwest Research Institute (MRI) [123] metered 106

homes with refrigerator-freezers during August 1976 through

July 1977. A summary of MRI ' s results follows;

Defrost Method

Frost Free Automatic Manual Average

Daily Consumption, kWh 6.070 4.234 3.478 4.56

Number Metered 68 16 22 106

The comparable result from the field tests mentioned earlier

was 5.74 kWh per day. Other annual energy consumption

estimates for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers are

given in the following table.

A2
Unit Energy Consumption by Refrigerators and

Refrigerator-Freezers / in kWh per Year.

[123] [123] [143] [123]

1 Merchandi sing -5 1976

ESI Week 2 PGSE-^ Census

Refrigerator

Regular 728

Frostless 1217

Refrigerator-Freezers 1228

10 to 15 ft^ 700

16 to 18 ft^ frostless 1795

20+ ft^ frostless

14 ft^

14 ft^ frostless

2700 1895

12 ft^ 1000

12 ft^ frostless 1600

16 ft^ 1450

16 ft^ frostless 2150

20 ft^ 1950

appliance energy use table, 1976 REA Handbook, data source:

Electrical Energy Association, 90 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10015 (about 60 appliances listed with annual

kilowatt-hour data) . [Edison Electric Institute (EEI) succeeded

the Electric Energy Association (EEA) .]

2Tabbing Appliance Energy, Merchandising Week , 3, 1973.

^Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Marketing Research

+ Service Department, Load Research Studies and Estimates)

statistical Abstract of the United States, 1976, p. 552.

^Edison Electric Institute (ESI) [ 68 ] also provided annual

energy consumption rates for refrigerator-freezers of

1500 kWh per year for a 12.5 cu. ft. manual defrost

’onit and 2250 kWh per year for a 17.5 cu. ft. automatic

defrost ’jnit.

4. Secondary Usage Factor

None
5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Base case assiimptions and the corresponding impact

assessments are contained in the following table:

Refrigerator

Refrigerators Freezers

(A) Energy consiamption rate,

per test cycle 1.61 5.62

(3) Energy cost, $ per kWh 0.038 0.038

(C) SAOC, $ per year 22 (22.33) 78 (77.95)

(D) Correction factor standard

deviation of the mean 0.030 0.0042

CE) AZAOC, $ per year $0.67 per year $0.33 per year

CC) = 365 X (A) X (B)

CE) = CC) X CD)

5 . Comments

Further expenditures to- refine these correction factors do

not appear warranted.

A4

I
APPENDIX B. HOUSEHOLD FREEZERS

1. References: 74, 87, 123

2. Test Procedures: Final [87] September 14, 1977;

Proposed [74] April 27, 1977

3.

Primary Usage Factor: 365 cycles per year;

Adjustment factors, C-^ and for upright and chest

freezers are used to estimate field energy use per cycle,

Ep, given energy consumption per cycle during test, = C

F u

(or C^) X E

T*

3.1 Value:

Dimensionless correction factors are = 0.7 for chest

freezers and = 0.35 for upright freezers.

3.2 Basis

In the interests of economy and simplicity in testing,

the laboratory test proced-ure is designed to avoid the need

for door openings and food loadings . This is done using an

elevated ambient temperature and leaving the door closed

throughout the test. Then a correction factor is used to

convert the laboratory test result to an estimated energy

consiimption rata under consximer use conditions. Use of the

correction factor bypasses the need to consider individually

the variety of consumer usage factors that may effect energy

usage.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

Data comparing energy usage in laiboratory tests with

field metering results were obtained from several sources

and aggregating 131 upright freezers and 53 chest freezers.

The test procedure determines energy use for a "cycle” of 24

hours. Since estimated annual operating costs are required,

the energy use for one cycle is multiplied' by 365 to convert

to annual energy use.

There are few details available on how or when the

field STUT'/eys were conducted; limited information and dates

indicate than most of the data were collected in 1974 by

3-1
AHAM members. The sizes of the upright freezers ranged from

11.6 cu. ft. to 21.1 cu. ft. and the average test energy

consumption was 4.71 kWh per day. The sizes of the che^t

freezers ranged from 8.3 cu. ft. to 26 cu. ft. The average

test energy consumption rate for chest freezers was 4 . 0 kWh

per day. The majority of the units tested were manual

defrost. After rounding the correction factors became 0.85

for upright freezers and 0.70 for chest freezers.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

The energy consumption correction factors were obtained

by dividing the_ energy consumption value of actual home use

by the consumption value of the laboratory test for each - unit. This average ratio for upright freezers equals 0.85

with a standard deviation of the sample equal to .075 and a standard deviation of the mean equal to .006. For chest

freezers the average ratio equals 0.70 with a standard

deviation of the sample equal to .156 and a standard

deviation of the mean equal to 0.020.

3 .

3

Parallel Estimates

Mo usage data comparable to the ones currently used

were located. This is mainly because any field usage data

than are found do not have matching laboratory test data.

Midwest. Research Institute (MRI) [123] metered 60 homes with

freezers during August 1976 through July 1977. A summary of

the average daily consumption by model type and defrost

method is as follows

Model T'/pe Frost-Free

Defrost Method

Automatic Manual Average

Upright

Daily consumption,

Mumber metered

kWh 6.504

9

2.360

4

3 . 522

25

4.159

38

Chest

Daily consumption,

Mumber metered

kWh 4.133

3

2.931

19

3.095

22

This compares with 4.025 kilowatt hours for upright freezers

and 2.764 for chest freezers as measured in the field by

AHA.M members

.

3-2
Other

[123] for

sources that

freezers are:

provided aoinual consumption (kWh)

EEI^

Merchandis ing

Week 2

1976

Census^

Freezers

15 to 20

15 to 21

ft^

ft^ frostless

1195

1761

1480

1320

1985

As can be seen, data from various sources are presented

in such a diverse manner that useful comparison is impractical

^Appliance energy use table, 1976 REA Handbook, data source:

Electrical Energy Association, 90 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10015 (about 60 appliances listed with annual

kilowatt-hour data) . [Eldison Electric Institute (EEI)

succeeded the Electrical Energy Association (EEA).]

2 Tabbing Appliance Energy, 2-lerchand.isinq Week , 3, 1973.

^Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1976, p. 552.

4. Secondary Usage Factor

None

5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

The correction factors, and C^, express the

consumer-dependent variables for chest and upright freezers.

Uncertainties in these parameters lead directly to

uncertainties in the SAOC's, as indicated in the following

table, where

E_ = Energy consumprion per test cycle, k'/'Th. SACC(> per yr) = E.^ \ x 365 cycles per yr x 30.038 per kWh

= correction factor for chest freezers, dimensionless.

Ctj = Correction factor for upright freezers, dimensionless.

S (X) =• Standard deviation of the sample mean correction

factor.

3-3
Upright

AEAOC = uncertainty

Freezer Type

kWh per day

Correction factor

SAOCr $ per year

S (X)

,

dimensionless

AEACC, $ per year

in EAOC due to S (X) . Chest

4.0

C =0.70

c

39 (38.94)

0.02

0.78

4.71

C =0.85

u

56 (55.53)

0.006

0.33

correction factors do

6 . Comments

Further expenditures to refine these

not appear warranted.

B-4
APPENDIX C. DISHWASHERS

1. References: 11, 13, 68, 73, 84, 112, 123, 144, 145, 163

2. Test Procedures: Final [84] August 8, 1977

Proposed [73] March 22, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factor

3.1 Value: 416 loads per year.

3.2 Basis

The 416 loads per year are based on a survey that was

conducted by Procter and Gaurible in 1974 [11] . 3.2.1 Description of Basis

No details were provided by Procter and Gamble on the

number of times dishwashers are used per week.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

AHAM [13] reported results of a survey involving 852

families showing 9 percent washing more than once a day, 56

percent once a day, 24 percent every other day and 11

percent less often. Assigning loads per week respectively

at 10, 7, 5.5 and 2, the mean value is 5.88 loads per week,

standard deviation of the sample is 2.29 loads per week and

the standard deviation of the sample mean is 0.078. It is

assumed that the Procter and Gambia survey for 1974 reported

in [11] had a similar degree of statistical quality.

Therefore, the standard deviation of the sample mean will be

approximated at 0.08 loads per week.

3.3 Parallel Estimates

Procter and Gamble reported an average of seven loads

per week from a 1972 sur^/ey [144, 14 5] and also eight loads

per week [144]

Midwest Research Institute (MRI) metered 29 homes with

dishwashers during August 1976 through July 1977 which

indicated the annual energy usage for dishwashers was 149

kilowatt hours [123]

Other sources that give the annual

energy consumption usage rate of 363 kilowatt hours are

Electrical Energy Association, Statistical Abstract of the

C-1
United States —1976, and Merchandising Week, December 3,

197 3 [68, 123] . It should be noted that: these vaj.ues

represent the amount of energy to operate the dishwasher.

The energy for heating the water that is used is not

included.

An average of 6.8- loads per week was reported [112]

from a 1975 survey of 2000 households. Data in [11] from a 1968-70 survey indicate an average of 8.1 loads per week for

normal capacity units and 7.4 loads per week for large

capacity units.

4. Secondary Usage Factor

Some dishwashers have features or controls that can be

used to modify the normal cycle by (1) eliminating the water

heating feature during the wash portion of the cycle, (2)

eliminating one or more water changes, and (3) eliminating

the power-dry feature after the last rinse operation. These

features are designed to reduce the energy consumption of

the dishwashers. There are not available at this time

sufficient consumer usage data on the first two features to

permit assessment of their effects on energy cons\mption.

However, it is assumed that a switch that disables the

power-dry feature (truncated cycle) is used 50 percent of

the time [73] . This is based on a survey conducted by the

Kitchen Aid Division of Hobart Corporation. Kitchen Aid

conducted a consxmer usage survey which indicated that 39

percent of the participants used the switch disabling the

power-dry feature all of the time and 29 percent used this

switch part of the time.

5 . Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Estimated Annual Operating Costs (EAOC's) for this

product consist of two main components—the electricity or

gas costs for heating the hot water and the electricity

costs for operating the product’s motors and dish drying

heater. Some dishwashers have controls that permit the

heated drying cycle to be omitted. It is estimated that

users will choose to omit the drying cycle (i.e., use a tr^oncated cycle) approximately 5 0 percent of the time where

this feature is available, and will save approximately 0.26

kWh of the electric operating energy consumption each time

chat this feature is exercised [163]

.

The following base case will be assumed for the

purposes of this analysis.

C-2
m Gas water heater with 0.75 recovery efficiency,

90 F water temperature rise; gas cost at $0,207

per therm (100 000 Btu)

• Fifteen gallons of hot water consumed per cycle.

® Annual usage is 416 cycles per year.

• Electric energy consumption is 0.674 kWh per

normal cycle [163], at $0,038 per kWh.

• Electric energy consumption by the dish-drying heater

is 0.26 kWh per cycle.

The resulting EAOC components and totals are

Water Heatinc + Product Operation = Total

Normal cycle only $12.91 per year + $10.65 per year - $23.56

per year

With truncation option $12.91 per year + $ 8.60 per year = $21.51

per year

These EACC's would be reported as $24 and $22 per year,

respectively.

An uncertainty in the usage rate of 0.08 cycles per

week translates into 4.16 cycles per year, which is one

percent of the basic usage rata of 416 cycles per year. The

corresponding iSACC ' s are SO. 2 4 and $0.22 per year

respectively for models with the normal cycle only and with

the truncated cycle available.

Increasing the usage factor for the truncated cycle

from 50 percent to 51 percent would result in a saving of

$0.03 per year.

6 . Comment

No further usage investigations are suggested

for this product except for monitoring of long-term trend

data provided by industry.

C-3
» •

2.'v

i

•

r^V;-

&^3r

-'H:v j

^ . •-- . #:v- '-ycf

H5. „,, ' fc* .t^..

lc^«r Wm •'Alr.i

i * r«. -?'"- >* ' » -• « * . '-' » ’ V

-®«.»is6l- -'tWl

' '-'Z^^yZSZ r' ^||r^

I - ^f•HAJ

I -j^^r

pr (, > |f» , ;v IfflF''

'•

’• \* -i

.> S?- :S «q-bS;13

: „^'"' .‘5^.

"'rsr,*

' , f

• .s,, ^ ^«- '*«; ;e«io\%^r.},, aj^ , mf*

l-riS*:’

'fe . i4 - -

wciitf-

'*1

^ >t _ rA

m

', v,; i?a—.'‘"rt

.

> . , w». ; i.Vi

',JK‘-

t*' f'

*^\ .i’

'• l*^. . ^>1;;

qsi.y^.
APPENDIX D. CLOTHES DRYERS

1. References: 13, 20, 74, 87, 144, 155, 164, 16*5

2. Test Procedures: Final' [37] September 14, 1977

Proposed [74] April 27, 1977

3 . Primary Usage Factor

3.1 Value: 416 loads per year.

3 . 2 Basis

The primary usage factor for clothes dryers was

selected to be equivalent to the eight loads per week for

clothes washers.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

A frequency of use of 7.95 loads per week for clothes

washers was reported by AHAM [13] and was rounded to 3 loads

per week (416 loads per year) for use in the clothes washer

test procedure. This survey from October 1973 to September

1974 included 3567 families. The assumption was made that

there is a dryer load for each washer load, and 416 loads

per year was selected as the usage factor for clothes

dryers. The same reference [13] includes data from a clothes dryer survey of 6564 families, with an average usage

of 7.1 loads per week. Family sizes were not reported.

Additional data have become available from AHAM dryer

energy field test which was conducted during 1977 [20]. The

reported usage frequency was 8.15 cycles per week based on a survey of 20 families with an average family size of 4.3

persons per family. (The average household size in March

1976 is estimated at 2.94 persons [155].)

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

Analysis of the statistical information of the data in

reference 13 leads to the following estimates of standard

deviation in loads per year: sample: 250, sample mean: 25.

3.3 Parallel Usage Factors

A survey by the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company [164]

yielded an average usage rate of 520 loads per year. This

D-1
survey was based on 33,000 loads run in 64 dryers. The

average family size of the 64 participating families was

4.8. This survey was conducted during ilarch 1970 through

April 1971.

An average of 7.1 loads per week was reported in

reference 13 from a 6564 family s\irvey conducted over the

period of October 1973 through September 1974.

An average of seven loads per week was reported by

Procter and Gamble [144] from a survey of three panels of

approximately 500 homemakers each.

Market Facts, Inc., conducted a questionnaire survey

during the period of September 1-19, 1977 [165]. There were

346 respondents to a question on the frequency of clothes

dryer use. An average of 290 loads per year was estimated

from these data.

4. Secondary Usage Factors

• Field Use Factor, FU = 1.18

This factor is a multiplier specified in a test

procedure [87] formula for computing dryer energy

consiimption by consumers given consumptions measured in the

tests. An average energy consumption of 2.5 kWh per cycle

for electric dryers was calculated from Oklahoma Gas and

Electric data [164]

.

The average energy consTimption for

1972 production, as measured by the AHAM test procedure then

in effect was estimated at 1.923 kWh per cycle [87]

.

This

1.923 kWh per cycle was increased to 2.12 kWh per cycle to

account for a change from the AHAM to the DOE test

orocedures in ti^ amount of drying to be done, 2.5 t 2.12 = i.l8 = FU.

Data in hand will not support an estimate in the

uncertainty in this factor.

• Load Size, standard size dryer: 7 pounds--.

compact dryer : 3 pounds

.

Dryer load sizes refer to the weight of fabrics

in a bone-dry condition. Weights of water in the fabrics

are expressed as percentages of dry weight.

A 5.8 pound average load was reported by AHAM in

reference 11 for clothes washers. This survey, believed to

D-2
be sponsored by Procter and Gamble in 1968 to 1970, was

based on 2558 loads in normal capacity washers and 1638

loads in large capacity washers . This 5 . 8 poiind load was

adjusted upward to 7 pounds to correspond with the AHAM

standard test load and the trend to larger dryers . No field

data are available to support the 3 pound load for compact

dryers. The three pound load conforms to industry

practices

In a recent letter [20]AHAM reported an average

load size of 6.5 pounds from a survey of 20 families. The

average family size was 4.3 persons and the average usage

was 8.15 cycles per week.

No field data are available to support estimates

of uncertainty for these load sizes.

• Load Composition: test clothes containing 50 percent

cotton and 50 percent polyester fibers.

No field data were provided to support the

proposition that most families dry synthetic clothes

separately from cotton clothes. Procter and Gamble reported

in reference 144 the results of a 1972 survey on fabric

types as 60 percent plain cotton, 20 percent

Gotton/synthetic blends and 20 percent synthetics. General

Electric Company [87] estimated that in an average washer

load the ratio of natural fiber to synthetic fiber was

approximately one.

No field data are available to support an

estimate of uncertainty for load composition.

« Moisture Content: 70 percenu of fabric weight at

start (Nr^) , 4 percent of fabric weight

at the end (W^) . NBS recommended that the test procedure be based

on the removal of an amount of water equal oo 56 percent of

the fabric weight (70 percent at the start to 4 percent at

the end) instead of the 60 percent water removal

specification contained in the AHAM test procedure HLD-2EC.

Industry concurred.

There are no field data available supporting

either these limits or estimates of ’oncertain-cy in them.

D-3
5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

An electric dryer is selected for impact analyses. The

formula for Estimated Annual Operating Cost, EAOC, [87] is

given as

EAOC = 416 cycles per year x E^^ kWh per cycle x $0,038 per kWh

6 6 = 416 X X test energy per cycle, E xFUx $0,038

Inserting nominal values, the base case EAOC is

6 6

EAOC = 416 X •

(~'

qi:

~4") ^ 2.21 x 1.18 x 0.038 = $41.22 per year,

which would be reported as $41 per year.

• Loads per Year

Using the estimated uncertainty of 25 loads per year

from section 3.2.2,

lEAOC (loads per year) = 25 x 2.21 x 1.18 x 0.038 = $2.48 per yr

.

• Load Size

NBS has determined that dryer efficiency in terms

of pounds of water removed per kWh decreases as the load

size decreases, from approximately 2.09 pounds of water per

k'i<lh for a seven poxind load to approximately 2.0 5 pounds of

water per kWh for a six pound load. Assuming a change in

average load size from seven to six pounds,

ASAOC (load size) = 416 x 0.038 x 1.18 x 0.66 x (

- - y—

q ) = -$5.20 per year. 2.05 • ^

• Initial Water Content

If the initial water content was 80 percent of

zhe load dry weight instead of 70 percent, an additional 0.7

pounds of water would have to be removed per load (7 x

(0.80-0.70) = 0.7). Estimating the water removal efficient

at 7 X (0.70-0.04) pounds per load/2.21 kWh per load = 2.09

pounds of water per kWh, this change in initial water

content would lead to a

AZAOC (initial water content) = 415 x

0.7

2.09 X 1.18 X 0.038 = $6.24 per year.

D-4
• Ending Moisture Retention

Though the moisture removal efficiencies near the

end of a drying cycle are not known, it is estimated that

these efficiencies will be only slightly reduced by a change

in moisture retention from four percent to two percent. A

change from 2.09 to 2.04 pounds per kWh will be assumed for

such a change. On this basis,

0 68 0 66

AEADC (moisture retention) = 416 x 1.19 x 0.038 x 7 x

(^TqJ “ 2.09^ = $2.29 per year.

• Field Use Factor

Assume a change in the field use factor, FU, from

1.18 to 1.08. This would lead to a

lEAOC (FU) = 416 loads per year x 2.21 kWh per load

X $0,038 per kWh x (1.03-1.18) = -$3.49 per year.

• Load Composition

F’orther study is needed to estimate the effect of

changing the shares of cotton and synthetic fibers on the

energy consumption of clothes dryers and on the load

compositions currently occurring in the field. Therefore,

no estimate of the effect of this variable on EAOC is made.

6 . Comments

The empirical bases for loads per year, field use

factor, load size and water removal are not strong. Perhaps

loads per year and load size could usefully be combined into

pounds per year for the purposes of estimating EAOC. A

combined input energy metering and clothes weighing survey

is suggested in which care is taken to obtain a statistically representative sample of household sizes. An

estimate of initial water content might be obtainable from

manufacturer tests of clothes washers.

D-5
P'. A, •?:

s4iri9,

. 3 Mr-*|- JSt . ^

^ ,gjgr='^ •* ..p;j l-tJi* W<t^ ,

«• *

rW

.< :t''' >^,r>

ri^ i it^r 4'0;

3!: ^'X ax^-f; i, tZ-4^

|T- **=“»-

if5'

nl >•

' 5n

•^'. _

^-saa^ m .;

;y'

; ^

y '.^^^'-v ! r. . ..jl?c3i: ^i• ax' 'k4 ^ £P. "if?' tlB^- :f

^

. ::^r',:''*5l**i

ifStfii^ ’’..Vit'* j:f > t • tjfAWr ft y*

I .;»« -J ^^4jftj^^#OJi.'tti';.‘ ^bio4^

j . '.' i.-' ,f''‘ * ' •* 5k2Xtti''3' ''•• .'••O.iSH*'*^' •i- UMi^^£J5^''5 _ v

it‘ li k^WBZ'5M-«»r*.

O^.t* •..:;/ ‘-il

f'ljr <; w

ff ^ *n^

• ^ •'il i'v

,^:-

if 3l .'>jij jr

fiA .-•*-»' * i

' -Vli?#^ #i...-^-

p '•’'J

:»ij ‘'-Ml

,^:J’r

;i

4 j

^ij ft! - .Vi (J

. .Jff, » *f"^

M.JHS a

ilfir,ill
APPENDIX E. WATER HEATERS

1. References: 3, 57, 62, 74, 96, 123, 133, 143, 166, 167,

168, 183

2. Test Procedures: Final Amendment [183] October 19, 1978

Proposed Amendment [62] April 3, 1978

Final [57] October 4, 1977

Proposed [74] April 27, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factor:

3.1 Value:"

National average hot water usage * 64.3 gallons per

day, 365 days per year with nominal tank temperature 145 F,

input water temperature 55 F, and ambient air temperature 55

P [57].

3.2 Basis:

Hot water usage estimates were not obtained from direct

measurements of water use, but instead were derived [166]

from input energy metering data and general service

efficiency factors.

The average hot water use in gallons was computed as

average energy consumed in heating water

energy required per gallon neared

= (average total energy consumed) x (average service efficiency)

energy required per gallon heaced

3.2.1 Description of Basis

The energy consumed was treated independently for gas

and for electric water heaters. The average gas energy of

378 therms per year was taken as the average of the average

annual energy consumptions reported for regional usage by

five gas utility companies. The average gas heater seirrica

efficiency of 47 percent was taken as the average of results

of laboratory studies on one gas heater tasted by the

Institute of Gas Technology and on two gas heaters tasted by

-he Houston Lighting and Power Company. The average annual

energy consumption for the electric heaters of 5012 k^Vh per

year was taken as the average of the average annual regional

energy consumptions reported by 13 electric utility
companies. The average service efficiency for the electric

heater of 75 percent was taken as the average of results of

(a) laboratory tests conducted on one heater by the

Institute of Gas Technology and on three heaters by the

Houston Lighting and Power Company/ and (b) field tests on

54 metered units by Detroit Edison over two weeks in the

summer and two weeks in the winter.

In each separate case—gas and electric—reported

results were combined into unweighted averages without

regard to sampling methods or representativeness of the

localities, of the heater manufacture or size, or of

specific operating conditions. The data collected in the

field were those offered voluntarily by the utility

companies and varied widely in format, in detail, and in

estimated reliability. In most instances the thermostat

setting was unknown; and no information was provided on

whether the water heaters were usually located outside the

house, in unheated cellars, or inside the heated or airconditioned volumes of housing units . Most of the data were

for individual houses, but some were for apartments.

The annual median water s\irface temperatiire (as

reported by the U.S. Geological Survey} was taken to be the

annual average tank water-input temperature for the specific

location involved.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

No direct data are available to support an estimate of

uncertainty in national average hot water usage.

The magnitude of systematic errors cannot be reasonably

estimated because of the diversity of the reported

observations. Also, sampling errors and biases cannot be

computed because of lack of evidence of a probability

sample. Several sources expressed concern that the value of

64.3 gallons per day as a national average is too high. At

least one so\irce expressed concern that the value was too

low.

The formal mathematical relationship,

Average daily water ’ose

(average daily energy) x (average service)

consumed efficiencv

750

is in error on the high side (i.e., gives too large a value

of average water use) because it includes an additional

average of cross-product terms of energy and service

E-2
efficiency. The magnitude of the cross-product contribution

is unknown.

3.3 Parallel Estimates

The average annual energy consumption from which the

flow data were computed—6017 kWh for electric water heaters

and 378 therms for gas heaters —may be compared with related

estimates from other sources given below.

Source

Annual Energy Consumption

Electric Gas

(kWh) (Therms)

Edison Electric Institute [123,167]

San Diego Gas S Electric [167]

Pacific Gas & Electric [143,167]

Hittman Associates [167]

Federal Power Commission [167]

Rand Corporation [167]

A. D. Little [163]

Efficient Electricity Use Handbook

Smith, Editor, Pergamon Press [150]

ORNL [156]

Midwest Research Institute [123]

Merchandizing Week [123]

Potomac Electric Power [123]

University of Illinois [123,133]

East Ohio Gas Company [133]

Zinder [133]

AGA [133]

Ohio Power [133]

Dates are not known for the above data.

4219

4308

4811

4400

4280

4400

3876

4500

4046

4515

5400

4233

3253

5220

4880

but they

144

147

164.2

150

146.1

260

192

300

95.5

446

292

233

are

believed to be about 1970-1975 in general. A trend in gas

energy consimed by water heaters per year is shown by

reports [3] from the American Gas Association which indicate

for 1971, 316 therms; and for 1975, 325 therms.

The only known published data on directly metered,

household "-/ater consumption is that of the Twin Rivers, New

Jersey study [96], indicating an average of 64.7 gal per

day. Six electric water heaters and six gas heaters were

metered with recordings at hourly intervals. The electric

water, heaters were 82 gallon capacity; the gas heaters were

40 gallon capacity. Water-flow readings were recorded

directly onto magnetic tape. AJ. though cbsem/ations were

E-3
made over a longer period, th.e recordings were transcribed

and reported for an interval of only 41 days during November

and December of 1976.

A draft report by A. D. Little [168] gives a value of

71.4 gal per day, with no indicated derivation for this

figure. Mutch [167] cites Richard Quinn [M.Sc. Thesis,

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, August 1972] as

indicating 50.0 gal per day.

4. Secondary Usage Factors

4.1 a. Water supply temperature

55 F [57] .

b. Tank thermostat setting

;

145 F [57] .

c

.

Room ambient temperature

55 F [57] .

5 . Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

A gas water heater will be used as the base case in

assessing the impact of uncertainties in the consumer usage

factors. The general approach for each usage factor will be

to take the partial derivative of the Estimated Annual

Operating Cost, EAOC, formula prescribed in reference 57

with respect to each usage factor taken in turn, and then to

evaluate the resulting EAOC based on a selected increment

in the factor. The EAOC formula for a gas water heater is

EAOC = 365 days per year x C^ x $0.207 per therm

100 000 Btu per therm

where

Cf = average Btu per day of fuel consumed,

C

= C , + C X (24 wh us

hours

day

'wh

) - Jh - J c*

Since and are not functions of the usage factors to

be examined, they will disappear from all partial- derivatives and therefore will be dropped from further

consideration

.

k X U X (T -T. ; o 1

'wh

S-4
where

k =s 8.25 Btu per gallon ®F

U « 64.3 gallons per day.

T = 145 ®F * outlet water temperature

o = 55 ®F = inlet water temperature

2

^ = 0.65 = assumed recovery efficiency.

C =SxkxVx (T_-T_)

us — o ^ where

S = 0.05 per hour = assumed fraction of hourly heat loss

k is defined above

V = 50 gallons = assumed tank capacity

T is defined above,

o = 55 ®F = room temperature specified in [57]

P - 50 000 Btu per hour = assumed fuel input rate.

Cmittinc the credits for J, and J^/

' h c

. Ux(T -T.)

ZACC = 36c X

2.00 000 ^ ^ ^ ^ z

' - ^ V x x (24

kxUx (T_-T,.

o 1

) )

- 365 X

QQQ

X 8.25 x (

r

64.3x90

0,65

, « 8.25x64. 3x90v + 0.05 X cO X 90 X (24 -

5 Q ooo^^Tsr'^

= $37.09 per year which would i:e reported as $37 per year.

Collecting terms that are not functions of usage factors,

Ux(T -T.

= 0,0062333 x (

^ + (T -T ) x (60-0. 0006346xtJx(T -T.)))

u.oo or or

• Daily water usage; AU = 1 gallon per day (gpd)

A(^^) ^ 0 , 006233 >x

7?^ ^ 90 x (-0. 0006346x90) ) = $0.33 cer gpd per year.

-:u J.OO “ ~
® Outlet temperature; = 1®F

= 0.0062333 x(|^+ 60-0.0006346x64.3x90-90x0.0006346x64.3)

AT 0.65 o = $0.94 per *F per year.

• Inlet temperature: aT^ = 1®F

0.0062333 90 x 0.0006346 x 64.3) = -$0.59 per ®F per year.

o Ambient room temperature; aT^ = 1®F

= 0.006233 X (-1) X (60 - 0.0006346 x 64.3 x 90) r

= -$0.35 per ®F per year.

If the room temperature is assumed to be 70 F instead of 55

F, the change in EAOC would be approximately 15 x -$0.35 = $5.25 per year.

6 . Comments

The nominal EAOC for gas water heaters is 378 therms

per year x $0,207 per therm = $78.25 per year, and for

electric water heaters is 6017 kWh per year x $0,038 per kWh

= $228.64 per year. The empirical bases for U, Tq , Tj_ and

T^ are very marginal. In view of the importance of water

heaters to the energy program, independent field

verification of each of these usage factors is recommended.

It is suspected that a value for T^. nearer to 7 0®F than to

55 ®F will be found, for example.
APPENDIX F. ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

1. References: 56, 72, 78, 102, 142, 169, 170

2. Test Procedures: Final [78] June 1, 1977

Proposed [72] July 27, 1976

3. Primary Usage Factor

3.1 Value: 750 hours of compressor operation per year.

3.2 Basis

Room Air “Conditioning Lifetime Cost Cons iderations : Annual Operating Hours and Efficiencies by David A. Pilati

of .Oak Ridge National Laboratory [142] is a report in which

the annual compressor operating hours for ten cities are

estimated. This work was extended to get the 750 hours.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

The present usage factor is not based on field

measurements of operating hours. An analytical approach was

used to calculate the estimated national average hours of

use for room air conditioners. The National Bureau of

Standards [102] , using the Oak Ridge Report [142] as a starting point, computed the average hours of air

conditioner operation for 138 Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (SMSA's). From this work the estimated

national average of 730 hours of compressor operating time

was computed and rounded up to the 750 value.

The methodology that was used is described below.

A. In [142] the author estimated the annual compressor

operating hours for tan cities using selected weather years.

He also modified the National Bureau of Standards' Load

Determination (NBSLD) computer program to calculate

compressor operating hours while also accounting for the

ability of natural ventilation to provide cooling. The

assumptions were that the house was air conditioned at 78 ®F

when required and the windows are opened if the outdoor

conditions can maintain the inside temperature between 75*F

and 78 *F. Compressor hours for the ten cities were averaged

using census data and market saturation data [170] as

weighting factors to produce Result (.A) .

F-1
B. Using the same populatic n and market saturation

data [170] average air conditioning demand hours was

calculated yielding Result (B) . Demand hours, for there

analysis, are defined as the larger of two numbers: hours

of dry bulb temperature above 80 *F, or wet bulb temperature

above 67*F. The required data were obtained from the

Engineering Weather Data Manual AFM88-8 [56]

,

which contains

average data for a period of ten years or more for the given

locations

.

C. A ratio was determined by dividing (A) by (B)

.

This ratio, when multiplied . by 100, becomes the percent of

time that the room air conditioner compressor is operating

per demand hour

.

D . The annual national average air conditioning demand

hours , weighted for population and market saturation was

calculated using the following data:

1. Air conditioning demand hours were obtained from

the Engineering Weather Data Manual AFM88-8 [56]

.

2. Census data for 138 Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (SMSA's), representing 65 percent of

the total national population, were used for the

population weights.

3. The room air conditioner market saturation data,

grouped into nine geographic regions , were obtained

from the February 24, 1975, issue of Merchandising Week

[170].

E. Weighted annual national average compressor

operating hours were then estimated using the ratio obtained

in (C) and the population and market saturation data

described above.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

The empirical data that are available are mot adequate

to support an estimate of uncertainty in the national

average hours of compressor operation. If such data are

collected, additional auxiliary information should also be

obtained so that relationships to long-term national or

regional conditions may be established. Thermostat

settings, local weather data and information permitting the

estimation of air conditioner oversizing or undersizing are

among the items needed.

F-2
3.3 Parallel Estimates

AHAM [169] obtained field data on compressor operating

hours per year from 11 locations in order to check

calculation method against field test data. There are no

details of how the tests were conducted. The results are

summarized in Table C-1.

Table C-1. Measured Compressor Operating Hours for

Room Air Conditioners

Samples Measured

City N Hours

Syracuse 2 51

Grand Rapids 2 210

NYC 1975 57 297

NYC 1974 114 299

Newark 4 320

Dayton 2 203

Chicago 33 666

Moline 2 337

St. Louis 29 781

Louisville 2 565

Evansville 5 1066

San Antonio 2 679

4. Secondary Usage Factors

4 . 1 Autonaric Fan Operation

The automatic fan cycle is designed to reduce the

energy consumption of air conditioners by shutting off the

fan when the thermostat turns off the compressor. In [142 ]

Pilati estimates that the automatic fan operation has a potential energy savings of 10 percent. A similar estimate

has been determined from data [159] covering 171 room air

conditioners field tasted in the New York City area in 1974

and 1975. The options of continuous fan operation or

automatic cutoff are available on many units so that a user

may select the most satisfactory operating mode.

4.2 Regional Usage

The same analytical approach used in calculating the

estimated national average hours were used to calculate an

F-3
average for each of nine census regions . As can be seen in

Table C-2 the estimated hours of use differ considerably

from region to region.

Table C-2. Estimated Hours of Use for Nine Census Regions

Census Regions Hours of Use

1. West South Central 1414

(AR, LA, OK, TX)

2. South Atlantic 1162

(DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC , SC,

GA, FL)

3. East South Central 1106

(KY, TN, AL, MS)

4. West North Central 654

(MN, lA, MO, ND, SD, NB, KS)

5

.

Middle Atlantic

(NY, NJ, PA)

541

6. East North Central 482

(OH, IN, IL, MI, WI)

7. Mountain 414

(AZ, WY, MT, ID, UT, oo

MN, NV)

8. New England 402

(ME, NE, VT, MA, RI, CT)

9. Pacifie 264

(CA, OR, WA, HI, AK)

4 . 3 Ventilation Practice of Householders

Few data are available on ventilation use patterns of

householders; however, it is assviraed that users of room air

conditioners, unlike consumers who cool with central air

conditioners, are more inclined to open windows when the

outdoor wind speed and temperature are adequate to maintain

a comfortable indoor temperatures. Ventilation can make a substantial difference in the cooling required by air

conditioners, thus affecting hours of use.'

F-4
5 . Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

The expected annual operating cost for room air

conditioners is given by EAOC = electrical input power in

kilowatts X average use cycle of 750 hours x price of

electricity in $/kWh. The average power input required by a

room air conditioner produced in 1972 was 1700 watts. Using

this as a basis, at an electricity cost rate of 3. S'? /kWh,

the average annual cost of operation for a room air

conditioner would be $48. A one percent error in the annual

usage factor would lead to a $0.48 change in the EAOC.

6 . Comments

The 750 hours per year usage factor is based entirely

on analyses and assumptions, and however reasonable they may

be, field surveys for some of the input parameters are

advisable. Consumer practices regarding ventilation,

temperature objectives and shutoff periods might be

obtainable at reasonable cost. Extension of the regional

analyses to cover latent as well as sensible heat removal

requirements is suggested.
E7.

\~L3t^_ cfc..

i/ik-t’-r ^Slk^. .'Vjrsw' -pro

Zjll' ifyjk. fiiiitS-' ,'rtz riy!?!!®-' d.ic A W''

"

- T' _ _- . j.. ,, Z‘ ,. j. V .^ir’-'- -‘..

vw;

-i««. --s>-^r'

Xjt n'l. - j ^,4 ' £ ii?- " ?ic' i'^h s nr*'- ' v if

isvoaor

J . tt . & A_- _i» -^_ A . -.^ -L '-.^Ua:-..

•A: Cf

la

.’ffr’.lf'

%)

Si- 7 'i' ::!&' [0^m,

.., . **ji!m9 iig’.

wC-i;'.

4?'i

.:M£ 4.

x'it

5’^.J
APPENDIX G. UNVENTED HOME HEATING EQUIPMENT

1. References: 64, 75/ 86

2. Test Procedures: Final [64] May 10, 1978

Final [86] August 31, 1977

Proposed [75] May 11, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factors

3.1 Usage Factor Values:

One hour of operation at maximum capacity for

supplemental heaters

Heating load hours, HLH = 2080 hours per year for primary

heaters

Adjustment factor, C = 0.77, for design heating requirement,

DHR, dimensionless.

3.2 Basis

Electric heaters constitute the only class of unvented

heating equipment covered by the test procedure. Operating

costs for supplemental heaters are on the basis of cost per

hour since no rational basis exists for estimating average

annual usage of this type of product.

See Appendix N for a discussion of the basis for HLH

and C, including a description of the basis and estimates of

uncertainty

3.3 Parallel Estimates

See Appendix N.

4. Secondary Usage Estimates

A sizing factor, SF, equal to 1.2 was adopted by DOE

for primary heaters based on testimony on proposed test

procedures. This factor, which is dimensionless, is the

ratio of the maximum heating capacity of the heater to the

design heating requirement, DHR. This factor is based on

information presented by those commenting on the proposed

test procedure as being representative of residential

applications
No method has been developed for estimating the

uncertainty of this value of SF

.

5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

The heating efficiency of electric heaters is assumed

to be 1.0. Therefore, the impact of any uncertainties in

the usage factor of one hour is zero.

6 . Comments

No fxirther action is suggested for supplemental

heaters. Any improvements made in the factors for HLE for

furnaces and vented heaters can be applied directly for

primary heaters

.

G-2
APPENDIX H. TELEVISION RECEIVERS

1. References: 66, 68, 74, 77, 83, 87, 123, 126, 134,

136, 143, 150, 156

2. Test Procedures: Final [87] September 14, 1977

Proposed [77] May 24, 1977

Proposed [74] April 27, 1977

3 . Primary Usage Factor

3.1 Value: 2200 hours per year of viewing time, 6560 hours

per year cf-standby or off time [87]

3.2 Basis

Television 1976 by the A. C. Nielsen Company [136] is a marketing brochirre reporting television audience

characteristics in the U.S. as of September 1975. Nielsen

ratings, based on a sample of 1200 households in the nation,

are used in the selection of television programs and the

determination of advertising revenues.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

The key statement in the brochure is that "Daily TV

usage averaged six hours, eight minutes per home during

1975." On the basis of 365 days per year, the annual usage

per home would be 2239 hours, which was rounded down to 2200

hours per year. Quoting again from the brochure, "In

September 1975 59.6 million of the nation's households had

at least one television set. This represents a near

saturation level of approximately 97% of all U.S.

households. Thirty million T^7 homes (43%) have two or more

sets, and 51.2 million (74%) have at least one color

receiver." If all homes having two or mors sets had exactly

two sets, there would be an average of 1.43 sets per

household, while an assumption of one and a half sets per

household would make an allowance for the cases of three or

mors sets per household. This leads to a minimum average

annual usage of 1500 hours per set. The actual average

would be between 1500 and 2200 hours per year, since mors

than one set could be on at a time. No objection was raised

by the public or industry to the use of 2200 hours per year

as the usage factor per set, notwithstanding the fact that

the 2200 hours is on a household basis, (Nielsen monitors

all sets in a household. [13 6] , confirmed by telephone,
November 15, 1978.) Nielsen estimates 1.63 sets per

household, and that hours per household have been stable

since 1975. [Telephone contact, November 15, 1978.]

Nielsen also provided data for November 1975 [136] on

viewing time (hours : minutes) per week for the total U.S.

(45:07); color (47:22), monochrome (38:50) and household

size: one and two persons (37:26), three and four persons

(50:36), and five and above (56:46). Average time per

person for this period (November 1975) was (27:09).

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

An absolute maximum standard deviation for the estimate

of the mean viewing time per year for the 1200 member sample

is approximately 110 hours per year, or 5 percent of the

mean value. This may be derived by assuming that the

average "on" time of 6 hours out of 24 hours per day

resulted from one quarter of the sets being on all the time

and three-quarters never turned on. Any departure from this

extreme assximption will lead to a smaller standard deviation

of the mean.

3 . 3 Comparable Estimates

Whereas no independent estimates of operating hours per

year were located, several sources contain estimates of

annual energy consumption and some provide annual operating

cost estimates. Both types of estimates may loosely be

considered comparable to operating hours per year, given a

willingness to make assumptions about hourly energy use or

hourly operating cost. The recurrence in the following

table of figures that are identical or within reasonable

roundoff range indicates that the number of original sources

is quite small. Background on the development of these

estimates was nor found.

H-2
Estimates of annual energy consximption or operating cost

for television.

Color ' Monochrome

Ref.

No.

Source/

Author

Year Dimensions

per year

Solid Solid

Tube State Tube State

A. D. Little 1974 10® 3tu 1.5

AHAM 1974 10® Btu 1 1 H* • i111 11 M tv) 11111

63 EEI kWh 523 320 220 100

AHAM 1974 kWh 493 352

123 EEA kWh 660 440 350 120

66 Derven

Nichols kWh 660 444 343 120

143 PG&E kWh 600 350 350 120

156 ORNL 1970 kWh/HH 417

156 ORNL 1930 kWh/HH 440

156 ORNL 1990 kWh/HH 470

156 ORNL 1970 kWh/unit 500 350

134 Newman, Day 1969 kWh/unit 502 362

150 Smith 1970 kWh/unit 456 360

150 Smith kWh/unit 417

123 Merch. Week kWh 502 362

123 PEPCO kWh 450 345

123 CACEQ kWh 540 400

120 Murphy $ 34.56 23.04 9.12 6.33

37 DOE 1977 kWh 2200 X 0.13 = 236 2200 x 0.04 =

4. Secondary Usage Factors

Switches Controlling Standby Power

Some receivers have a quick-warmup capability that uses

power to keep filaments warm while the set is not in use.

In some cases , switches are provided to turn off this

standby power and thus save energy. Industry suggested that

an energy-saving credit be given where such switches are

provided. Although no data were found indicating consumer

usage of such a feature, DOE assigned a credic of 50 percent

[37] of any standby power use if such a switch is provided.

Standby power loads vary widely with the particular design,

with a one to ten Watt range covering the great bulk of the

cases.

Home Entertainmem: Center Operating Costs

The energv consumption involved m playing video games

and in other non—television uses was considered negliginle

H-3
at the weighted average level of overall receiver sales

[87]

.

Therefore/ this feature is not included in the test

procedures or estimates of annual operating costs. Video

recorders are not considered parts of television sets. It

is assumed that set operation for recording is covered in

the operating time and that playback time does not have a significant effect on overall average operating time.

5 . Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Practically all receivers now being built are solid

state. Using the Electric Energy Association (EEA) annual

consumption estimates [123] as the most widely accepted, the

bases of these calculations will be 440 kWh per year for

color receivers and 120 kWh per year for monochrome

receivers. The cost of electric energy currently specified

by DOE [83] is $0,038 per kWh, yielding Estimated Annual

Operating Costs (EAOC's) of $16.72 for color sets and $4.56

for monochrome sets. If the DOE power levels of 130 W for

color sets and 40 W for monochrome sets [87] are used

together with 1500 operating hours per year, the EAOC's

would be $7.41 per year for color sets and $2.28 per year

for monochrome sets.

Using the results of Section 3.2.2, and assuming that

EAOC errors arise solely from errors in the annual operating

hours, it may be seen that maximum errors at one standard

deviation of the error in the sample mean are limited to 5

percent, or $0.84 per year for color and $0.23 per year for

monochrome receivers.

A low standby circuit operating for the full 6560

standby hours per year would consume 65.6 kWh per year at a

cost of $2.49 per year, this being on the high side of the

expected range. The 50 percent credit for a defeat switch

for standby power would yield a saving less than $1.25 per

year.

5 . Comments —

No further action is suggested for this product.

H-4
APPENDIX I. KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS

References: 7, 14 / 17, 28, 29, 55, 60 , 61,. 64, 69, 82,

108, 109, 123, 133, 134, 143, ISO, 156,, 157,

171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Test Procedures: Final [64] May 1 0

1978

Corrections to Proposed Test Procedure [51] February 14, 1978

Proposed [60] December 30, 1977

Proposed [82] June 16, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factors:

3.1 Values:

Annual useful cooking energy outputs by product type [64]

Conventional electric oven: 47.09 kWh

Gas oven: 160 700 Btu

Electric cooking top: 277.7 k^-Jh

Gas cooking top: 947 500 Btu

Conventional range: 1 108 000 Btu

Microwave oven: 34.2 kWh

Microwave/conventional electric range: 308.9 kWh

Microwave/conventional gas range: 1 054 000 Btu

K = 0.82 = Estimated fraction of usage for a conventional

oven due to microwave oven usage [54].

L = 0.35 = Estimated fraction of usage for a conventional

cooking top due to microwave oven usage [64].

3.2 Basis:

The annual useful cooking energy outputs given above

are not directly measured field suir/ey results. They were

calculated from a combination of field metering of energy

inpurs [7, 17, 23, 171, 172], efficiency measurements using

industry test procedures [14, 108, 109, 173] and adjustments

to translate results from industry test procedures [14, 64]

to results from procedures prescribed by DOE. Considerable

judgment was exercised in reconciling data from various

sources to identify field data that would be "typical" for

test procedure purposes.

The term "useful cooking energy output" refers to the

heat absorbed by the standardized aluminum block or water
load during the test procedure. The term "energy into the

food" or its equivalent is used in some technical

discussions to mean the useful cooking energy output/ but is

not rigorously the same. In actual cooking, some heat -goes

into the cooking utensils and the efficiency of the thermal

coupling into utensils varies widely depending on the shape

of the utensil bottom and burner coverage, both of which

affect the energy reaching the food.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

DOE, NBS , AHAM (Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers) and GAMA (Gas Appliance Manufacturers

Association) coordinated in the development of the primary

usage factors. AHAM provided the field data [7, 17] on

which the factors are based, as described below. The

results were developed in terms of kWh, which apply directly

to electric products . in the interests of maintaining

comparability, the useful cooking outputs for gas products

are -the same as for the corresponding electric products,

using a conversion factor of 3412 Btu per kWh.

Average Energy Consumption

The values given in the proposed test procedures for

the annual useful energy output of kitchen ranges and their

components are based on AHAM field tests. These tests

covered 12 months and included 80 electric range

installations for families varying in size from two to eight

members. Of these 80 installations, 24 had microwave ovens

in addition to a conventional range.

Based on AHAM data for a family size of four, the

following values for average energy consumption [7] were

reported:

The values given above include energy consumption for

self-cleaning ovens and for clocks, whereas in the proposed

test procedures both the self-cleaning and clock energy are

calculated separately.

In the absence of field data on the average energy

consumption of clocks and self-cleaning operations these

energy values have been estimated as follows

Surface units (cooking top)

Conventional oven

Microwave oven

380 kWh/year

376 kWh/year

88 kWh/year

1-2
Self-cleaning energy . Laboratory measurements at NBS

indicated that an electric oven requires about 3.2 kWh per

cleaning cycle. AHAM has estimated that electric selfcleaning ovens are cleaned an average of 11 times per year.

Hence/ the average annual energy consumption for selfcleaning would be 11 x 3.2, or 35.2 kWh per year. Since 55

of the 80 electric ranges in the AHAM field test program

were self-cleaning models the average energy consumption

among all 80 ranges would be 55/80 x 35.7 = 24.2 kWh per

year, to be subtracted from the overall average oven

consumption of 376 kWh/year.

Clock energy . Laboratory measurements at NBS indicated

that the most common range clocks use about 2 . 7 watts , or

2.7 X 8.76 = 23.7 kWh per year. It is not known whether or

not this clock consumption would have been fully registered

on the watt-hour meters used in the AHAM field tests. It

has been observed in NBS laboratories that clock consumption

alone will register on some watt-hour meters but not on

others, or that the registration may be erratic. It is

recommended therefore that only half of the computed

consumption , or 11.8 kWh per year , be deducted from the

annual consumption to account for average clock consumption

as measured by the watt-hour meters.

In these test procedures the clock consumption is added

to the oven cooking energy consumption to determine total

oven energy consumption and also an oven energy factor.

Although only 50 percent of the estimated clock consumption

has been applied as a correction to the field test data on

oven consumption, the full clock consumption is used in the

test procedures for determining total consumptions and

energy factors.

Applying the two corrections as esuimared above to the

value given by AHAM for energy consumption of a conventional

oven, the net input energy for oven cooking becomes 376 - (24.2 -r 11.8) - 340 kWh/year.

Average Efficiency

The average efficiencies of the ovens and cooking tops

used in the AHAM field test were reported as follows:

Surface units (cooking top)

Conventional oven

Microwave oven

0.7309 [172]

0.1413 [14]

0.3835 [14]

1-3
The value of 0.1413 for conventional ovens was

determined by a test procedure proposed by AHAM which

differs from the present oven test procedure [64] . From

laboratory tests of representative ranges using both test

procedures, NBS estimates that the average efficiency of the

ovens used in the AHAM field program would be approximately

2 percent lower using the present procedure than that

reported by AHAM. Hence, the average conventional oven

efficiency was corrected to 0.1413 x 0.98 = 0.1385.

Annual Useful Cooking Energy Outputs

The values used in the test procedure [64] for annual

useful cooking energy outputs are derived from data provided

by AHAM. Average annual energy consumptions for families of

four are given in reference 7, and component efficiencies

are given in references 14 and 172. The energy consumption

and efficiency values for ovens were amended as noted above.

Useful cooking energy outputs were computed on the basis of

Input X Efficiency = Output for cooking tops, conventional

ovens and microwave ovens (MWO's). These results in kWh per

year were rounded and used individually and in combinations

for electric cooking equipment. Output requirements for gas

equipment were computed using 3412 Btu per kWh and rounded.

Results of this process are given below.

Component

Input , kWh

per year

Electric Unit

Efficiency

Output , kWh

per year

Output (Gas)

Btu per year]

Cooking top 380 0.7309 277.7 947 500

Conventional

oven 340 0.1385 47.09 160 700

Conventional

range 720 324.8 1 108 000

.'-IWO 88 0.3885 34.2

AHAM observed that the average cooking energy

consumption for MWO owners was less than for non-owners and

requested that this difference be reflected in the test

procedures for ranges that structurally combine conventional

cooking tops and ovens and microwave ovens. (Common cavity

conventional and microwave ovens are not treated by the test

procedure.) The method for handling this issue is the

introduction of two coefficients, K = 0.82 for conventional

1-4
ovens and L = 0.85 for cooking tops, that multiply the input

energies determined by the basic test procedures.

The values for the usage factors K and L were derived

primarily from the data [28] provided by the General

Electric Company (G.S.) at the February 16, 1978 test

procedure hearing. G.E. presented three sets of data

applicable to establishing usage factors

(a) Energy consiimption for a U.S. Department of

Agriculture week's menu for a family of four cooked

with and without a microwave oven. The energy

measurements were normaliced to the bases of 720 kWh

annual" cooking input energy without microwave, and 38

kWh/yr microwave oven consumption.

(b) The same as above except using the AHAM menu.

(c) Field survey data for six families before and

after the addition of a microwave oven. The "before"

data covered a period of two years and the "after" data

was for nine months following a three-month period to

allow for adjustment and learning to use the new

appliances

Since the G.E. field data yielded an average microwave

oven energy consumption of 77.9 kWh per year rather than 88

kWh per year, the dara were normalized by W3S to 38 kWh/yr

consumption as shown in the following table.

Normalization or G.E. Data

CAll values in kWh per year

Component

(A)

Without

MWO

(3)

With

MWO

Cooking top 399.5 346.3

Oven 321.3 277.0

MWO — 77.9

Total 720.3 701.2

(1) (D) = (C) X 38/77 .9.

(2) (S) = (A) + (D) . (3) (F) = (2) /(A) .

K =» 1/4 X (2xH(GE) + K (USDA

L * 1/4 X (2xL(GS) t L (USDA

energy inputs except K and L)

(C) (D) (E) (F)

(3) -(A) (1) (2) (3)

-53.2 -60.1 339.4 0.850=»l(GE)

-44.3

77.9

-19.6

-50.0

38.0

-22.1

271.3

38.0

698.7

0.344-K(GE)

menu) -r K (AHAM menu)) = 0.82.

menu) + L (AHAM menu)) = 0.85.

NBS gave double weight to the G.S. data and single weights

to the DSDA and AHA2-1 menu results

1-5
A sxammary of the three sets of data : cooking USDA

menu, cooking AHAM menu, and G.E. field data, all normalized

for 88 kWh per year for the microwave oven is shown below.

K , Oven

Usage

Factor

L, Top

Usage

Factor

Reduction

In Energy

Input , %

Reduction

In Energy

Output , %

USDA Menu 0.764 0.886 4.9 2.6

AHAM Menu 0.842 0.834 4.0 6.0

G.E. Field

Survey 0.844 0.850 3.1 5.0

Considering that the choice of foods to be cooked in

the microwave oven for the two different menus was somewhat

arbitrary, these three sets of data are in fairly good

agreement. For comparison it may be noted that the usage

factors (K = 0.812 and L = 0.663) recommended by AHAM at the

2/16/78 [28] public hearing on proposed test procedures

would result in a reduction in energy input of 13.7 percent

and a reduction in output of 21.0 percent. Data presented

by Litton would give a reduction in input of 14.7 percent

and a reduction in output of 12.0 percent.

The usage factors given in the test procedure were

calculated by averaging the USDA and AHAM menu values of K

and L, and in tuim average these results with the G.E. field

survey values. The resultant values, K = .823 and L = .855,

were then rounded down to two significant digits.

The basis for the constants in the efficiency equations

is as follows. All cooking efficiency equations are derived

from the definition of cooking efficiency, total useful

cooking energy ourput divided by total energy input required

for cooking.

The general formula used for computing efficiencies for

combined products is

i=n

E O./Eff

.

i=l - ^ where

efficiency of a combination of cooking components.

1-6
Effj_ = efficiency of the ith cooking component/ i = 1

through n components

0^

=s the total useful energy output for that class of

appliance.

0- = the useful energy output for the ith

component/ i = 1 through n.

It can be seen that the coefficient of each term in the

denominator is the ratio of the useful energy output of that

component to the total useful energy output of the complete

appliance. —

The following have been used in computing these ratios;

Useful Energy Output (kWh)

w/o Microwave With Microwave

Conventional oven 47.09 38.61*

Cooking top 277.7 236.05**

Microwave oven 3 4.19

*47.09 X 0.32 =» 38.61

**277.7 X 0.35 = 236.05

The derivation of the various constants used in the

efficiency equation is shown below;

Fraction of

Section Combination Useful Output Total Output

4.3.2 Conventional oven 47.09 0.1450

Cooking top 277.7 0.3550

Total 324.3

Conventional oven 38.51 0.1250

4.5.2 Cooking top 236.05 0.7643

(4. 5. 2.1)Microwave oven 34.19 0.1107

Total 308.85

Conventional oven 38 . 61 0.5304

(4. 5. 2. 2)

Microwave oven 34.19 0.4696

Total 72.80

Cooking top 236.05 0.3735

(4. 5. 2. 3)

Microwave oven 34.19 0.1265

Total 270.24

*If other combinations of microwave oven with conventional

oven or cooking top are included.

1-7
3.2.2 Estimates of Uncertainty;

No direct field data on annual useful cooking energy

outputs are available. These outputs were derived for test

procedure purposes by multiplying the average input energy

measured in the field by the average efficiency of the

particular type of cooking device. Limited data are in hand

on energy consumption, but the corresponding data on

individual device efficiencies are not availa±>le. The

available energy consumption data were examined for families

of four to derive estimates of the coefficients of variation

for the population and for the estimate of the population

mean. (Coefficient of variation, V, is the standard

deviation divided by the mean for the sample variable being

examined.) The results of the calculation are;

Table I-l. Energy Consumption Sample Statistics* I14J

Coefficient of Variation of the

Electric Sample Population Mean, kWh

Cooking Device Size Population Mean per year

Conventional Ovens

;

Microwave oven (MWO)

;

Non-owners 67 0.401 0.049 391

MWO owners 10 0.446 0.141 264

Conventional Cooking Tops

;

MWO non-owners 67 0.508 0.062 353

MWO owners 10 0.358 0.113 240

Conventional Ranges (Cooking Tops and Ovens)

;

MWO non-owners 67 0.391 0.048 734

MWO owners 10 0.357 0.113 503

MWO's 10 0.232 0.073 93.1

*These results apply to families of four and were derived from

detailed metering results for two quarter-year periods. The

average values do not replace those reported by AHAM for

whole-year metering results. It is not known whether clock or

self-cleaning energies have been subtracted.

Microwave/conventional ranges; Coefficient of

variation of the population mean is deduced for the GE

sample of six cases to the coefficient of variation for the

population of the range energy consumption of MWO owners

;

0.358//6 = 0.146.

1-8
3.3 Parallel Estimates;

There are no field data that report useful coolcing

energy outputs in the terms specified in the DOE test

procedure/ nor as specified in the longer-established

industry test procedures. Energy inputs have been measured

and reported by several investigators in various surveys

from the 1950 's to the present. Details such as sample

size/ equipment features/ demographic data and standard

deviation or its equivalent are missing in practically every

case. Where cooking efficiencies are provided/ the

background information is similarly unavailable. Cooking

energy outputs are derived by taking products of averages.

Energy inputs to ranges have been decreasing during the

past 30 years. Probable causes cited for this trend include

decreasing household size/ greater tendencies to eat away

from home/ more prepreparation of foods cooked at home and

increasing use of special-purpose cooking devices.

The Edison Electric Institute/ EEl, or its predecessor

the Electric Energy Association/ SEA, has provided the most

frequently cited information on the energy consumption for

electric ranges: 1250 kWh per year in 1950/ 1225 kWh per

year in 1959 and 1175 kWh per year in 1969 for ranges

without a self-cleaning feature [150/ 156]/ and 1205 kWh per

year [123] in 1969 for ranges with self-cleaning. SEI has

recently completed another study of energy use by household

appliances [69] and gives 700 kWh per year for ranges

without self -cleaning ovens and 730 with self -cleaning

ovens / based on a sample of 257 ranges. High and low

consumption were 335 and 663 kWh per year. Consumption by

microwave ovens is given as 190 kWh per year by ESI both

before and after the recent study.

W. Blumst [29] reported

data for electric ranges.

the follcwing field metering

Survey Period kWh per Year Suir/ey Area Remarks

1945-51 1231 ?A, MI, NY

1955-60 1037 IL/ TX, MI

1964-66 994 OH, MD

1972-73 740 AZ, UT, 96

Northern CA

residences

1-9
other annual energy cons;jinption figures for electric

ranges are:

Average

Ref. kWh/yr Period Source Remarks

157 1500 — East Ohio Gas

157 1606 — U.S. Dept, of

Agriculture

157 1176 — Ohio Edison Derived from monthly rate

estimate

.

174 (338) 1972 Ernst & Ernst (Electric Oven)

174 (371) 1972 Ernst & Ernst (Electric cooking top)

174 721 1972 Ernst St Ernst Electric range

55 (208) — Litton (Cooking top)

Metering test of nine

55 (258) mmmm Litton (Oven)

Litton microwave over/

under ranges

.

5 5 (108) — Litton (Microwave oven)

55 574 — Litton Combined annual consumption

123 732 1976-7 MRI 56 ranges metered

123 (553) 1976-7 MRI 13 built-in cooking tops

metered

123 (401) 1976-7 MRI 11 built-in ovens metered

MRI

D = suggests

1.4 + 0.2

a rule of

X mamber

thumb formula

of residents.

for daily kWh, D, of

123 2071 1973 Merchandising Week

123 1550 — Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental

Quality

123 1210 — University of Illinois

I-IO
133 980 — Living Difference Project

133 1606 — USDA-TB1073 (Cited in Living Difference

brochure

133 1452 — Zinder tf

133 340 — Ohio Power If

143 750/775 1975 Pacific Gas

& Electric

Single family dwellings,

without/with self -cleaning

ovens

143 600/620 1975 Pacific Gas

St Electric

Multi-family dwellings,

without/with self-cleaning

ovens

Ref. 173 Source: AHAM; results of field metering test,

families of four, kWh/yr.

Non-owners of microwave ovens, 20 cases

Cooking Device Low Med,ian High

Cooking tops 38 352 928

Ovens 96 344 875

Cooking tops -r ovens 299 6 96 1702

Owners of microwave ovens

9 cases

Cooking Device Low Median High

Cooking tops 35 232 503

Ovens 142 300 375

Cooking tops + ovens 236 532 963

Microwave ovens 56.4 34 141.1

Total combination 331 616 1027
Gas Range Energy Consumption, Therms per Year.

(1 therm = 100 000 Btu.)

Average

Ref. Theims/vr Year Source Remarks

109 (41.4) 1972 (OVQl) Cotpxited adjustments

to earlier values

109 (38.3) 1972 (cooking top) to achieve correlation

with electric ranges.

109 79.7 1972 G?iMA

157 99 — East Ohio Gas

108 (49.8) 1972 GAMA (oven) These estimates include

estimated annual

108 (48.9) 1972 GAMA (cook±ng top) consunptions by pilot

lights of 20.2 therms

108 98.7 1972 GAMA for ovens, 26.1 therms

for cooking tops and

46.3 therms for ranges.

143 108/90 1975 Pacific Gas & Single/raulti-family dwellings

Electric

134 100 1960 American Energy Consimer

134 106 1966 American Energy Cansxmer

134 105 1971 American Energy Consumer

133 77.1 — Living Difference Project

133 109.1 — USDA-TB1073

133 103.2 — Zinder

133 105 1971 AG^ Survey

1-12
The K and L factors were examined in a contract study

[175] sponsored jointly by NBS and DOE. The data came from

food cooking and eating diaries submitted by a nationally

representative sample of 96 MWO owners and a demographically

matched sample of 96 non-owners. The survey year was 1975.

The relevant findings revealed no important difference

between owners and non-owners with respect to the kinds and

amounts of food eaten at home and that M^*70 owners prepared

about nine percent of their foods in MWO's. Given equal

displacements by MWO's, this result would lead to K=L=0.91.

An additional survey was conducted to estimate the relative

displacement by MWO's of tasks that would otherwise be done

with ovens and countertops. The results indicated a 12

percent (L =“0.88) displacement from cooking tops and a six

percent displacement from ovens (K = 0.94). The similarity

between owners and non-owners regarding food kinds and

amounts calls into question the lower cooking energy output

requirement assigned in the test procedure to

microwave/conventional ranges

.

4 . Secondary Usage Factors

The remaining usage factor is the number of oven

cleanings per year. Energy consiimption allowances in the

test procedure [64] for oven cleanings are based on seven

cleanings per year for gas ovens and 11 per year for

electric ovens. These specifications are based on very

limited industry data and DOE will review these

specifications when more complete field data become

available. NBS provided an estimate of 3.2 kWh as the

energy consumption per cleaning of an electric oven. (See

Section 3.2.1.) Based on the test of one unit and the

application of engineering judgment NBS estimates the energy

consumption for self-cleaning of a gas oven to be

approximately one-third of a therm per cycle.

5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Assuming energy consumption of 720 kWh per year for

electric ranges, 98.7 therms per year for gas ranges with

pilots and 38 kWh per year for MWO's, the estimated annual

operating costs, EAOG, not counting oven cleaning or clocks,

become $27.36, $20.43 and $3,34, respectively. Using the K

= 0.82 and L = 0.35 values in the test procedure and base

value consumptions for electric ovens and cooking tops of

340 and 330 kWh per year, the ZACC of a microwave/conventional range, again omitting oven cleaning

1-13
and clocks, would be 689.8 kWh per year x $0,038 per kWh = $26.21 per year.

Estimates of uncertainty in the average efficiencies of

the various components are unavailable. Using the

coefficients of variation of the population means for energy

consumption in Table I-l, the errors in EAOC at the one

standard deviation level would be approximately;

Cooking Device A EAOC Remarks

Electric Range $1.31 per year 0.048 X $27.36 = $1.31

Gas Range $0.52 per year 0.048

X $0.

X

207

(98.7 - 46.3) = $0.52

MWO $0.24 per year 0.073 X $3.34 = $0.24

Microwave/

Conventional $1.26 per year 0.048 X $26.21 = $1.26

Electric Range

Self-cleaning of electric ovens is estimated at 35.2

kWh per year for 11 cleanings per year, or about $1.34 per

year. The effect on EAOC of an error of one cleaning per

year would be approximately $0.12 per year.

Self-cleaning of gas ovens is estimated at 2.3 therms

per year for seven cleanings per year, or about $0.48 per

year. The effect on EAOC of one cleaning per year would be

approximately $0.07 per year.

Effects of errors in outputs for components in combined

systems are not estimated since methods for handling tas.k

displacements to other components have not been established.

6 . Comments

a. There appears to be no good way to directly measure

useful cooking energy output in the field, forcing recourse

to merering energy inputs and multiplying these results by

component efficiencies determined by a test procedure.

Therefore, such a metering program is suggested, to be done

by a party that is independent of the manufacturers and

coupled with efficiency determinations using the DOE test

procedures. Care should be taken in selecting a representative sample of subjects, since it is suspected

that the average household sizes would be significantly

1-14
smaller that the four-person fsunilies forming the basis for

the current usage factors

b. Since the objective is to determine useful cooking

energy, in fairness to microwave ovens it may be appropriate

to assign to the pots and pans part of the heat absorbed by

the aluminum blocks used for testing conventional ovens and

cooking tops.

c. Obtain sufficient data on clock energy consumption

and meter responses so that home metering results may be

suitably corrected.

d. Review the logical basis for the K and L factors to

insure comparability for a prospective purchaser of cooking

energy outputs among competing products

e. Accept any new data from industry on the

frequencies of oven cleaning, but do not incur any new costs

for such information. The effects on the EAOC are not

expected to be large in any case.

1-15
•* ''

I ) J'U

'T. Ei , '

^

;' pi'wsd

-«5- £i.T r:,!*

•' - ' "

& ^ I?**’

iolooi'i /f'

1^

&y j »>A* ii

•mtis ,tq . ';;3*iuffisl :*t!t;i; "|fe <i ^

v^’-V-v Y»Tt ^is:?;>^,,.,>q^i|^i

'

"TO

'll '<^> «

•' '

».4'

-tS^:*"*”'

' * ‘>i

- '<>' v^’. ' il®*!**

’'<!»Si^

-»f-

- ''If "'

. "'« *. i ^ ,. yl'f ' • ' iy* “ *

f^*?*

* ==

a A' -

2P ’'fj 'A:,

> r 'jdrasQIjH

-»' f*..' h %

„r, *W-

‘ r.JP* \;<PflW«r'f-»^. '

;j:i

'’

5O7,;,

.dr-rt'-. A

1=

m ^v,.*,f^'. . •. I'’ »R- :l o

>^-

>' ,. .y

.
APPENDIX J. CLOTHES WASHERS

1. References: 11, 12, 13, 68, 76, 83, 88, 90, 112, 123,

144, 150

2. Test Procedures: Final [88] September 23, 1977

Proposed [76] May 17, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factors:

3.1 Value: 416 loads per year.

3.2 Basis:—Eight loads per week [11, 144], 7.95 loads per

week [13]

8 loads per week x 52 weeks per year = 415' loads

per year.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

Procter and Gamble (P&G) [144] recommended eight loads

per week as the appropriate clothes washer usage rate for a 1972 base year, based on data from a nationally

representative panel. AHAM [11] attributes to a 1971 survey

by P&G an average of eight loads per week, or 416 loads per

year. AHAM [11] provided statistical information from a

1963-70 P&G interview sur^/ey of 401 owners of normal

capacity and 276 owners of large capacity clothes washers.

The average loads per week were 8.1 for normal capacity

units and 7.4 for large capacity washers, for a weighted

average of 7.3 loads per week. See Table J-1. AHAi4 [13]

provided additional updated suar/ey daua from a sample of

3567 families with a mean average rata of 7.95 loads per

wee.k. Eight loads per week were selected as a convenient

value for test procediire ourmoses
Table J-1 [11]

Number of Loads Washed in Week

Normal Capacity

Base - Total Interviews 401

Number of Loads Washed

1 2 %

2 3

3 5

4 7

5 18

6 7

7 10

8 9

9 9

10 5

11 4

12 4

13 5

14 3

15 or more 9

Average 8 .

1

Median 7

Large Capacity

276

2 %

3

7

9

19

7

10

9

11

5

3

4

3

1

7

7.4

7

3.2.2 Estimates of Uncertainty:

Frequency distributions in terms of percent of sample

versus loads per week were provided [11, 13] by AHAM.

Standard deviations of the samples and sample means computed

from these data follow:

Reference

Clothes

Washer Sample

Category Size

Standard Deviation

(loads per week)

Sample Mean, Loads

Sample Mean — per Week

Normal 401 3.9 0.19 8.1

11 Large 276 3.6 0.22 7.4

11 Combined 677 3.9 0.15 7.8

13 All 8567 4.6 0.05 7.95

J-2
A Standard deviation of the mean of 0.2 loads per week

would translate to 52 weeks per year x 0.2 loads per week = 10.4 loads per year, which will be simplified to an

uncertainty of ten loads per year out of 416 loads per year.

3.3 Parallel Estimates

Figure J-1 contains results of an August 1959 survey

published by the Florida Power and Light Company [90]

A 1975 survey pretest by Marketing Research Corporation

of America [112] yielded an average of 6.3 loads per week.

Several sources provided estimates of the electric

energy consximed by clothes washers. These values evidently

do not account for heating the water.

Consiamption

Reference kWh per year Remarks

68 103 Edison Electric Institute

123 100 Citizens Advisory Committee on

Environmental Quality

123 90 Merchandising Week

123 38 Midwest Research Institute (8/7

123 65 Potomac Electric Power Company

123 98 University of Illinois

150 45 1950 T.T. Woodson

150 60 1960

ISO 363 1970

Secondary Usage Factors

Fill Level

A Usage Fill Factor means the fraction of the loads in

which the designated water fill level is selected. The

following values are used in the test procedure [38]

^max

~ ^*"72 - Usage Fill Factor, maximum.

_

=* 0.28 = Usage Fill Factor, minimum, min

These are weighted averages from a survey conducted between

1968 and 1970 [11]

based on the following data:

J-3
Figure J-1

DOMESTIC ELECTRIC WATER HEATER RESIDENTIAL SURVEY

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. - FLORIDA POWER CORP. - TAMPA ELECTRIC CO.

AUGUST 1959

florHa Pmarr t Ls^5i To n*riM Tampa

NoriKaf n Div^ioa OivitiAA 0;««aioA

.Miami Area

f'l'oL Syaiam Powar

Corp. Claeinc

Co. Ill Parc^

14wm5af tn Famila 147 104 100 12 3 7M 1317 125 127 1544 100 0%

1 1 TO T3 TT TI *TW -Tt “n TH It a

4 mmm mmmr •4 54 5) 57 430 007 40 74 •07 51. 4 Typa mt ReaiOrnra 147 104 100 123 700 MIT 125 127 1504 100 0% "

1 • 1* 1/2 Patna V3'ita

2 Brcrowma 40 31 44 It 147 342 U 31 454 24.0

3 Baoraou a«d Oaar 33 34 21 IS 100 304 20 44 u« 23.5

i • l-l/l Patlu Witni hrnmrmomM 1 4 4 25 57 100 12 3 u« 7.53

i Baopwoma and Oaar 2a J5 24 35 40Z 952 4 40 000 34. 25

3 • 3-1/2 Patna Wttn

> Oaaraoma 1 0 0 0 IS 12 ! 2 15 .4

4 Baoawoma aaO Oaar 1 9 9 1 5 7 2 4 IS .42

Electric Water heaters

Aat oi iMtallatiM 147 :o4 100 123 744 1317 125 127 1544 100. 0%

3 • t Yi.r. "TT nr ns ns TSS nss m ns T!T 414

3 • 3 Yaara 54 17 40 27 Ml 444 34 14 547 34. 4

5 Yrara 52 U 24 1 121 22J 34 103 345 23.2

Watta \rtmt 147 104 100 123 704 1317 125 127 1544 too. 0%

"^TO^inToo Wana TJT T3I IT ns rsT -m nr m TTT5 nrr

Oaar 1590 Watu 40 7 u 33 237 404 24 20 454 24.0

Tamoaratara of Watar I4T 104 100 U3 744 1317 US 127 1544 too. 0%

Md'* or L^aa ~n m nr 21 JSi nsi 11 ns 375 23. 4 IJl - M0» 40 S3 30 37 310 520 30 24 574 34. 1 m • ijo® 44 25 35 47 143 344 52 33 453 24.4 Ow 150« 21 2 14 14 22 •1 32 50 143 10. 4

W>iara >ataita4 147 104 too 123 T44 1317 125 127 1544 100. 0%

C ^ct TO m 5 —

r

ns —rt —X ~ir

l^ltcKa^ 53 9 35 0 J7* 22 ZZ* 11. 1 taata 3 0 3 1 2 4 1 3 13 0. 4 CtiUly IliiT 104 71 54 104 474 417 45 21 443 54. 3 OUwr 23 24 2 4 244 303 50 34 341 24.4

Oiatanca to Hath 147 104 too 123 704 1317 125 127 1544 100 0%

. - 23 rr«t nr TT -nr -51 ToT nn -n ~TS -rn nrr

21 - >0 Faai 44 u 30 45 254 344 24 34 453 24.4 Oaar 30 Faai 14 14 10 22 234 244 IS 14 324 20. 4

XMiAai«i«c i >4 CmvcmwmI 27 N* Ctoifcf wmimc i*

JOf “II

14

7

Clothes Washers

!00 12) “n 104

) 4 4 IS

704 1)17 TO TTH

44 92 44 90 Lmam Wr«t 147 —rr-5 -n

4 • 10 74

10 )0 U* Clotty* WuMr 14

104 too 123 TO “IT TO

31 44 45

11 U 23

1 4 15

1317 TIT TOT

314 537

105 107 44 40

>4iuiib<r ft/ aer 147

i •r Lrfs* TT3 0»«r 2 »4 Mw CVoUi** ^^»9mr 14

104 too 123 TO TO TO

34 41 35

4 4 15

7M 1317 TO 'Tow

304 407 44 40

OWTW WtthiAf 147 " n to

3 • 4 04f« 44 3*7 D^ft 44 M» Cl4«^t W4AA*r 17

104 100 123 TO TO TO

10 33 40

33 47 42

10 3 15

700 1317 ITT "TO

200 355 271 444

45 40

In Loaasi 1242 Hw *«i»V "

"•VJ Warm Watar 347 CmO Waiar U

»44 732 745

‘TIT TT5 TT3

321 355 405

14 57 0

5044 1501 TT7T TTTT

2751 4411 212 317 OtwrW t» fTqial Loadal 1242

il«« **irr *4 Warm wa»#r 317 Ca44 Wamr 527

444 732 745 TO TO TO

2tl 44) 545

247 200 230

5044 1501 TO! TOT

3200 5150

1323 2437

Uaa Orirrfrma

V.a Hmmm Cmmmmm

147 104 TO TO

4 3 10 4

too 12) TO 'TO

3 1 4 13

700 111? 171 Utol

12 23 00 13)

>4rw Fa^rira » »^wia

*M i • It

1025

104 100 '12 1 TO 41 »4 it 41 74

15 12 10

7ta IM7 TO TOT

320 552

124 IM

125 127 • 1544 100. 014 44 TO 1335 ii.'V 10 12 114 7. 3 14 14 120 7.4

125 127 . 1544 too. 0%

al 43 a07 30. 7 35 44 421 34.4

13 21 221 14. 1 14 14 120 7.4

125 U7 1540 too. 0% TO TO TOI 57. 0 23 45 555 35. 4 14 14 120 7. 4

125 127 1944 too. 0% TO TO Too il i 34 27 414 24.5

32 45 543 34. 7 14 14 120 7. 4

414 705 4002 too. 0%

ITT TO 4453 45. 0 2)4 450 5120 51. 7 0 IX 320 3. 3

414 705 •001 100 0% TO TO TOa 7. 7 442 525 4145 42. 0 lio 2M 3001 30. 3

125 127 1544 100. 0^ TO TO • V !i' 4 1 2S 1.

1

>0 10 171 11.0 U5 127 1444 in<i TO TO “TO a i 24 J7 4ia 14. 1 34 24 244 15. 4

J-4

Hm Cmmtmmwn
Washer Capacity

Normal Large Composite

Total loads 3231 2047 5278

Maximum fill, percent 79 60 72

Partial fill, percent 21 40 23

No field data are available on which to base an

estimate of uncertainty for or An uncertainty of

0.07 (approximately ten percent^of F^^^T will be used for

analysis purposes.

Suds Saver Use Factor

Some clothes washers permit the saving and re-use of

the wash water. Since the wash water is continually losing

heat, it is assumed that the suds saver will save energy

only when the first load uses a hot wash cycle and the

second load uses a warm wash cycle in a multiple load

session. Since the actual frequency of multiple load

sessions is unknown, it is assumed that 50 percent of the

annual hot wash loads occur in two-load sessions.

The use factors appearing in the test procedure [88]

for clothes washers equipped with suds savers are;

X = 0.86 - frequency of use without suds saver.

X = 0.14 = frequency of use of suds-saver feature.

Based on the 1975 temperature use factors provided in

HLW-2EC [12] , NBS determined that consumers would use a hot

wash 28 percent of the time. This would result in 115 "hot"

wash loads a year (116 = 0.28 x 416) based on the

representative average use cycle of 416 cycles per year.

After assigning 50 percent frequency of use factor to these

figures, NBS has estimated that the consumers would use the

suds-saver feature, if available, for 58 loads per year, or

5 8

14 percent (0.14 = of the annual loads. Data on wash

water reuse obtained by interviewing 677 families [11] are

given below.

J-5
Total Interviews

Used fresh water

loads , percent

Reused water for

Normal

Capacity

401

for all

84

some loads 16

Large

Capacity Composite

276 677 '

91 87

9 13

Since no field data are available on which to base an

estimate the uncertainty in these factors, an uncertainty of

0.02, will be assumed for analysis purposes.

Temoerature Use Factors

The following temperature use factors, TUT 's,* were

developed from a 1975 industry survey, published in AHAM

HLW-2EC [12] and excerpted from the test procedure [88]

.

5 . AFWJCABL* T*MP*»ATTnir vsz rACTOM ro»

DETE31MXNINC HOT WATT* USAGE TO* VASIOOS WASH /RINSE temperature SELECTIONS FOR

MJL AUTOMATIC CMTUES WASHERS

5.1 Five temperature selection (n=5).

Wosh/rins* tampers- Temperature use

lure setting: )aetor (TUF)

Hot/wsrm 0. 18 Hot/cold —— • 13 Wsrm/vsrm .30 Warm/cold • 35 Cold/cold ...... .... . 15

BJ2 Four temperature selection f ns 4)

.

V/aah 'rinse tempersLure setting— Temperature use nste I: /aetxsr tTUF)

Hot/wsrm 0. 18 Hot/cold - - . 13 Worm/cold - —

M

Cold/cold , ._... . 16 Alternate II: Hot/wsrm 0. 18 Hot/cold . 12 Wsrm/warm . so Warm /cold . 40 Alternate m:

Hot 'cold ...... — 0.12 Warm warm— .18 Warm 'cold .55 Cold/cold • . 15

5J Three temperature selection fn=3).

Wash nnse temperature setting: Alternate I: Hot/ warm _

Warm/cold . Cold/cold —

Alternate H:

Hot/oold ... Warm/cold . Cold/cold —

Alternate IH:

Hot/cold

Wsrm/warm

Cold /cold .. A APinjcAaLz TXsmxATTmx ube pactou por DETERMININO HOT WATER USAGE POR VARIOUS WASH/ SENSE TEMPERATURT sriTWCS POR JkU. SEMI-AUTOMATIC CLOTHES WASHERS

6.1 Six temperature settings in=:t). Waah.'rtnse tempera- Temperature use

cure aettlng: fO'Ctor (TUF)

Hot/hot 0. IS Hot/warm — . 09 Hot/cold . 06 Warm/warm : . 42 Warm/cold ... . 13 Cold/cold . 15

Temperature use

factor iTVF)

0. 30 .55

0. 30

.65

0. 30

. 55

. 15

*TUF - fraction of loads in

temperature setting was used

which the indicated wash/rinse

J-6
Results from 1971 and 1975 surveys [12] are given below

APPUCABLE USE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING HOTWATER USAGE

FOR VARIOUS WASH/RINSE TEMPERATURE SELECTIONS

I. Five Temperature Selection

Wash/Rinse 1971 Survey 1973 Survey

Temperature Setting Use Factor Use Factor

Hot/Warm .25 .18

Hot/Coid .15 .12

Warm/Warm .30 .30

Warm/Cold .20 .25

Cold/Cold .10 .15 EL Four Temperature Selection

Wash/Rinse 1971 Survey 1 975 Survey

Temperature Setting Use Factor Use Factor

A. Alternate I Hot/Warm .25 .18 Hot/Cold .15 .12

WarmyCold .50 .55 Cold/Cold .10 .15

B. Alternate II Hot/Warm .25 .18

Hot/Coid .15 .12

Warm/Warm .30 .30

Warm/Cold .30 .40 C. .\ltemate HI

Hot/Cold .15 .12

Warm/Warm .30 .18 Warm/Cold .45 .55 Coid/Cold .10 .15 HL Three Temperature Selection

Wash/Rinse 1971 Survey 1973 Survey

Temperature Setting Use Factor Use Factor

A. Alternate I Hot/Warm .40 .30

Warm/Cold .50 .55 Cold/Cold .10 .15

B, .Alternate II Hot/Cold .40 .30

Warm/Cold .50 .55 Coid/Cold .10 .15 C. .Alternate m

Hot/Cold .40 .30

Warm/Warm .50

.55 Cold/Cold .10 .15

rv. Other

If other wash/rinse temperature combinations, or user selections are other than those shown, they can be

1 incorporated into this appendix.

vj - /
No data are available on which to base estimates of

uncertainty for these factors. An adjusted case will be

specified in Section 5 for analysis purposes.

5 . Impact Assessments of Uncertainty

The effects of uncertainties in the various usage

factors on the Estimated Annual Operating Cost, EAOC, by

selecting a base case and then varying each usage factor in

turn.

3ase Case :

® Cycles per year = 416.

• Electric energy per cycle for motor and controls = 0.22

k^-Th.

• Electric hot water is used with a temperature rise of

90 F. The resulting energy cost per gallon is

8.33 pounds per gallon x 90 F/3412 Btu per kWh = 0.22 kWh per gallon.

• Electricity cost = $0,038 per kWh [83].

• Fill Factor, maximum = F = 0.72 = 1-F . . max mrn

• Minimxm fill, V , = 0.5 x maximum fill, V mm max

® Suds Saver Use Factor = X

2 = 0.14 = 1-X^.

• -Temperature Use Factors: Four temperature selection.

Alternate II: (H = Hot, W = Warm, C = Cold)

.

Temperature Hot Water, gal Temperature Use Factors, TUF.;

Settings per cycle, Vj_ Base Case Adjusted Case

H/W 32.3 0.18 0.10

H/C 21.0 0.12 0.10

W/W 22.6 0.30 0.20

W/C 11.3 0.40 0 . 60

• Fresh make-up hot water for suds return cycle = Su = 2

CX^ 0

• The washer is time-filled.

J-8
Using the base case assumptions given above and the

formulas in the test procediire [88] , the following weighted

value formula for hot water volume, V, may be derived:

V

1+F

max

n

Z V. X TUP. + (1-X, )(TUF X S„) )

.

,1 1 1 w H

Inserting values for the base case,

4

I V. X TUF. = C32.3 X 0.18)+ (21,0 x 0.12) + (22.6 x 0.30)

i-1 ^ ^ + CL1.3 X 0.40)= 19.63 gal of hot water per cycle.

V = X 1(0.86 X 19.63)+ (0.14 x 0.70 x 2)] = 14.69 gal per cycle.

SAOC (base case) = 416 x [(14.69 x 0.22 + 0.22)] x 0.038

= $54.57 per year,

which would be reported as $55 per year.

Cycles per Year

An estimated uncertainty of tan cycles per year is

assumed. The corresponding uncertainty in SAOC is

AEAOC = $54.57 x 10 416 = $1.31.

Fill Level

An estimated uncertainty in Frnax 0.07 is assumed,

leading to an adjusted value of 0.79 for F . Accordingly, max ’ V (adjusted) = V(base) x j-TP’ = 14.69 x

1+(J .71 1 . / 2 = 15.29 gal per cycle.

The corresponding SAOC is

SAOC (adjusted) = 416 x 0.038 x 0.22 x (15.29 + 1) = $56.65 per year, and

J-9
AEAOC = $56.65 - 54.57 = $2.08 per year.

Suds Saver

An estimated uncertainty in Xj_ of -0.02 is assumed,

meaning that the use of the suds saver would apply to 16

percent, rather than 14 percent of the cycles.

V(adjusted) =

'^ 2

'

'^

' ^ K0*84 x 19.63)+ (0.16 x 0.70 x 2)] = 14.37 gallons of hot water per cycle,

EAOC (adjusted) = 416 x 0.22 x 0.038 x (14.37 + 1)

= $53.45 per year

,

and AEAOC = $53.45 - 54.57 = -$1.12 per year.

Temoerature Use Factors

The adjusted values that are assumed are shown in the

section defining the base case. A substantial shift towards

the use cf a wairm/cold cycle is assumed. In this case,

4

Z V. X TUF. =(32.3 x 0.10)+ (21.0 x 0.10)+(22.6 x 0.20)

i=l ^ ^ + CL1.3 X 0.60)= 16.63 gal per cycle,

V = X r(0.86 X 16.63) + (0.14 x 0.8 x 2)]

= 12.49 gallons per cycle, and

ZAOC (ad justed) = 416 x 0.22 x 0.038 x (12.49 + 1)

= $46.91 per year.

IZAOC = $46.91 - 54.57 = -$7.66 per year.

5 . Comments

All of the uncertainties in the usage factors are

essentially assumed. Therefore, the first action

suggested for this product type is to solicit from industry

(mainly Procrer and Gamble) better values for these

J-10
uncer-tainties . Given such data, it is suspected that monitoring

of future industry findings will suffice.

J-11

APPENDIX K. HUMIDIFIERS

1. References: 43, 50, 51, 58, 64, 79, 176

2. Test Procedures: Final [58] October 18, 1977

Proposed [79] June 1, 1977

3. Primary Use Factor

3 . 1 Value

National average annual use cycle, for both room and

central humidifiers, are 700 hours for units with humidistats

and 1600 hours for units without humidistats [58]

.

3.2 Basis

An analytical approach [43] was employed, using a binmethod calculation to determine operating hours within

separate geographic areas of several weather-reporting

stations across the U.S. Humidifiers were assumed to be

matched to the load in each case and set to maintain 30

percent relative hximidity at 70 F temperature. The house

air-infiltration rate was taken to be 0.75 air changes per

hour. (It had been independently determined [50] that

humidification is not required at any time for Hawaii, the

Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Guam.).

When both types are operating under humidistat control,

the actual usage cycle for central humidifiers differs from

that for room humidifiers because central units are confined

in their operation to periods when the furnace is on,

whereas room units operate independently and, accordingly,

may operate at any time whenever humidity is required [58]

.

Thus, the procedure differs in the usage calculations for

the two types

.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

Central Humidifiers [43]

The major steps in the analysis of humidistat

controlled central humidifiers were

1. For each specific regional location, determine the

furnace duty factor, DFF, for each temperature bin.

K-1
2. Correspondingly, determine the duty factor, DFH,

for a humidifier of assumed size.

3 . Identify the temperature bin for which the ratio of

DFH/DFF is a maxim'um and adjust the size of the

humidifier to make DFH = DFF for that bin. Holding the

new humidifier size fixed, adjust the DFH's for the

other bins in the same proportion needed to achieve the

DFH = DFF equality described above.

4. Using these duty factors as weighting factors and

the observed hours for each bin, compute humidifier

annual operating hours , HHRS . Byproduct calculations

also included annual furnace hours, FHRS , humidifier

capacity, CAP, in gallons per day and humidification

gallons per year, GAX.

5. Using year-round housing units as reported in the

1970 census as weighting factors, calculate weighted

average values at the national level for HHRS, FHRS,

CAP and GAL. Recent sales statistics for central

humidifiers would have been preferred for doing these

weighting calculations, but no such statistics were

located.

6. Adjust the derived value for HHRS for factors and

considerations not explicitly included in the

analytical model, and round the result to whole hundred

hours

.

The analysis results are summarized in Table K-1.

For the case of central humidifiers without humidistats

It is recognized that any such unit will normally operate

whenever the furnace is on. The average annual furnace

hours derived from Table K-1 is approximately 1600 hours per

year

.

Room Humidifiers [43] : The main steps in the analytical development of usage

data for humidistat-controlled room humidifiers are outlined

below.

1. Select system design objectives: indoor

temperature and relative humidity, and design capacity

level for humidification.

K-2
Table K-1. Analysis Results for Humidistat

Controlled Central Humidifiers

Case

1 Station State

Cap

.

GAL/DAY GAL/YR FRRS HHRS

JL Portland ME 9.1 312 1910.2 823.1

2 Burlington VT 10.3 496 1856.0 1155.

3

3 L.G. Hanscom Fid. MA 8.9 295 1814.1 797.7

4 Mitchell AF3 NY 7.7 236

' 1695.7 734.4

5 Niagara Falls NY 7.8 284 1976.7 872.9

6 McGuire AFB NJ 7.3 238 1769.4 732.7

7 Wilkes-Barre PA 8.9 293 1747.4 806.3

8 Wright- Pat. AFB OH 7.7 222 1558.4 694 .

6

9 . Indianapolis IN 8.2 246 1595.6 721.7

1-0 -O'Hare lAP IL 9.2 347 1677.7 901.5

11 Battle Creek MI 7.7 283 1891.3 876.9

12 Green Bay WI 10.0 411 1865.0 987.4

13 Minneaoolis MN 10.4 484 1783.5 1121.2

14 Des Moines lA 9.6 384 1604.5 961.0

15 Kansas City MO 8.2 252 1434.3 742.5

16 Grand Forks ND 12.1 649 1906.5 1289.9

27 Sioux Falls SD 10.6 515 1714.6 1161.3

18 Grand Island NE 9.3 373 1656.9 962.1

19 Offutt AFB NE 9.2 376 1628.3 976.5

20 Dodge City KS 7.8 240 1545.3 735.6

21 Wilmington DE 7.0 208 1739.5 713.4

22 -Andrews AFB DC 7.6 206 1600.3 6 5 2.3

23 Langley AFB VA 5.8 102 1463.1 423.7

24 £lkins WV 8 .

3

236 1687.6 630.4

25 Greensboro NC 6.2 135 1459.2 521.0

26 Charleston • SC 4.8 37 1070.7 135.0

27 Augusta GA 5.7 38 1105.7 162.4

28 Dobbins AFB GA 6.2 77 1323.0 301.7

29 Jacksonville FL 4.7 14 733.7 70.4

30 Louisville KY 7.6 155 1418 . 7

• 492.3

31 Memnhis N'AS TN 6.1 92 1315.0 360.5

32 Maxwell AFB AL 5.3 47 1075.7 206.3

33 Jackson MS 5.9 34 1084.6 133.9

34 Little Rock AR 6.1 83 1181.6 329.7

35 • New Orleans LA 4.0 12 • 832.4 74.7

36 Tulsa OK 6.8 149 1322.5 526 .4

37 Carswell AFB TX 5.9 33 1062.5 341.0

38 Malms trom AFB MT 10.8 480 1626.4 1064 .

0

39 Boise ID 7.6 230 1838 .

7

723.9

40 Cheyenne WY 65.4 702 1977.3 257 .7

41 Lowry AFB CO 3.4 451 1771.8 1239 .

0

42 Albuquerque NM 10.8 408 1546.2 905. 1

43 Davis -Monthan AFB A2 3.5 85 1005.7 536.4

44 Everett WA 6.0 33 2341.0 133.2

45 Los Angeles CA 3.5 1 1057.2 5.9

46 Elmendorf AFB AK 10.6 674 2309.

3

1531. 7. 47 Portland OR 6.0 25 2039.7 99.2

48 Wendover AFB UT 27.3 467 1708.3 411.3

49 Stead AFB NV 58.1 623 1979.8 259.3

so Schilling AFB KS 7.3 275 1552.1 345.0

51 Seymour- Johnson AFB NC 5.. 8 89 1236.3 367.0

52 Shaw AFB SC 3.7 80 1136.0 3 5 3 . c 53 Vandenberg AFB CA 1.2 1 2141.4 10.9

K-3

t

rr>

lo

to

a>

o

o

(7i r

-o

rH

r^i

cr>

too

o

’
2. Select the geographical locations to be studied.

3. Determine for each location the statistical

distribution of the outdoor humidity ratio (density of

water vapor vs. density of dry air) in terms of

potential demand hours per year.

4. Determine the design level difference in humidity

ratio between outdoor conditions and the balance point

for each location. (The balance point is that humidity

ratio at which no contribution is required from the

humidifier.

)

5. Calculate the equivalent full-load operating hours,

using the weighting factors for each humidity ratio

difference associated with the design level.

6 . Calculate national averages for demand hours and

for operating hours weighted by year-around housing

units for the state.

7. Apply adjustments to the national averages for

factors not treated in the analysis, and round the

results to whole hundred hours

.

For the case of room humidifiers without humidistats,

it is arbitrarily established that annual operating hours

are the same as those for central humidifiers without

hijmidistats , namely, 160 0 hours.

Table K-2 shows the results of calculations of local

and of national average usage hours under different rates of

house air infiltration for humidistat-controlled room

humidifiers. Although in- present houses the infiltration

rate is about one air change per hour [176] , an average

value of 0.75 air change per hour is assumed in anticipation

of energy-conserving home improvements, such as increased

installations of storm windows. On the basis of 0.75 air

change per hour, the annual operation for a humidistatcontrolled room humidifier is computed to be 1000 hours.

Similarly, for a humidistat-controlled central humidifier

the annual operation is computed to be 600 hours. A

compromise, common, usage figure of 700 hours for each type

is selected for purposes of performance comparisons among

humidifiers of the two types.

The data in Table K-2 were used to generate the

humidification zone map. Figure K-1 . The national average

K-4
Table K-2. Room Humidifier Operating Hours

for Different Air-Infiltration Rates

Air Changes Per Plour

Station State 1.5 1.0 0.75 0.5

1 Portland 1806 1631 1531 1199

2 Burlington VT 2362 2197 2097 1767

3 L. G. Hanscom. Fid. MA 1810 1622 1510 1162

4 Mitchell APB NY 1607 1423 1506 1017

S Niagara Falls NY 1660 1499 1404 1090

6 McGuire APB NJ 1769 1598 1492 786

7 V/ilkes -Barre PA 1596 1411 1305 957

8 Wright-Pat. APB OH 1293 1124 1027 725

9 Indianapolis IN 1372 1207 1113 797

10 • O' Hare AP IL 1711 1533 1431 1073

11 Battle Creek MI 1677 1489 1379 1019

12 Green Bay WI 2285 2114 2012 1646

13 Minneapolis MN 2369 2206 2109 1784

14 Des Moines lA 1876 1712 1616 1294

15 Kansas City MO 1293 1105 999 700

10 Grand Forks ND 3002 2866 2784 2504

17 Sioux Falls SD 2400 2230 2130 1793

IS, Grand Island NE 1962 1769 1656 1299

19 Offutt APB NE 1842 1676 1579 1269

20 Dodge City KS 1703 1496 1375 959

21 Schilling APB KS 1428 1260 1163 864

22 Wilmington DE 1473 1294 1183 862

23 Andrews APB DC 1546 1366 1253 970

24 Langley APB VA 798 679 . 610 411

25 Elkins WV 1425 1254 1155 835

26 Greensboro NC 1089 930 829 565

22 Seymour- Johnson APB NC 700 591 52S 347

28 Charleston SC 649 347 296 167

29 Shaw APB* SC • 543 444 335 245

30 ,\ugusta GA 473 389 349 207

31 Dobbins APB GA 817 689 610 403

32 Jacksonville PL 194 172 166 53

33 Louisville KY 1301 1131 1026 475

34 Mernnhis NAS TN 781 675 613 432

33 Maxwell APB AL 437 357 309 195

35 Jackson MS 433 354 303 185

37 Little Rock AR 686 568 496 306

33 New Orleans LA 132 108 96 31

39 Tulsa OK 1104 951 358 396

40 Carswell APB rx 553 452 390 233

41 Malmstrom APB MT 2698 2462 2324 1799

42 Boise ID 2057 1741 1546 1036

43 Cheyenne WY 3413 3229 3103 2620

44 Lowry APB CO 2686 2473 2340 1S14

45 Albuquerque NM 3341 3095 2945 2309

46 Davis -Monthan APB A2 2076 1724 1481 923

47 Stead APB NV 3604 3208 2962 2112

48 Everett WA 738 334 296 121

49 Los ;\nge-les CA 30 6 4 • 1

SO Vandenberg ,A.?3 CA 187 26 19 5 Hous ing unit weighted national

averace 1241 1033 999 722

Residence 1500 sc ft X 3 ft ceilincs
Fiyure

K-1.

.Regional

Factors

for

Adjusting

Typical

Annual

Use

of

Humidifiers

Regional
operating hours apply to zone III. Approximate operating

hours for the other zones are found by multiplying -zone III

hours by the appropriate regional factor. Alaska should be

included in zone VI.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

Weather data employed in the analysis [51] are from

hourly observations over periods of several years, so that

statistical errors in the average values of temperature and

humidity at the various stations are believed to be

insignificamt for practical purposes. The major concerns

for possible uncertainty in the computed average usage value

lie in assumptions on the nature and measure of individual

requirements for comfort in the home for which no general

field survey data were located.

3 . 3 Parallel Estimates

No reliable survey data bearing on a national average

usage cycle are known.

4. Secondary Usage Factors

Humidity control objective: 30 percent relative

h-umidity at 70 F.

5 . Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Two cost components are recognized in the operation of

a humidifier. One is the cost of the electrical energy to

operate the fans and motors that move the water into an air

stream. The other is the load on the home heating system to

evaporate the water. Operating costs are calculated in

Table K-3 below for one typical portable and one typical

central unit for a day of operation at rated capacity.

Electric energy costs are based on SO. 38 per kWh.

Evaporation costs are based on 1054 3tu per pound of water

at 70 F, 8.3 pounds of water per gallon, and a gas heating

system operating at 65 percent efficiency at a cost of

30.207 per therm (100 000 Btu per therm) . The ratings refer

to units offered in the Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog for

fall and winter 1977. These units are used as base cases in

the subsequent discussion.

K-7
Table K-3. Breakdown of Operating Costs for Huinidifers

Operating

Rating Costs in Cents per Day

Type Gal/Day Watts Motor Evaporation Total

Portable 12 110 10 22 32

Central 13 58 5 24 29

Data on the distribution of hiimidif iers by type and

capacity were not located. The annual operating cost of

both base case units is seen to be approximately 30 cents

for a 24-hour day or $9 for a 700-hour year. A percentage

change in the annual operating hours leads to the same

percentage change in EAOC. Thus, a change to 1000 hours per

year would mean a AEAOC of $3.86 per year and a change to

600 hours per year would mean a AEAOC of -$1.29 per year.

6 . Comments

a. The annual operating hours of properly sized room

(1000 hours per year) and central humidifiers (600 hours per

year) will not be the same for reasons given earlier. Some

basis should be developed that will avoid the need to force

both types of hximidifers to use the same usage factor.

b. Operating hours for central humidifiers were

estimated before the current method for computing furnace

operating hours was available [64]

.

A reassessment is

suggested that is expected to yield fewer annual operating

hours per year and compensating sizing adjustments for

central hximidif iers

.

c. Humidifier EAOC ' s include the costs of heat to

evaporare the water and electricity for its mechanical

operation. Since the energy for mechanical operations

eventually becomes heat in the house, it is suggested that

this heat input be applied as a credit to the evaporating

process

.

d. Since the EAOC ' s for humidifiers are small in any

case, it is suggested that any further significant . expenditures

on usage, factors, for this product type be avoided.

K-3
APPENDIX L. DEHUMIDIFIERS

1. References: 6, 8, 50/ 54/ 56, 53/ 79, 165, 17-7, 178

2. Test Procedures: Final [58] October 18, 1977

Proposed [79] June 1, 1977

3. Primary Use Factor

3 . 1 Value

National average annual use cycle, 1300 hours of fullload operation, assuming indoor conditions of 55 percent

relative humidity and 75 F temperature [58, 59].

3.2 Basis^

Analytical computation [54] of usage hours was based

upon consideration of climate data extending over at least

ten years at each of 36 locations in the continental United

States, weighting over nine regions for numbers of wired

homes and regional market saturation. Two factors that are

not tasted are assumed to compensate. These are the

possibility that a user might not promptly empty a full drip

pan, which would decrease the operating hours, and the

operating hours needed to remove moisture added by household

activities in the conditioned space. Also information

provided by AHAM on the distribution of dehumidifier

shipments [58]

.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

The main steps in the analysis were:

1. Select design objectives for indoor dry bulb

temperature and relative humidity (75 ?, 55%) and

determine the corresponding humidity ratio, W (e.g.,

pounds of water per pound of dry air (in the mixture) )

.

2. Select locations in each region of the country

[56], that have high humidity levels and that are near

to or representative of large populations. Thirty-six

locations were chosen for analysis, with varying

success in meeting all the criteria.

3 . Construct a table to convert combinations of

outdoor dry bulb bin and mean coincident wet bulb

-1
temperature to the heat removal requirement per pound

of dry air in the mixture needed to produce the desired

indoor humidity level. (In technical terms, this is

the enthalpy difference, in Btu per pound of dry air in

the mixture, needed to remove the latent heat of the

excess humidity.)

4. For each of the selected locations and all months

of the year , determine the cumulative hours at each

enthalpy level, and the total of all these demand

hours

.

5. Using the assumed design level criterion, determine

the corresponding design enthalpy levels. A 95 percent

design level was used, meaning that the indoor design

humidity level could be maintained during at least 95 percent

of the demand hours per year. (A different meaning of

this criterion could be used. In reference 6, such

criteria refer to percentages of all hours (2928)

during June through September. On a 95 percent design

basis, approximately 150 hours per year would be at or

above the design condition.)

6 . Compute the annual operating hours at each enthalpy

level, assuming a weighting factor of 1.0 for the hours

at or above the design enthalpy, and proportionately

lower weighting factors for the demand hours at lower

enthalpy levels. Add these results to obtain average

annual operating hours for the location being analyzed.

7 . Average these annual operating hours for all

selected locations in a region to obtain regional

averages

.

3. Using regional market saturations and number of

wired homes [177] , produce an estimate of potential

average operating hours at the national level.

9 . Round the national average downward to allow for

inattention, the possibility that a user might not

empty a full container of condensate promptly. Add a like number of hours to allow for removal of a share of

the moisture from internal household activities.

Analysis results are given by site in Table L-1.

L-2
. Table L-1.

Location

Results

State

by Location [50, 54]

Enthalpy

Demand Design

Hours Level, Rtu/lb

Operating

Hours

1 Mitchell /\FB NY 2216 4 1620

2 McGuire v\i-B • NJ 2107 4 1582

3 Burlington VT 1074 3 617

4 Hanscom I'icld MA 1397 4 790

5 Wilkes-Barre PA 1662 3 1272

6 Andrews /\i'B DC 2500 5 1636

7 Wilmington DE 2595 5 1539

8 Langley ^\F3 VA 3399 7 2122

9 Seymour-Johnson /\FB NC 3388 7 2112

10 Elkins WV 2141 3 1359

11 Augusta GA 3713 7 2578

12 Charleston SC 4315 9 2369

13 .Jackson^/ille FL 5052 9 2911

14 O' Haro Int. AP IL 1697 5 1021

15 Indianapolis IN 2277 5 1392

16 Battle Creek MI 1645 3 1043

17 Wright -Patterson .AF3 OH 2384 4 1655

18 Green Bay WI 1277 4 720

19 Max;vell .AFB AL 4070 8 2435

20 Louisville KY 2892 5 1955

21 Jackson MS 3878 7 2635

22 Memphis TN 3689 7 2348

23 Little Rock AR 3500 7 2277

24 New Orleans LA 5663 9 3586

25 Tulsa OK 3380 6 2070

26 Ellington APB TX 5704 9 3425

27 Des Moines lA 1971 5 1224

23 Dodge Ciry KS 1299 2 898

29 Minneapolis MN 1481 4 841

30 Kansas City MD 2526 5 1565

31 Grand Island NE 1738 3 1230

32 Grand Forks ND 754 3 328

33 Sioux Falls SD 1430 3 837

34 Walker .APB 82 2 82

35 Los Angeles CA 2210 2 1838

36 Everett WA 62 2 44

ELtendorf .APB .AK 0 0

.Albrook APB 02 S760 7403

.Andersen .APB OJ 8760 6369

Pearl Harbor HI 3760 6622

Roosevelt Roads NAVSTA PR 3760 7032

Virgin Island

(same as PR) 3760 7032
3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

Weather Bureau data employed in the analysis are from

hourly observations over periods of ten years or more, so

that statistical errors in the average values of temperature

and humidity at the various stations are believed to be

insignificant for practical purposes. The major concern for

possible uncertainty in the computed average usage value

lies in assumptions on the nature and measure of individual

requirements for comfort in the home for which no general

field survey data are available.

3 . 3 Parallel Estimates

The only other known usage estimate is 1920 hours per year

obtained from an AHAM field sample [8]

.

Tests were conducted during the summer of 1974 in the

homes of 21 employees of dehumidifier majiuf acturers in Ohio,

Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey. Records, were kept of

rated capacity of test units, watts input, hours used, and

total kWh. However, no data were provided on the weather

that was experienced, humidity control objectives and

achievements or on equipment capacities relative to needs.

Reported running (compressor operating) hours ranged

from 375 to 4048, with an average of 1920 hours, a standard

deviation of 985 hours for the sample and a standard

deviation of 215 hours for the sample mean. The analytical

model was applied to a location in each of these states,

yielding an average of about 1400 hours. The significance

of the difference in the two mean values (1920 vs. 1400

hours) has not been evaluated.

4. Secondary Usage Factors

No field-usage data are available that might be

adequate for projecting a national average of operating

conditions for dehumidifiers. ASHRAE [178] assumes 55

percent relative himiidity and 75 F temperature during the

cooling season. In a survey conducted by Market Facts [165]

33 out of 151 respondents indicated that they used

thermostat settings of at least 77 F during the cooling

season. The 75 F temperature used in the analysis refers to

conditions in the controlled space. Moisture removed by air

conditioners is not assumed.

L-4
5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

The EAOC is calculated as

(usage in hours) x (energy in kWh consumed per hour of use)

X (cost in dollars per kWh of energy consumed)

.

The average energy consumption rate in the AHAM survey

[8] was 0.43 kW, which will be used in estimating the EAOC.

EAOC = 1300 hours x 0.43 kWh/hr x $0,038 per kWh = $21.24 per year,

which would be reported as $21 per year.

Inasmuch as EAOC is directly proportional to annual

usage, a one percent error in usage computation induces a one percent error in EAOC. Thus, an error of 13 hours in

annual usage—i.e., one percent of 1300 hours —implies an

error of about 21 cents in EAOC.

6 . Comments

a. A map showing a small number of deh\imidif ier

operating hour zones may be useful. The data in Table L-1

could be used, augmented by additional points where they are

needed.

b. The EAOC ' s for dehumidifiers are not large enough

to warrant intensive work on usage factors for this product

alone. However, general studies of environmental control

practices in residences are recommended for the benefit of

all the environmental control products

.
$m

i 2 .

vS

^

Vi5i? pis-i'i' f ‘xtr cvfsr ecr ' < - " jB" "'' ^‘' '' V'--> - ^

<5? f

",' r jj.:^'''^ ’'^

- -1#

• * t

K .^1 M

S^' >

ifz.. -AS £-i5Ar »^>Sf —wrx -fc-5i -I^

l.Trr.r; , ; «-‘'^i•-^r^. -Jv^*. ip. ..

. a

,^4 'TfT ^ -'r^iA ' 'xl^ t ,, ,. ^ _,

**' -'

. . ,:. t m: s

* . > '-'K

, K • /i' ^*‘Vd

^ '

'*^-S >4* '

I .%:<

' %tm. Ir. ^

zn--'

i_

'

•Si M.

'>• ’ •„ I’iV'fli

•i' >s fti

'f

1«H

.',

k. *« 'V#*.

^.u'iii''
APPENDIX M. CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS

1. References; 13, 59, 65, 70, 81, 99, 150

2. Test Procedures: Final [59] November 25, 1977

Final rule correction [65] June 5, 1978

Proposed [81] June 14, 1977

3. Primary Use Factor

3.1 Value; 1000 hours of full load compressor operation

per year.

3.2 Basis

The 1000 hour value was analytically derived to be

consistent with the corresponding usage factor for room air

conditioners of 750 hours per year.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

The basis for the primary use factor is contained in

Appendix B of reference 179, reproduced here as Annex M-1.

Parallel estimates are also, described. The appendix is copied

intact, including its own numbering for figures, tables and

references. Some of the references also appear in Appendix ?.

3.2.2 Estimate of Uncertainty

Uncertainty in the calculated usage cycle was not

estimated because the method of calculation produced a

single value for each location and did not include a basis

for determining variations among consumer usage at a given

location. An indication of the variation in operating hours

within a geographically small locality can be obtained from

survey data on room air conditioners (New York City area,

1974 and 1975 seasons) provided by AHAM [13] . For 171

observations, the mean was approximately 400 hours per year.

The standard deviation of the sample was a surprisingly high

345 hours per year and the standard deviation of this sample

mean was 26 hours per year.

3.3 Comparable Estimates

Thera are no other known estimates of operating hours

per year with supporting evidence. T. T. Woodson [150]

cites a "typical" energy consumption of 3600 kWh/yr with an

"average" power of 3000 watts, which corresponds to about

M-1
1200 hours usage. The Edison Electric Institute [70]

recommends that "the study of central air conditioners be

tabled until energy-use values can be investigated further."

It notes that "the range of responses [from member companies

to inquiries concerning household usage] is too widespread."

4. Secondary Usage Factors

a. Thermostat setting

Market Facts for October 24, 1977, cites thermostat

settings with central air conditioners as given in Table M-1.

Table M-1. Survey Data on Thermostat Settings

with Central Air Conditioners

Resoondents

Temperature

Setting £21 Night

<65 F 5 5

66-68 1 2

69-72 17 16

73-76 45 40

>77 83 79

Off at night 14

Total reported cases 151 156

Average* setting 75 75

*These averages were computed by regarding the temperature

of the coolest group as exactly 65 and that of the

warmest as exactly 77. Also the "off at night" category

was considered to be at a temperature setting of 80.

NAHB/Heimath in a report to the FEA of March 1975,

indicate an average summer thermostat setting of 74 F for 20

homes in the Columbus, Ohio, area with central air

conditioners

.

The Honeywell results of 1670 hours [59] for a 78 F set

point and 1800 hours for a 75 F set point, indicate

approximately a 3 percent increase in operating hours per

degree F decrease in thermostat setting in this temperature

range

.

M-2
EAOC

b. Ventilation practice of householders

Empirical data are needed on the number of air changes

per hour under different conditions and in different parts

of the country. Homes with central air conditioners were

assumed to be unventilated, whereas those with room air

conditioners were assumed to be ventilated when outdoor air

temperatures were between 75 F and 78 F.

c . Outdoor Temperatures

A statistical distribution of outdoor temperatures

during the cooling season is provided for use in seasonal

efficiency calculations. Neither this distribution, nor the

cooling load hour data provided in reference 59, 65 and 81

enter the EAOC calculation directly.

5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

The expected annual operating cost is given by

(capacity in Btu per hr) x (operating hrs per yr) x (cost of electricity

_ in $ per I-cWh) (seasonal EER in Btu per Wh) x (1000 Wh per kWh)

The following base conditions are used for the purpose of

this analysis: 1000 hours of operation, SEER = 7 Btu per

Wh, capacity = 40 000 Btu per hr, and energy cost = $0,038

per kWh.

With these values the EAOC is approximately $200 per

year. A one percent reduction in usage hours corresponds to

a reduction in the EAOC of about $2.

A one-degree increase in indoor temperature decreases

the operating hours by an estimated 3 percent, for a change

in EAOC of approximately -$6 per year.

5 . Comments

The comments for room air conditioners (Appendix F)

also apply for central air conditioners. In addition,

examination of oversizing practices is suggested.

M-3
ANNEX M-1

Central Air Conditioners and

Heat Punps Operating in the Cooling Mode

The purpose o£ this memorandimi is to provide a national average annual

use cycle for residential central air conditioning equipment in support

of the NES test procedure proposal for this product type. The recommended

usage cycle is 1000 full load compressor operating hours per year and

is based on a review of analytical and field survey work by other investigators.

It is important that the meaning and limitations of this figure be

conveyed to the consumer. No single value for an average annual use

cycle shoiild be expected to match the experience by an arbitrarily

selected user or group of users in a given cooling season and locality.

The usage value of 1000 conpressor operating hours per year is reasonably

close to a derivable national average. It is rounded to avoid an

unwarranted impression of direct applicability to all users and situations

and bears a reasonable relationship to the 750 hours per year of conpressor

operation being used for room air conditioners.

Three approaches were compared in developing the recommended value

for annual compressor operating hours.

A. Comparison with Room Air Conditioners

It was assumed in this approach that users of room air conditioners

will tend to use natural ventilation to achieve their cooling objectives

when outdoor conditions permit, while users of central air conditioners

will tend to avoid natural ventilation during the cooling season.

M-4
Pilati (Re£. 1) conpared the effects on compressor hours of ventilation

and non- ventilation strategies in a hypothetical home. He used a

modified NBSID program and a year's hour-by-hour weather data for each

of ten cities. (See Table 1.) An indoor thermostat set point of 78F

was assumed. These data and data from "ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals,”

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers;

1972, were then used in a multi -variable regression analysis to extend

the results over the nation, and to produce the "Predictions” for the

same ten cities, also given in Table 1. The ventilated (Y) and unventilated

CUV) results were cross -plotted by NBS in Figure 1. Separate linear

regressions by NBS of the NBSLD and Predictions results yielded

(NBSID): Hours CUV) = 291 + 1.097 x Hours (V)

(Predictions) Hours (UV) = 297 + 1.097 x Hours (V)

These two equations were then evaluated using the room air conditioner

compressor operation value of 730 hours per year as Hours (V) , yielding

1114 and 1120 hours per year, respectively for Hours (UY).

It is to be noted 'that differences of 100 hours per year among

othertvise comparable cases are common in Pilati 's results, reflecting effects

of using different analysis methods and data bases. It is also apparent that

operaring hours vary ^videly across the nation.

3. Bin Method A

In Reference 2 Honeywell reported the results of a compressor

hours analysis for 26 cities, based on data from Reference 3. Six of

these cities coincided v^lth Pilati 's selections. (See Table 1.)
r si

Table 1. Estimated Compressor Hours Per Year^ ^

NBSLD*^^ Alternate ^ . Adaptation Prediction Honeywell Honeywell

City Vent. Unvent. Vent. IMvent. Clfeivent. , 78F) (Unvent.

,

Atlanta 983 , 1521 993 1577 1189 1452

Chicago 4S5 727 596 868 638 804

Dallas 1604 2003 1518 1979 1658 1901

Miami 2169 2901 2363 2971 2984 3480

Minneapolis 374 590 319 462 622 779

New Orleans 1880 2305 1663 2157 2018 2373

New York 393 755 357 765

Phoenix 1870 2122 1826 2102

San Diego 162 592 150 583

Topeka 627 932 713 1023

(a) All results are from conputer calculations. The first five columns

are based on an indoor dry bulb control temperature of 78F.

rb) Source: Reference 1

.

fc) Source

Reference 2 .
V
Reference 3 contains weather data from 205 stations at >^ch hourly

readings had been taken for at least ten years. This publication provides

the mean number of hours per year for which the dry bulb tenperature was

observed in each of a succession of five-degree bins. Compressor operating

hours for an unventilated house were estimated for three ten5)erature

control methods, including a 78F set point and a balance point (outdoor

temperature above which a cooling load exists) ten degrees below the set

point.

While Pilati used two analysis methods, based on the use of specific

weather years and Honeywell used a third method and averaged weather

data, their averaged results for the six cities in common are reasonably

comparable. Averages among the six cities for Pilati ’s MBSLD and Predictiorxs

methods and Honeywell's bin method are 1675 hours, 1669 hours and 1518

hours, respectively. Honeywell's averaged result is about 9% below

Pilati 's for these cities. Honeywell's six-city average with a 75F set

point is 1798 hours, giving an indication of the sensitivity of compressor

hours to the thermostat set point.

C. Bin Method B

This method, examined by NBS, is also based on data from Reference 3.

Tne results from this approach are recognized as being more approximate than

from approaches A and B because of the methods of data aggregation. The

average number of hours in each tenperature bin were first combined by

state and then weighted by the number of housing units with central air

conditioners by state (from Reference 4) to develop the nationally

averaged bin-hours presented in Table 2. The coirpressor was assumed to

be off for outdoor tenperatures below the balance point and to operate

M-8
Table 2. Distribution of Hours in Temperature Bins (a)

Temperature Hours

Bin, per Year

65-69 825

70-74 890

75-79 330

80-84 620

85-89

' 400

90-94 200

95-99 70

100-104 15

(a) Source of basic data on average hours per year by dry bulb temperature

bin is Reference 3. Bin-hours were weighted by state with data from

Reference 4 on homes with central air conditioners in 19"0.

m-9
continuously for temperatures at and above a tenperature determined by

the design point and any system oversizing. A linear relationship with

respect to outdoor temperature was used to estimate the fraction of

operating time for conditions between these two temperatures. Assuming

a 78F set point, a 68F balance point, a 95F design point and a ten

percent oversizing factor, a value of 1238 con^jressor operating hours

per year results. Use of a 65F balance point yields 1373 hours.

One characteristic of these bin methods is that all excursions of

outdoor temperature into the cooling demand region contribute to the

total conpressor hours, however brief they may be or vdienever they may

occur during the year. However, there are some practical reasons for

adjusting these theoretical results. Because of the thermal masses

of walls and building contents, indoor tenperatures do not respond

immediately or fully to short-term outdoor tenperature fluctuations.

Operating hours would be reduced by any tendencies to confine system

usage to the main cooling season. Also, no allowance is made in the

analyses for conservation-motivated setbacks during vacations or other

periods of absence. Thus, some downward adjustment of theoretical

results appears warranted.

Statistical information has been provided by industry on the consumer

usage patterns for several product types, including room air conditioners.

The data are summarized in Figure 2 in the form of cumulative distribution

plots. One particularly interesting study involved 171 homes and two

cooling seasons in the New York City area. The raw data shows a usage

range from less than SO hours to over 2200 hours per year. (Ml but four

of the 171 observations were 1300 hours or less, leading to the highest

M-10
kMli

x>t:ir

year

for

Ranges

hours

per;,

year

^or

^ir

fion^l

Loads

per

week

for

Dishwashers,

Clothes

Washers

and

Dryers
percentile plot point that could be shovm. on this graph paper.) It is

evident that no single value for usage could usefully be regarded as

"representative” even for this relatively limited climate area and the

two cooling seasons. Table 1 provides an indication of the effects of

climate variation across the nation, which contribute further to usage

variation. Weather variations from season to season also contribute

uncertainties. It is therefore recommended that the annual usage factor

for this product be heavily rounded to avoid an undue impression of

applicability in all situations. The value of 1000 conpressor hours per

year is recommended, both becaiase it is reasonably close to analytical

results cited earlier and because it would provide a convenient basis

for calculations if some form of regional treatment is considered in the

future

.

M-12
References (for Annex M-1)

1. 'Hoom Air Conditioner Lifetime Cost Consideration: Annual Operating

Hours and Efficiencies”; Pilati, David A., Oak Ridge National Laboratory;

October 1975.

2. "Reducing Energy Consumption During the Cooling Season- -an Analog

Computer Study"; Honeywell Corporation Report 70-6245; September 1974.

3. "Engineering Weather Data, AIM88-8, Chapter 6, TM5-785, NAYPAC P-89";

Departments of the Air Force, the Army and the Navy; 15 June 1967.

4. U.S. Census of Housing; 1970 U.S. Summary HC(13B1.

5. 'Test Procedure Review- -Central Air Conditioners”; National Bureau

of Standards; March 1977.

6. "Statement on Room Air Conditioners (to the Federal Energy

Administration)"; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers;

September 22, 1976 (also presented to Department of Commerce,

July 29, 1976).

7. "Summarisation of AHAM Range Energy Consumotion Field Data";

1976.
- -j" 1*1-*'''

'*^J %

>ijs?- IT^r

'^'<rT^ftldi!ij<,V I

,-^- ' - ii?.

'

.

• i

>'^-

r.‘^2

-!)« ^>- . -gTM: ^ K

^T^'*^;’ ^2* ’^i >*15 , ,

;STe?bs?r;..i/|Ci |l«

4,.

TOtJi 3SET#

*1 s»—^.-:5^S»^,;,^,>^W

/

' '^ji^ m

’*/ <1!

; .A *'^'. ^^LSksJ^'^rr •'*

' iSS®-"3 ‘-K« ..mi

:dtei

'

.« f fe.

< /.

.'; i iiff W. *ir." if '

#- trtm

a

-T'- --'

;. V4j ri

i)®v .

P*J (

-•*1

> if- .<:

: l

'fe‘3

-ify '

Ly

r#'*!ir A,'; tl: TO

;.»> r f ^ w" TV"» ^*‘

, a»iJI >L .!
APPENDIX N. FUHNACES AND VENTED HEATERS

1. References: 5, 6, 56, 64, 85, 130, 134, 135, 178, 180,

181,. 182

2. Test Procedures; Final [64] May 10, 1978

Proposed [85] August 11, 1977

3. Primary Usage Factors [64]

3.1 Values

Heating Load Hours per Year = HLH = 2080 hours per

year.

Adjustment factor for changing the design heating

requirement and heating hours to the actual heating

load experienced by the heating system = C = 0.77.

3.2 Basis

The numerical value for HLH may be computed as follows.

(1) 5200 degree-days per year x 24 hours per day x SHL _

^ (65 f‘- 5 F) X SHL

2080 hours per year,

where

SHL = heat loss rate of the structure in Btu per hour

per degree Fahrenheit.

3.2.1 Description of Basis

Heating loads vary from zero in Hawaii to very high

values in Minnesota and Alaska. Figure N-1 [64] provides HLH

values to support regional calculations . The function of the

heating load hours parameter is to combine certain climate

and indoor factors into a form that is concise and convenient

for analytical uses , while meeting the requirement for a representative national value.

N-1

I
Fiyure

N-1.

lleatijig

Load

Iburs

(Hlil)

for

the

United

States

and

Territories

n

®I i (A T3 (1) C *H

(S o

nj -H ^ M-( -H W 10 (t y u

r-( fO a' < s E-«

N-2

nas

map b

rcasr^V

ecourete

for

most

pam

of

tie

United

States

but

is

necessariV

f»gfiV

gsnerDfccd

and

coreequentiy

not

too

accurate

in

mountainous

regions

poitabfV

Rockies.
Both the 5200 degree-days and the 5 F outdoor air

design temperature figures are based on weighted averages

using long-term weather data from many stations in the

conterminous United States (the 48 states and the District

of Columbia) . States were weighted by the numbers of

housing units using gas or oil as the primary heating fuel,

as reported in the 1970 Census. The figure of 65 F appearing

in Equation 1 was introduced [182] in the early 1930 *s and

is the traditional reference temperature for computing

degree-days. It is sometimes called a balance point, or

zero heat point, marking the outdoor dry bulb temperature

boundary between a load and no load on the heating system.

Actual indoor temperatures will be higher than the balance

point due to other heat sources such as cooking, body heat,

lights, etc.

The rate of conduction and infiltration heat loss by a structure is, for practical purposes, considered proportional

to the difference between indoor and outdoor temperatiires

.

The component of this loss supplied by the heating system is

proportional to the difference between the balance point (65 F)

and the current temperature. The number of degree-days in

a day at a given location is computed by finding the arithmetic

average of the high and low temperatures for the day and

subtracting the result from the balance point. No heating

degree-days are counted if the average is above the balance

point. The total heating degree-days for a year are proportional to the annual heating load.

The (65 F - 5 F) teirm in the denominator of Equation 1

is a temperature difference used for system design purposes.

The design temperature is not normally the extreme low

temperature ever recorded at a station. Instead, engineering

practice is to choose a slightly higher, but still reasonable

design criterion. The 5 F figure was rounded from a weighted

average (among stations) of design temperatures at the 2 1/2

percent level, meaning that on the average (at each station)

2 1/2 percent of the hours in the coldest three months of

the year, or 54 hours per year [56] , are expected to be

colder than the design temperature. Stations with large

degree-day values tend to have large design temperature

differences and long heating seasons, and conversely for the

warmer climates.

N-3
Thus, the numerator of Equation 1 is an estimate in Btu

per year of the annual heating load of a residence as seen

by a furnace. This load is proportional no the heat loss

rate of the structure, SHL. The denominator is the heat

loss rate in Btu per hour of the same structure under design

temperature conditions, and is also proportional to SHL.

SHL is used in selecting a furnace, but cancels out in the

HLH calculation. HLH is an intermediate parameter in the

calculations of burner operating hours, BOH, in which an

experience factor, C (described next), and an oversizing

factor have important roles.

Industry commentators expressed concern during the

hearings [64] on the proposed test procedure that use of 65

F as a balance point is no longer representative of current

home construction and heating practices and leads to serious

overestimates of heating costs. DOE recognizes this fact,

but noted that changing the balance point temperature would

require an extensive and lengthy analysis, and determined

that the current standard practice of using 65 F as the

balance point would be continued until new data are available.

After reviewing data, NBS recommended and DOE accepted an

adjustment factor, C, of 0.77 as a multiplier for changing

the design heating requirement and heating hours to the

approximate actual heating load experienced by the heating

system. This is the old NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers

Association) factor [178] and corresponds to the ratio of

13.5 hours/day _ - 24 hours/day

which is a correction factor recommended in the 1970 ASHRAE

Handbook and Product Directory [180] for use in estimating

annual heating requirements

.

Regional heating load hours , HLH , are provided by a map

in the test procedure [64] for conterminous U.S.A. , 3500

hours for Alaska and zero hours for Hawaii and territories.

3.2.2 Estimates of Uncertainties

There are several points at which HLH could be criticized, but these are almost exclusively at the

conceptual level. The data for degree-days and design

temperatures at the weather stations selected to represent

N-4
states come from the best available sources, e.g., {5, S,

56, 178]. Averages for each location have been compiled

over at least ten years and normally for twenty to thirty

years, yielding results of good statistical quality.

Averaging these results over many locations in the nation

further reduces random error in the estimates of average

weather conditions.

Data on outdoor design temperatures are given in

standard references to the nearest whole degree. Although

statistical support has not been sought for the assumption,

the implication is that the design data are accurate within

one-half a degree Fahrenheit for a given location. The

resulting national average value was rounded more than a half a degree to produce the computationally convenient

value of 5 F.

In a similar manner, general statistics on the

variability of average degree-days for a location were not

sought. However, there are variations from year to year and

from place to place in a weather station service area. An

indication of the variability may be inferred by comparing

some data for the Washington, D.C., area. A value of 4626

degree-days [182] was used in the 1930 's. In the Reference

Section of Heating and Ventilating, March 1954 [181] , the

annual degree days are given at 4333 for National Airport.

Subsequent averages for the Airport are 4224 per year, which

was the standard for many years, and then changed in 1973 by

NCAA to the current normal value of 4211. Thus, there

appears to be a minor warming trend at least at National

Airport. In addition, annual degree-day results at National

Airport were obtained for the most recant 15 years. The.

average value was 4132, with a standard deviation of 391

degree-days per year for this sample and a standard

deviation of the sample 'mean of 101 degree-days. The

coefficient of variation (= standard deviation/mean) of the

mean for this location is 0.024. At least 40 stations

contributed to the overall average, leading to an overall

coefficient of variation of approximately 0.004 for the

sample mean.

Degree-day variations within the ser^/ice area of a weather station can be important. Listings in [131] for

1954 for the Washington area show 4333 degree-days per year

for the .Airport, 4253 for the city and 4539 for Silver Hill, MD,

which is 6 1/2 miles east southeast from the center of the

city. Calculations (data from [56]) for Andrews AF3, which

is 11 miles east southeast of the city center and has design
temperatiires about three degrees cooler [6] than National

Airport show 4774 degree-days per year compared to 4224 [5]

for National Airport. Temperatures in the Washington

suburbs are often five to ten degrees below those at

National Airport.

The 65 F balance point temperature was proposed [182]

in the 1920 's as a result of a study by a gas utility

company. Several changes since that date indicate that a re-examination of that balance point would be in order.

Residential construction is considerably tighter, reducing

heat losses from air exfiltration. Much more insulation

is being used, reducing heat losses by conduction through the

walls and ceilings. There are many more heat releasing

appliances in homes, reducing the additional heat requirements from furnaces. Higher fuel costs are encouraging

the use of lower thermostat settings during the heating

season.

DOE recognizes the general nature and effects of the

factors listed above, but has deferred any change from the

65 F balance point until deeper study reveals a better

alternative. In lieu of making such a change and in

recognition of the tendency of unmodified test procedures to

overestimate furnace energy use, an adjustment factor, C = 0.77, is introduced in the energy calculations. In .effect,

it reduces the estimate of the design heating requirement in

the calculation of burner operating hours, BOH. The value

for C of 0.77 was recommended by NBS after a review of data

and accepted by DOE. No systematic basis exists for

estimating the uncertainty of this factor.

3.3 Parallel Estimates

No alternative methods for estimating degree-days, the

balance point temperature or the design temperature were

found in the accepted literature. The current NEMA Manual

for Electric Comfort Conditioning suggests the use of 15 to

17 hours per day instead of 18.5 hours per day in developing

the "C" factor for electric heating systems.

The relationship of degree-days to the choice of a balance point temperature was examined analytically for 24

locations spread throughout the nation. Data on average

hours per year in successive temperature bins [56] were used

to compute degree-days with various balance points. The

N-6
results are shown in Figure N-2 in which degree-days at 65 F

were plotted against the corresponding degree-days for other

balance points: 50 F, 55 F, 60 F and 65 F. The formulas in

Figure N-2 are linear regressions. Plot points were omitted

except for the 50 F case. A heavy horizontal line

designates 5200 degree days using a 65 F base. Noting that

5200 X C = 5200 x 0.77 * 4004 degree-days, it can be seen

that using an adjustment factor C = 0.77 is equivalent to

changing the balance point temperature from 65 F to about 60

F for a nominal 5200 degree-day location. However, holding

C fixed will lead to other equivalent balance point

temperatures as degree-days are varied, as in regional

studies, for example.

The effect of a change of one degree Fahrenheit in

either the indoor temperatures (70 F) or the balance point

temperature (65 F) at 5200 degree-days is approximately

900/5 =180 degree-days. The corresponding effect on HLH

would be approximately 72 hours per degree F.

4 . Secondary Usage Factors

4 . 1 Factor Definitions and Quantities

• Average Furnace Sizing Factor = 1.7, dimensionless,

_ Steady-state output of furnace

“ Design heating requirement of burlding

Furnaces are usually selected with a capacity that is

considerably greater than necessary to meet the normal

design heating requirement. For example, heating engineers

in the Washington, D.C., area use 0 F as the design

temperature rather than values of 15 F to 17 F obtained from

weather data. Excess furnace capacity will also increase

when retrofitting actions are taken, such as adding

insulation and storm doors and windows

.

• Assumed average Indoor Temperature = 70 F.

• Pilot Light Hours = 3760 hours per year = 365 days per

year x 24 hours per day.

• Average outdoor temperature corresponding to 5200

degree-day location = 42 F.

This is an average temperature which is used in the

calculations to correct for the use of outdoor air for

N-7

combustion in certain furnace systems instead of using air

that infiltrates into the house and is raised to the indoor

temperature before combustion.

• Ratio of average length of a heating season in hours to

the average heating load hours = 2 , dimensionless.

This is an assumed factor used in accounting for the

heat from a pilot light in the calculation of burner

operating hours.

• Average number of non-heating season hours per year

that the energy to the pilot light is assumed wasted * 4600 hours per year = 8760 -(2 x 2080).

4 .

2

Basis

Oversizing Factor:

The oversizing factor of 1.7 is not supported by

systematic field studies, nor is any alternative value for

this factor. Some commenters on the test procedure

criticized the value assumed and used in the test procedure,

but did not offer alternatives. It was adopted by DOE on

the basis that oversizing practices of the past are being

moderated today because of an increasing awareness that

oversized equipment without stack dampers is less efficient

than more properly sized equipment.

The factor is used in the calculation of annual fuel

utilization efficiency in a term accoxinting for wasted pilot

light energy and in a table (Table 4 in the test procedure

[64]) that is used to obtain a value for average design

heating requirements, ]<nowing the output capacity of the

furnace or boiler.

No data are available to support an estimate of the

uncertainty in this factor.

Indoor Temperature

:

Seventy degrees Fahrenheiu is a commonly used indoor

temperature assumption in heating system analyses [13 4] . Results of a survey conducted before the oil embargo in 1973

indicate that approximately 30 percent of the households in

the survey have thermostat or valve temperature controls.

Those without temperature control include seven million

households (mostly renters) who nonetheless pay for space
heat. Survey results (Table 3-14 in reference 134) on

daytime and nighttime temperatures are given below. The

reported daytime winter temperatures did not vary

appreciably with climate, but the nighttime winter

temperatures did. About 60 percent of all households in the

coldest climate zone had indoor winter temperatures above 70

F at night. It appears from the table that in 1973, median

temperatures were approximately 72 F during the day and 70 F

at night. Assuming some response to rising energy costs

since 1973, the use of a 70 F median indoor temperature

appears reasonable. Since details of the survey [134] have

not been obtained, an estimate of uncertainty is not made.

Table N-1. Indoor temperature control and preference

in winter, by heating degree days, 1973

(percent of households) [Table 3-14 of Reference 134]

Winter indoor temperature

characteristics

All households

With thermostat or valve

Temperature during day^

Under 70®

70®-72®

73° or higher

Don ' t know

Temperature at night

Under 70°

70°-72°

73° or higher

Don ' t know

Heating degree days

All

households <3500

3500-

5499 5500+

100 100 100 100

81 70 86 87

12 12 14 10

52 51 51 56

33 34 33 33

2 4 2 2

45 51 49 38

35 30 33 41

16 13 15 19

4 7 3 2

For households with thermostats or valves.

Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Life

styles and Energy Surveys

.

Newman [135] presents some data on temperature

variations from floor to ceiling and room to room in a house

where USDA was experimenting with wall insulation

treatments and heating systems. Depending on the room,

N-10
average temperatiire differences between a point four inches

above the floor to the ceiling ranged from 2 to 11 degrees

F. Differences between the four-foot level and the ceiling

ranged from -0.2 F to +1.8 F, while room-to-room differences

at the four-foot level were in the 0 F to 2 F range. In a

full scale heating simulation in an NBS test chamber [130] , a house with warm air inlets near the ceiling showed floor

to ceiling temperature differences of 20 F to 25 F in

first floor rooms. Thus, other than for engineering

calculation purposes, it is recommended that the precision

of statements about room temperatures be treated with

restraint. It appears unwarranted to expect a whole house

to have an average temperature within one or two degrees of

the thermostat setting, even assuming that the thermostat is

accurate

.

Pilot Light Hours:

It is assumed for the purposes of the test procedure

that the pilot light is on all the time, or 365 days per

year x 24 hours per day = 8760 hours per year.

Average Temperature of Combustion Air from Outdoors

:

Temperature data are available [56] in terms of the

average number of .hours per year for a given location that

the outdoor temperature is in each of a succession of fivedegree "bins.” Using these hours as weights, the average

outdoor air temperature during a heating season corresponding

to a 5200 degree-day per year location is 42 F, within a rounding error of one-half a degree Fahrenheit.

Ratio of Heating Season Hours to Heating Load Hours:

The definition of a heating season is somewhat indefinite,

but includes the calendar period during which a furnace may

reasonably get a call for heat. Because of heat storage

characteristics of house structures and contents, transient

excursions of outdoor air temperatures below 65 F even

lasting as long as 6 to 12 hours may not result in a call

for heat from the central heating system. Hence, the

heating season is shorter than the period during which there

are any excursions at all below 65 F.

It was elected to estimate the lengths of the heating

and nonheating seasons in terms of heating load hours, HLH,

N-II
using the assumption that the niimber of hours in the heating

season is twice ELH. ThuS/ when HLH - 2080 hours per year,

the nonheating season is

8760 - 2 X 2080 = 4600 hours per year.

The uncertainty in the assumed factor of 2 has not been

evaluated.

5. Impact Assessment of Uncertainties

Since the consiimer-dependent variables and their

uncertainties enter the calculation of estimated annual

operating cost, EAOC, in complicated ways, the approach that

will be taken is to assume and discuss a base case.

Formulas come from the test procedure.

Base Case:

Fuel : gas

Q = 136 000 Btu per hour.

n = 0.75 = steady-state efficiency =

ss ^ ^ OUT IN

Op =1000 Btu per hour.

Cp = unit cost of gas = $0,207 per therm (100 000 Btu).

= unit cost of electricity = $0,038 per kWh.

?E yBE = auxiliary electric power = 0.5 kW = 1.7 kBtu per hour.

= part load fuel utilization efficiency = 70 percent.

= 102 kBtu per hour.

HLH = annual heating load hours = 2080 hours per year.

C = 0.77.

ADER = average design heating requirement = 60 kBtu per hour.

Sizing Factor, SF = 1.7 Q /ADER. OUT

EAOC = E„ X C„ + E,„ X C„

F F AE E

= ( - Qp) X BOH + (8760 X Q^)) x Cp + (PE + yBE) x C^. (2)

100 000

N-12
BOH = A X C X 2080 x ADHR - B x 2080 (3)

where

, _ 100 000

341 300 X (PE + yBE) + - Q^) x

100 000

341 300 X 0.5 + (136 000 - 1000) x 70 = 0.010394

(4)

B =

2 X Qp X X A

100 000

2 X 1000 X 70 X 0.010394

100 000

= 0.01455 (5)

Then

BOH = 998.9 - 30.2 = 968.6 hours per year (6) and

EAOC = (C136 000 - 1000) x 969 + 3750 x 1000) x ^ qA

-i-0. 5x 96 9x0.038

= S270.79 (furnace fuel) + $13.13 (pilot fuel)

+ $18.41 (electricity)

=* $307.33 per year^ which would be reported as

= $307 per yeax. (7)

It can be seen from

that jQ 7—

3 3 ^*^' ^ = 0.941, or about 94 percent of the

annual operating cost in this case is proportional to BOH,

which, by Equation 3 is proportional to HLH = 2080 hours per

year, and which, in turn, is proportional to degree-days and

C, and inversely proportional to the design temperature

difference. (See Equation 1.)

Assuming an uncertainty in HLH of 8 hours per year, an

uncertainty in EAOC of 307 x 0.94 x 8/2080 = $l". 11 per year,

would result.
Increasing the design temperature difference decreases

EAOC. Evaluited at the base case conditions, the EAOC

decreases by 307 x 0.94/60 = $4.81 per year per degree'

increase in the design temperature difference.

A one percent change in C (i.e., by 0.0077) loads to a

change in EAOC of 307 x 0.94 x 0.0077 = $2.22 per year.

A one degree change in indoor temperature is estimated

to change HLH by 72 hours per year under base case

conditions and change EAOC by 307 x 0.94 x 72/2080 = $9.99

per year.

The effect on EAOC of an error in sizing factor, SF, is

much less susceptible to calculation than for HLH or C. If

the pilot light gas consumption is proportional to furnace

size, which it may not be, then an error in SF will mean a

proportional error in the energy wasted by the pilot light

during the non-heating season. In the base case example,

the wasted pilot fuel costs approximately $9.52 per year and

an error in SF would change EAOC in proportion to this cost.

The other main area in which SF can affect efficiency,

and hence EAOC is in the amount of heat lost during the

cooling phase after heating cycles and during the periods

when the burner is off. Cool-down losses are primarily

proportional to the mass of metal brought to a high

temperature during the burning phase. This loss is mainly

expected to be proportional to SF on the assumption that

furnace mass is essentially proportional to heat output

rate. Similarly, losses during the time that the furnace is

off are assimed to be proportional to SF . Neither the

validity of these assumptions nor the numerical importance

of the losses has been examined.

6 . Comments

a. The main uncertainties in the EAOC calculations for

furnaces are in the degree-day and design tempera-ture

difference components of the heating load hour calculation.

The items considered most important for field measurement

are

« Indoor control temperatures, including any setback

temperatures and durations.

N-14
• Outdoor balance point temperatures , which may be

regional in character due to variations in general

construction practices.

• Design point temperatures, including local variations

relative to the reference weather station.

b. A deeper program is suggested, funds permitting, in

which the integrated effects of air temperature, heat gains

from the sun and losses to the sky at night, infiltration

and thermal mass of the structure would be studied. The

objective would be to determine from field data the relative

importance of such factors and to redevelop practical

methods for estimating heating loads.

c. Little or no work is suggested relative to pilot

light energy waste.

N-15
i. ^

9l3 ^ ^%i''J^^ i.i

.7:^1 ;ntl:>'ik34 »i,<S!

- -#f . ax ' ,^si,x.i^5^'if:va^-^i |*''^'\ ’ ^

... .

.

St* >;r ? ies. -.Jil rl^^' iy^i''’Ji<te. ’ i^mM$pp t&t: p4 bls^’- »v4i'o«t'

vS > f -

.•

'ti ,•* s

'

mi

r3»tja"''

%^A Pfti#:

« *»,

f W

. , , «»? > .^.'^'-MSi..«y«tiiJ^

hM Pli

^ '1,^15 :,4|Er;S.^!g.' %p^l „._

4(?^

% t

, .. «-.,. - ,

- '3' “ ^ * ^;. PlD«d4 *, .. -m# ^ tifi SJ^ ^

„

* Jx.l

'*“ - ", '<NafJLnf'' zhM- . iti^t

• • ^ -A

% «

HMpi...443t4 -. :yLr«. '.: \.'

Cat!

,’:4(> . -*

,

,' 4wc*.i^irtg. w»7 , #<itbA<53c

.

m

,j^-'

ta i'feii';

’

#
APPENDIX 0. ENERGY CONSUMPTION CHRACTERISTICS

BY INCOME LEVEL [134]

Source: Newman, D., Day, D., The American Energy Consumer.

Permission to copy was obtained verbally from Ford Foundation

and the Center for Municipal and Metropolitan Research of

the National Capital Area, which is the successor to Washington

Center for Metropolitan Studies.

Income levels were defined in terms of approximate

average 1972 annual incomes per household as follows: poor

- $2500, lower middle - $8000, upper middle - $14 000 and

well-off - $24 500. The poor, lower middle, upper middle

and well-off are 18, 42, 19 and 20 percent, respectively, of

all households. The following tables are taken directly

from The American Energy Consumer. The size of the survey

taken by the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies was

not given.

0-1
Table 5*2. Household Characteristics by Income, 1973 (percent

of households)

Household characteristics Poor Lower

middle

Upper

middle Well off

All households 100 100 100 100

Life cycle

Head less than 45 33 ^ 41 56 48

With children 26 28 47 39

Without children 7 13 9 8 45 to 64 21 34 38 47

65 and over 45 25 6 5 Persons in household

1 37 21 4 1 2 19 36 22 22

3 14 17 20 21 4 9 14 29 26

5 or more 21 12 26 29 Household structure Husband/wife 41

# 66 90 93

Other 59 34 10 7 Number of earners None 56 25 3 2

1 33 53 47 42

2 or more 11 23 51 56

College educated household

head 12 25 38 58 Head prof, or mgr. 7 20 34 56 Own home 47 62 76 89 Own other property 7 17 23 31 Head black 23 8 5 3

Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies’ Lifestyles andSnergy Surveys.

Table 5-3. Amount of Natural Gas and Electricity Used for Space

Heating, and Fuel Oil Cost, by Income. T972-1973

Fuel used for space heating Poor Lower

middle

Upper

middle

Well off

Number of

households

(millions)

Average Btu’s per household (millions)^ Natural gas 132 142 154 184 41.3

Electricity 144 210 275 291 6.0

Btu inde.x^ (poor = 100)

Natural gas 100 108 117 139 41.3

Electricity 100 146 191 202 6.0

Percent of households^

Yearly cost of fuel oil 100 100 100 100 10.0 Under $200 49 40 40 32 4.1 $200 and over 51 60 60 68 5.9

*Only households usin« the fuel for spaev heating are included. The fuel probably is used by

the households in other tasiis (water heating, cooking) as well. The fuel consumed in these other tasks is included. ^Households paying for fuel oil and reporting the cost. Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies’ Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

0-2
Table S-4. Type of Space Heating Fuel Used, by Income,

1973 (percent of households) ;

- .

Lower Upper

Space heating fuel Poor middle middle Wei! off

All households^ lOO 100 100 100

Natural gas 54 62 62 61 Fuel oilP 23 22 22 28

Electricity 3 9 11 - 7 Bottled gas 9 S 4-.-. 4 Other and none 9 3 2

c

^The different fuels add to more than 100 because some households use more than one fuel for heating.

4

- ^Includes kerosene. 0

^Less than 0J percent. Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

Table 5-5. Climate and Housing Characteristics, by Income,

1973 (percent of households)

Qimate and struetuni Lower Upper

chancteristicz Poor middle middle Weil off

Ail households 100 100 100 100

Gimate under 3.200 heating

degree days 41 33 29 • 25 Apartment 32 26 13

Less than S rooms 47 35 ; 15.C 3 Living room less than 200 sq. ft. 62 55 36 29

Less than IS windows 32 73 67 45 No picture window 70 56 38 - « 29 Some storm windows 31 49 54 63

Protected doors'^® 41 53 53 70 Basement in single-family homes 31 45 52 61

Insulation in single-family homes^ 41 73 S6 94

^Includes entrances with storm doors and doors opening on to apartment hallways and

other heated ateas. ^Excludes unknowns.

Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

-'

Table 5-6. Index of Average Amount of Natural Gas Used per Household by Climate, Selected Structural Characteristics, and

Income, 1972-1973 (Poor households* 100)

Climate and strucnircl

characteristics Poor

Lo\K'tr middle Upper

middle Weil off

All households 100 109 120 147

3500-5,499 degree days lOO 109 130 160

Single-family home 100 115 123 146

10-14 windows 100 107 115 123 Some storm windows 100 94 100 118

.No storm windows 100 119 131 174 Foundation other than basement 100 121 124 No insulation 100 109 142® b

^Results subject to substantial variation because of the small number of interviews in this rroup. ^Not reported because number of interviews too small for statistical stability. Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.
Table 5-9. Index of Average Amount of Natural Gas Used per Househ'old by Winter Room Temperature and Its Control, by

Income, 1972-1973 (Poor households = 100)

Temperature characteristics and control Poor Lower

middle

Upper

midaie Weil off

All households 100 , 109 120 147

Usual day temperature 70“-72® 100 ’ 120 134 162 73*-75". 100 83 85* 113*

Usual night temperature

Less than 6S 100 90 115* 145* Bedroom window at night

Open 100 126 160 175 Not open 100 109 112 146

^Results subject to substuntiui voxution because of the small number of interviews in this

(iroup. Source: Washington Center for .Vietropoliun Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

Table 5-10. Households with Selected Appliances, by Income,

1973 (percent)

Appliance Poor Lower

middle

Upper

middle Weil off

Stove 95 97 99 98

Refrigerator 98 100 100 100 Manual defrost 74 ' 51 - 39 30

Frost-free* 24 , 48 60 69

Freezer 23 30 38 47 Qothes washer 62 73 89 91 Wringer 18 9 5 1 Automatic* 44 64 84 90

Clothes dryer 24 45 70 80

Dishwasher 3 13 39 55

Television— any type 94 96 98 98

Color 27 48 63 74

‘Households which reported having both versions of the appliance are included in this group only. Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

Table 5-11. Household Home Lighting Habits/by Income,

1973 (percent of households)

Home lighting habits^ Poor Lower

, middle

Upper

middle Weil off

All households 100 ' 100 100 100

Number of rooms lit in the evening 0-1 63 53 38 32

2 24 31 35 31

3 or more 13 16 27 37

Lights on all night 30 35 41 42

Buy bulbs of 75 watts or less 70 61 50 46

‘Excludes unknowns.

Source: Washington Center for .Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

0-4
Tabie 5-12. Air Conditioning Characteristics, by Inconte, 1973

Air conditioning characteristics Poor Lower

middle

Upper

middle Well off

* Percent

All households 100 100 100 lOO

Air conditioning 22 45 58 64 Window 18 - 34 39 33

Central 4 10 19 32 None

All households living in area with less than 1 ,UU0 cooling

78 55 42 36

degree days 100 100 100 100

Air conditioning 9 27 42 51 None

All households living in area with 1 ,000 cooling degree

91 73 58 49

days or more 100 100 100 100

Air conditioning 31 58 71 76 None • * • 69 42 29 24

Ail households with air

'

conditioning 100 - . 100 100 100

t-3 rooms-cooled 56 44 28 26

4 or more 44 56 72 74

.Ml households Buy air conditioner that: Costs SSO less and S2U/yr -

100 100 100 100

more to operate

Costs S50 more and S20/yr

15 8 7 5

less to operate 70 86 93 93

Don’t know/No answer 16 ... 6 1 2

..Btn index (electricity: poor = 100)

All households

Air conditioning 100 147 196 225

Some 100^ 124 143 157 None 100 123 188 221

^Results subject to substanuai vanation because cf *Jie small number ot imerriews in the

jtroup. - _ Soune: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies’ Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.
I ! V I

JW^'W*' .^WW^y mm ' >"VtS , ' .v,,v4 iw,»e«jiiJw»i«i4^^ . 0dt ts

061 lot it , - .

nS

I' ^

•'

f# - '.-^“KWwv* tl>i' C-***#--

, . '%T.

«

* ’ w * ^ »»l»g!^a^.W)

W‘

: -It jro*w» iKf «?*<>«* H mrtfimi * . *' ttiii^') kMfUl ,

‘^si fS

,,,^ o«s '^^*’221^'“!!'^*'!!

ti

sU-.« ...

*. .' 'y'( ' «U i B .A ^ W ® 4«»rar(|»' rifilii >fcc^,?4«»^i^¥ft«w u^f}n§ H«r — 1‘rxamt,

1%Plk«»<r M

MV ***«i Ti

I aAiiftm^ilf* II

,41

I |SVtf!g«; <lliii ^

II imWl jii —

' j.r

TOSTte..'. *

'w y<tw». |Miiid|''.^«»»r t»i|. ;^’ ' .,4. r

. '
APPENDIX P. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY _

1. Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,

Recommendations of the ARI Humidifiers Section for a

Test Procedure , Efficiency Calculation and Method of

Calculating Annual Energy Cost to Meet the Humidifier

Requirement of PL 94-163 , A Letter to M. Meyerson of

the Product Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau

of Standaxds, February 23, 1977.

2. American Gas Association, House-Heat , A Reference Book

on the Application of Gas to House-Heating (American

Gas Association, New York, N.Y. 1930) .

3. , Gas Facts —A Statistical Record of the Gas

Utility Industry (two years) (American Gas Association,

Arlington, Va.), 1975, 1976.

4. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineer, Inc., American Society of

Heating , Refrigerating and Air -Condi cioning Engineers

Guide and Data Book, (American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers , Inc . , New

York, N.Y., 1972).

5. , Systems Handbook (American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Inc,, New York, N,Y., 1976),

6. , Handbook of Fundamentals (American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1972).

7. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Summary

of Mean (Average) AHAM 4-Quarter Energy Data by Family

Size rrom AHAM Range Energy Consumprion Field Test

(kWh/year) , Association of Hc'me Appliance

Manufacturers, Chicago, Illinois, 1976.

3

, Report on Energy Consumption —

Dehumi^fiers , Based on Units Product During the

Calendar Year 1972' rAssociation of Home Appliance

Manufacturers, Chicago, Illinois).

9. , Report pn Energy Consumption —Clothes

Washers (Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,

Chicago, Illinois, 1972) .

?-l
10 .

11 .

12 .

13.

14.

15

.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20 .

, An American National Standard ; Room Air - Conditio*ners (Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers, Chicago, Illinois, December 21,' 1972).

, Cleaning Products Usage Data , A letter to

J. Harrison, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C., September 12, 1974.

, Standard Test Method for Measuring Energy

Consumption of Household Clothes Washers , AHAM Standard

HLW-2EC , Chicago, Illinois, December 1975.

, Graphs Depicting Frequency of Use for Room

Air-Conditioners , Clothes Dryers , Dishwashers and

Clothes Washers (Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers , Chicago, Illinois, July 29, 1976).

, Proposed AHAM Standard Test Method for

Measuring Energy Consumption oF~Electric an5~ Gas Ovens

and Surface Units and Microwave Ovens (ER-5EC)

(Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Chicago,

Illinois, August 2, 1976.

, Report on Energy Consumption Survey—

Clothes Washers , (Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers, Chicago, Illinois, September 10, 1976).

, Meeting Changing Lifestyles (28 National

Home Appliance Conference, Executive West Hotel,

Louisville. Illinois, October 7-8, 1976).

, Summarization of AHAM Range Energy

Consumption Field Data , (Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers , Chicago, Illinois.

, Values Used for Base Data on Ranges , A

letter to T. Smith of the Federal Energy

Administration, Washington, D.C., August 9, 1977.

, Better Homes and Gardens Dishwasher User

Survey , A letter to W. Walsh, Jr., Federal Energy

AdiTLinistration , Washington, D.C., September 2, 19 77.

, Summary of Results of AHAM ' s Dryer Energy

Usage Field Test , A letter to J. A. Smith, Department

or Energy, Wasnington, D.C., April 26, 1978.
21 .

22 .

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

23.

29.

30.

Barney, D. L. (General Electric Company) , FEA Hearing

on Appliances Energy Efficiency Improvement ~ Targets for

Clothes Washers , Washington, D.C., June 2, 1976.

Beard, W. L. , Cost/Benefit Analysis of Higher

Efficiency Room Air~Conditioners , (Whirlpool

Corporation, Benton Harbor, Michigcin, June 9, 1976).

, "A Method for Calculating Energy Consumption

of a Room Air-Conditioner, " American Society of

Heating , Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers

Transactions 83, 1 (New York, N.Y., 1977).

, Dehumidifiers —Proposed Test Procedure,

Comments on The Federal Energy Administration Proposed

Test Procedures for Dehumidifiers, Whirlpool

Corporation, Evansville, Indiana, July 27, 1977.

Berlin, G. L. , Proposed Energy Efficiency Improvement

Target for Humrdiriers , Statsmenu by the Humidifier

Institute at Federal Energy Administration Hearing,

September 14, 1977.

Blanck, W. H. , Jr., Proposed Energy Consumption Test

Procedure and Sampling Plan —Room Humidifiers , Statement presented by the Association of Home

Appliance Manufacturers at the Federal Energy

Administration Hearing, July 27, 1977.

, Proposed Rulema.king Regarding Energy

Efficiency Improvement Targets for Dehumidifiers , Statement presenred by the Association of Hom.e

Appliance McLnufacturers at the Federal Energy

Administration Hearing, Washinaton, D.C., September 14,

1977.

, Proposed Energy Consumption Test Procedure

and Sampling Plan for Convenrional Ranges , Convent:.onal

Cooking Tops , Conventional Ovens , Microwave Ovens and

Microwave/Conventional Ranges (Statement to DOE)

February IS"/ 3

Blumst, W. , Appendix A: Residential Customer Load

Study Homes wioh Electric Ranges , Arizona Public

Service Company, Phoenix, Arizona, December 1973.

Bullock, C. E., Annual Operating Hoxirs for Central

Humidifiers

A leuter no A. Davies of the Product

P-3
31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Systems Analysis Division of the National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1977.

, ARI *'F'* Factors for Central Humidifiers , A letter to E. Kweller of the Product Systems Analysis

Division of the National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., March 4, 1977.

Bureau of Census, Consumer Buying Indicators , (Bureau

of Census, Washington, D.C., January 1974).

, Selected Data from the 1973 Survey of

Purchase and Ownership (Bureau of Census, Washington,

D.C. )

.

Chi , J . , DEPAF —A Computer Model for Design and

Performance Analysis of Furnaces , National Bureau of

Standards, Washxngton, D.C.

Chi, J. and Kelly G., Use of a Computer Model to

Evaluate Energy Saving Potentials for Gas-Fired

Furnaces , National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C.

, "A Method for Estimating the Seasonal

Performance of Residential Gas and Oil-Fired Heating

Systems,” American Society of Heating , Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers Transactions No. 78-1-3

(American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y., January

1978)

.

Chi, J. , Computer Simulation of Fossil -Fuel -Fired

Hydronic Boilers , National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C.

Consumer Product Safety Commission, "Proposal to Ban:

Unvented Gas-Fired Space Heaters," Federal Register 43,

31, 6235-6242 (February 14, 1978). [T*

Consumer Reports, "High-Efficiency Air-Conditioners ,

Consumer Reports , 417-419 (July 1977)

.

, "How Much Humidity Does Your House Need?"

Consumer Reports , 103 (February 197 6) . Crow, L. W. , "Derivation of Outdoor Design

Temperatures from Annual Extremes," American Society of

P-4
42 .

Heating / Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning. Engineers

Transactions No. 1863 (American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers , Inc . , New

York, N.Y., January 1964).

Davies, A., Heating Load Hours, AK, Outlying

Areas , A memorandum to J. Harrison of the Product

Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1978.

43. National Bureau of Standards, Technical Analysis of

FEA Hearing Testimony on and Recommended Changes in

Test Procedures for~

~Humidiriers , August 29, 1977.

44. Davies, A., NBS Range Metering Data , A memorandum to

J. E. Harris of the Product Systems Analysis Division

of the National Biireau of Standards, Washington, D.C.,

September 10, 1976.

45. [Davies, A.]

Rationale for Revised Usage Factors for

Microwave/Conventional Ranee Components , A. Davies of

the Product Systems Analysis Division , ^National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C.

46. , Room Air Conditioners Test Procedures —

Credit for Energy Saving Options and/or Features , Attachment No. 3, A. Davies of the Product Systems

Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington , D.C.

47. , Useful Energy Output Values , A. Davies of

the Product Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C.

48. Davies. A., Usage , Vented Gas Household Heaters , Memorandum to E. Kweller of the Product Systems

Analysis Division of the National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., July 27, 1977.

49. , Usage , Vented Gas Household Heaters , Memorandum to E. Kweller of the Product Systems

Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., August 20, 1976.

50. , Additional Data , Humidifier and Dehumidifier

Operating Hours , Memorandum to J. Harrison of the

Product SystemiS Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, July 15, 1977.
51 . [Davies, A .]

,

Basis for the Constants in the

Efficiency Equations , A. Davies of the Product Systems

Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards',

Washington, D.C.

53. Davies, A., Cooling Load Hours , Air Conditioners , Outlying Area , Memorandum to J. Harrison of the Product

Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., April 10, 1978.

54. , Dehumidifier Operating Hours , A memorandum

to S. Fischler of the Product Systems Analysis

Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C., February 22, 1977.

55. Davis, J. B., Proposed Energy Consumption Test

Procedure and Sampling Plan for Conventional Ranges , Conventional Cooking Tops , Conventional Ovens and

Microwave Ovens . Statement presented by the Litton

Microwave Cooking Products at the Federal Energy

Administration Hearing, Washington, D.C., August 11,

1977.

56. Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy, Engineering

Weather Data , (AFM-88-8)

,

June 15, 1967.

57. Department of Energy, "Test Procedures for Water

Heaters," Federal Register 42, 192, 54110-54119

(October 4, 1977).

58. , "Test Procedures for Humidifiers and

Dehumidifiers" CFinal) , Federal Register 42, 201,

55599-55611 (October 18, 1977)

.

59. , "Test Procedures for Central Air

Condmoning" (Final), Federal Register 42, 227, 60150-

60157 (November 25, 1977).

60. , "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures for Conventional Ranges,

Conventional Cooking Tops, Conventional Ovens,

Microwave Oven and Microwave/Conventional Ranges and

Determination of Further Delay in the Publication of

Proposed Test Procedures for Any Other Class of Kitchen

Ranges and Ovens," Federal Register 42, 251, 65576-

65589 (December 30, 1977).

P-6
61 .

62.

63.

64.

65

66 .

57.

68 .

69.

70.

71.

, "Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Test

Procedures for Conventional Ranges, Conventional

Cooking Tops, Conventional Ovens, Microwave Ovens, and

Microwave/Conventional Ranges; Corrections," Federal

Register 43, 31, 6234-6235 (February 14, 1978T!

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Proced\ire for Water Heaters," Federal

Register 43, 64, 13388-13889 (April 3, 1978).

, "Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets for

Nine Types of Appliances," Federal Register 43, 70,

15138-15147 (April 11, 1978).

, "Test Procedures for Conventional Ranges,

Conventional Cooking Tops, Conventional Ovens,

Microwave Ovens and Microwave/Conventional Ranges,

Furnaces and Vented and Unvented Home Heating

Equipment," Federal Recister 43 , 91, 20108-20205 (24ay

10, i978) .

, "Test Procedures for Central Air

Conditioners; Corrections," Federal Register 43, 108,

24268-24269 (June 5, 1978).

Deir/en, R. , and Nichols, C., How to Cut Your Energy

Bills , 1-131 (Structures Publishing Company,

Farmangton, Michigan, 1976)

Dole, S. H. , Energy Use and Conser^/ation in the

Residential Sector: A Regional Analysis (R-1641-NSF)

Edison Electric Institute, Annual Energy Requirements

of Electric Household Appliances , EEI Pub . 475-61 Rev. , Edison Electric Institute , New York, N.Y., 1978.

Electrical World, "Air-Conditioner Efficiency

Considerations," Electrical World , 5 6 (June 1, 197 3) .

, ".Appliance Use Figures Need Revision,"

Electrical World 138 , 3, 50-51 (August 1, 1977) . Eppley, D. , Proposed Energy Consumption Test Procedure

and Sampling Plan for Dishwashers , Statement presented

by the Whirlpool Corporation at the Federal Energy

Administration Hearing , Washington , D . C

P-7
72 .

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

7S.

31.

82 .

Federal Energy Administration, "Test Procedures for

the Energy Conservation Program for Appliances (Room

Air Conditioners) Federal Register 41, 145, 31237-

31239 (July 27, 1976)

.

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures for Dishwashers," Federal

Register 42, 55, 15423-15427 (March 22, 1977r:

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures for Water Heaters, Television

Receivers, Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers,

Freezers and Clothes Dryers," Federal Register 42, 81,

21576-21593 (April 27, 1977).

, "Test Procedures for Unvented Home Heating

Equipment; Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing,"

Federal Register 42, 91, 23860-23865 (May 11, 1977).

, "Test Procedures for Automatic and SemiAutomatic Clothes Washers and Determination That Test

Procediires Cannot Be Developed for Any Other Class of

Clothes Washers" (Proposed), Federal Register 42, 95,

25329-25335 (May 17, 1977).

, "Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Test

Procedures for Television Receivers; Corrections,"

Federal Register 42, 100, 26430-26431 (May 24, 1977)

.

, "Test Procedures for Room Air

Conditioners" (Final), Federal Register 42, 105, 27896-

27899 (June 1, 1977)

.

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures (Humidifiers and

Dehumidifiers)," Federal Register 42, 105, 27941-27955

(June 1, 1977 )

.

, "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking_and Public

Hearing Regarding Test Procedures for Central Air

Conditioners," Federal Register 42, 114, 30101-30108

(June 14, 1977) .

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures for Conventional Ranges,

Conventional Cooking Tops , Conventional Ovens , and

Microwave Ovens and Determination of Further Delay in

the Publication of Proposed Test Procedures for Any

Other Class of Kitchen Ranges and Ovens," Federal

Register 42, 116, 30627-30637 (June 16, 1977).

P-8
83 .

84.

85.

86 .

87.

88 .

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

, "Notice of Representative Average Unit

Costs of Energy/" Federal Register 42, 136 36549-36550

(July 15/ 1977)

, "Test Procedures for Dishwashers" (Final)

Federal Register 42, 152, 39964-39969 (August 8, 1977) .

/ "Proposed Test Procedures for Furnaces;

Public Hearing," Federal Register 42, 155, 40826-40845

(August 11, 1977)

, "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public

Hearing (Test Procedures for Vented Home Heating

Equipment)," Federal Register 42, 169, 43930-43946

(August 31, 1977) .

, "Test Procedures for Electric

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, Clothes

Dryers, and Television Sets” (Final), Federal Register

42, 178, 46140-46154 (September 14, 1977).

, "Test Procedures for Clothes Washers"

(Final), Federal Register 42, 188, 49802-49810

(September 28, 1977 )

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvement Target for

Furnaces," Federal Register 42, 190, 52426-52433

(September 30, 1977).

Florida Power and Light Co .

Water Heater Residential

Survey (excerpts) , August 1959 Survey.

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, Inc., Furnace

Efficiency Test Procedures , A letter to the Department

of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 15, 1978.

The Gas Industry's, Space Heating System Efficiency

Imorovement Program, Heatinc Season Status Reoort

1976/77 . ^

“

Gilman, S. F., and Clausen, W. , "Predicting Annual

Heating Cost of Residential Heat Pumps , " American

Society of Heating , Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning

Engineers , Inc . Journal (May 195 9) . Graham, P., Markle, F., 2Crause, R., and Haas, R. , Energy Balance for the Metrooolitan Washinaton Area for

P-9
1973 (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,

Washington, D.C., June 1975).

95. Grimes, J. W. , Mulroy, P. E., and Shomaker, B. L.,

Effect of Usage Conditions on Household Refrigerator - Freezer and Freezer Energy Consumption , American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1977.

96. Grot, R. , Field Performance of Gas and Electric Water

Heaters , National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

97. Grot, R. and Galowin, L., Preliminary Data on the

Field Performance of Storage Type Residential Water

Heaters , National Biireau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

98. Harris, W. S., Anderson, G. Y., Fitch, C. H. , and

Spurling, D. F., "Estimating Energy Requirements for

Residential Heating," American Society of Heating , Refri(^erating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Journal

(American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y., October

1965) .

99. Honeywell Corporation, Reducing Energy Consumption

During the Cooling Season —^ Analog Computer Study , Honeywell Corporation reoort # 70-6274 (September

1974).

100. Hudelson, G. D., Proposed Test Procedures for

Furnaces , A letter to J. Smith o^ the Department of

Energy, Washington, D.C., October 17, 1977.

101. The Humidifier Institute, Humidifiers —Proposed Test

Procedures , A letter to the Executive Communications,

Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C.

102. Hung . H . K . , Estimating Annual Hours of Use of Room

Air Conditioners , A memorandum to S. Fischler of the

Product Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., February 207' 1976.

103. Info Dyne Systems Corporation, Economic Impact Study

of the Appliance Efficiency Program (Info Dyne Systems

Corporation, Potomac, Maryland, June 30, 1975).

104. Kelly, G. , Comments on Test Procedures for Central

System Humidifiers , Memorandum to E. Kweller of the

P-10
105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110 .

111 .

112 .

113.

Product Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1977.,

Kelly, G. E., and Parken, W. H. Jr., Method of

Testing , Rating and Estimating the Seasonal Performance

of Central Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps Operating in

the Cooling Mode , National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, D.C., April 1978.

LaPrance , L . J . , and Newton , A . B . , Seasonal Energy

Reduction Through Use of Dual Compressor Systems , Langmead , J . P . , GAMA 1972 Base Data for Gas Ranges , A

letter to E. Harris of the Product Systems Analysis

Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C., November 19, 1976.

, GAMA 1972 Base Data for Gas Ranges , A

letter no J. A. Smith of the Federal Energy

Administration , Washington, D.C., November 19, 1976.

, Gas Range Consumption Data , A letter to E.

Harris of the Product Systems .Analysis Division,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.,

September 26, 1977.

Leonard, R. R. , Erickson, G. A., and Jordan, R. C.,

"Energy Sources and Requirements for Residential

Heating," American Society of Heating , Refrigerating

and Air-Condi Cloning Engineers Transactions , No. 1783,

174-203 (American Society of Heating , Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y.,

1962) . Manian, V. S., and Juchymenko, .A., "Energy Usage and

Relative Utilization Efficiency of Oil-, Gas-, and

Electric-Heated Single-Family Homes," American Society

of Heating , Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning

Engineers Transactions , No. 2365, 103-119 (American

Society of Heating, ^frigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y.).

Market Research Corporation of America, National Home

Care/Cleaninq Census , 1975 New York, N.Y., 1975.

Mart, 1973 Lines Include More High Efficiency Models , Mart, 24 (November 15, 1977).

P-11
114 .

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120 .

121 .

122 .

123.

Marzetta, L. A. , Innovative Features , Clothes Dryers

(Project No. 4461120 , Product Engineering Division)

,

Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., July 25, 1976.

Marzetta, L., Clothes Washers and Dryers (Appliance

Usage Data Project, Product Engineering Division)

,

Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Usage Data Analysis : Clothes Washers

(Appliance Usage Data Project, Product Engineering

Division) , Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Usage Data Analysis : Clothes Dryers

(Appliance Usage Data Project, Product Engineering

Division) , Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Usage Data Analysis : Dishwashers

(Appliance Usage Data Project) Product Engineering

Division) , Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Usage Data Analysis ; Ranges and

Ovens , (Appliance Usage Data Project, Product

Engineering Division) , Unpublished manuscript, the

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Usage Data Analysis : Water Heaters

(Appliance Usage Data Project, Product Engineering

Division) , Unpublished manuscript, the National Bureau

of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1977.

McConnell, R. R. , Tobias, J. R. , and Nelson, L. W.,

"Reducing Energy Consumption During the Cooling

Season," American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and

Air-Conditioninc Engineers , Inc. Journal^, 61-65 (June

1976) . Midwest Research Institute, Energy Efficiency Program

for Appliances (Midwest Research Institute, Kansas

City, Missouri, November 23, 1976).

, Patterns of Energy Use By Electrical

Appliances Study TMidwest Research Institute , Kansas

City, Missouri)

.

P-12
124 .

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

130.

131.

132.

133.

134.

Muller, J. G., The Potential for Energy Savings

through Reductions in Hot Water Consumption (The

Conference on Water Conservation and Sewage Flow

Reduction with Water Saving Devices, Pennsylvania State

University, University Park, Pa., April 9, 1975).

Munger, G. R. , Proposed Rules —Energy Conservation

Program for Appliances , Statement presented by the AirConditioning aiid Refrigeration Institute at the Federal

Energy Administration Hearing, Washington, D.C., June

1, 1977.

Murphy, J. A. , The Homeowner ' s Energy Guide —How to

Beat the Heating Game , Brockston Publishing Co., 1976.

National Association of Home Builders, Insulation

Manual ; Home Apartments (National Association of Home

Builders Research Foundation, Inc., Rockville,

Maryland, September 1971)

, Retrofitting Existing Single-Family Homes

for En^gy Conservation —A Feasibility Study (National

Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, Inc.,

Rockville, Maryland, March 1975) . National Bxireau of Standards, NBS Recommendations

Regarding Final Targets for Kitchen Ranges and Ovens , National Bureau' of Standards,' Washington, D.C.

, "Comparison of Measured and ComputerPredicted Thermal Performance of a Four Bedroom WoodFrame Townhouse,- Bldg . Sci . Ser

57 , April 1975.

, NBSIR 76-1029, 4, 24 (March 1976).

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, NEMA

Manual for Electric Comfort Conditioning (National

Electrical Manufacturers Association, New York, N.Y.,

1974) . Nationwide Consumer Testing Institute , Need Report —

The Living Difference Project , Catalogue No. S59973,

American Gas Association, Arlington, Va.

Newman, D., and Day, D., The American Energy Consumer , Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

P-13
135. Newman, J. 0.,

^ Economical and Efficient Heating

System for Homes , Production Research Report No. 99,

United States Department of Agriculture (Superintendent

of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C., September 1967).

136. A. C. Nielsen Company, Television 76 , A. C. Nielson

Company, North Brook, Illinois, 1976.

137. Northern Natural Gas Company, Residential Appliance

Gas Consumption ; Phase 4 : Lincoln , Nebraska , Northern

Natural Gas Company, Omaha, Nebraska, July 1973.

139. Pauler, C. J., Proposed Energy Consumption Test

Procedure and Sampling for Clothes Dryers , A statement

presented by the Whirlpool Corporation at the Federal

Energy Administration Hearing, Washington, D.C.

140. Phillips, H., Proposed Energy Consumption Test

Procedure and Sampling Plan—Dehumidifiers , A statement

presented by the Association oi Home Appliance

Manufacturers at the Federal Energy Administration

Hearing, Washington, D.C., June 27, 1977.

141. Pierson, R. , Yearly Energy Utilization Rates for

Ranges , A memorandum to E. J. Harris of the Product

Systems Analysis Division, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1977.

142. Pilati, D. A., Room Air-Conditioner Lifetime Cost

Considerations ; Annual Operating -Hours and Efficiency , ORNL-NSF-EP-85 , Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee.

143. Pacific Gas and Electric Company System, MR&S Dept.,

Electric Appliances —Average Annual Use (August 1975)

.

144. The Procter and Gamble Company, Appliances Proposed

Energy Efficiency Improvement Targets , A-letter to the

Executive Communications , Federal Energy

Administration , Washington, D.C., June 10, 1976.

145. , Consumer Research Studies , A letter to W.

H. Walsh, Jr., Federal Energy Administration,

Washington, D.C., September 17, 1976.

146. Reardon, J. P., Proposed Labeling Procedure , A letter

to Sidney Fischler of the Product Systems Analysis

P-14
Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,

D.C., March 7, 1977.

147. Reed, G. L., Proposed Energy Efficiency Improvement

Targets , Statement presented by Auto Flo" Company,

Division of Masco Corporation at the Federal Energy

Administration Hearing, September 14, 1977.

148. Rowe, C. B., Humidifier —Proposed Test Procedure , A

letter to the Executive Communications of the Federal

Energy Administration, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1977.

149. ShcUik, S., Energy in the Home —Changing Your Habits , Cooperative Extension Service, KE407, Purdue

University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

150. Smith, C. B., Efficient Energy Use (Pergamon Press,

Inc., New York, N.Y., 1976).

151. Smith, G. C., The Effect of Automatic Fan vs . Constant

Fan on Temperature and Humidity Control with a

Friedrich Room Air -Conditioner', A letter to S. Fischler

of the Product Systems Analysis Division, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., September 30,

1977.

152. , Manufacturer ' s Role—How Air-Conditioner

Design Offers Energy Conservation Options (Association

of Home Appliance Manufacturers, October 7-8, 1975).

153. Spielvogel, L. G. Inc., Comments on the Proposed Test

Procedures for Furnaces , A letter to the Executive

Commiinications , Federal Energy Administration,

Washington, D.C., September 26, 1977.

154. Statistical Abstract of United States, 97th Edition,

U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1976.

155. , 98th Edition, September 1977.

156. Tansil, J. , Residential Consumption of Electricity ; 1950-1970 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory , Oak Ridge

Tennessee, 1973)

157. The Tappan Company, Comments on Cooking Appliance

Efficiency Improvement Targets , A letter to J. A. Smith

of the Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C.,

August 23, 1977.

P-15
158. , Suininary of Comments on FEA Test

Procedures for Humidifiers / A letter to the Executive

Communications , Federal Energy Administration

r

Washington, D.C., July 19, 1977.

159. Thompson, J. L., Proposed Test Procedures on

Humidifiers , Statements presented by the Carrier

Corporation at the Federal Energy Commission Hearing,

Washington, D.C., July 27, 1977).

160. Walton Laboratories, Humidifier —Proposed Test

Procedure, A letter to the Executive CommTinications of

the Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C.,

July 19, 1977.

161. Weller, B., Oil Equipment Production Data , A letter to

A. Davies of the Product Systems Analysis Division,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.,

December 2, 1977.

162. Werden, R. G., "Weather Data vs. Operating Costs,"

American Society of Heating , Refrigerating and Air - Conditioning Engineers Journal (American Society of

Heating , Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,

Inc., New York, N.Y., October 1964).

163. National Bureau of Standards, Appliance Energy

Efficiencv Improvement Target ror Dishwashers, March

11, 1977.^

164. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Field Study—

Electric Clothes Dryer Energy Consumption , 1971.

165. Maxket Facts, Inc., The Appliance Ownership and Stock

Survey , October 1977.

166. National Bureau of Standards, Test Procedure Review—

Water Heaters , April 21, 1977. —

167. Mutch, J. J., Residential Water Heating : Fuel

Conservation" Economics and Public Policy , Rand

Corporation, May 1974.

163. A. D. Little, Study of Energy Saving Options for

Refrigerators and Water Heaters , May 1978.

P-16
169 . Weizeorick, J. T., A letter to S. Fischler, NBS,

Progress Report on the AHAM Room Air Conditioner Hours

of Operation Program / Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers , August 16/ 1976.

170. Billboard Publications/ Inc./ Merchandising Week / February 24/ 1975.

171. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers/ A letter

from W. H. Blanck/ Jr. to J. E. Harris/ NBS/ Summary of

(Electric Range) Energy Consumption Data/ June 24/

1976.

172. / A letter from W. T. Blanck/ Jr. to J. E.

Harris / NBS , Kitchen Range and Oven Test Procedures / December 7 , 1976

173. / Test Method Development —Energy

Consumption—kWh/year / AHAM Field Test —Family of £/

undated.

174. / Report on Energy Consumption Survey—

Conventional Electric Ovens / Cooking Tops and Ranges / February 24/ 1978.

175. Davies / A. D. and Fechter/ J. V,, Statistics of

Household Microwave Oven Use / National Bureau of

Standards (in review)

176. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE Handbook and Product

Directory—1975 Equipment , 1975.

177. Merchandising, 1976 Statistical and Marketing Report , March 1976.

^

178. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers , ASHRAE Handbook and Product

Directory —1973 Systems , 1973.

179. National Bureau of Standards, Test Procedure Review—

Central Air Conditioners , July 12, 1977.

130. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

Conditioning Engineers, ASHRAE Handbook and Product

Directory—197 0 , 1970.

P-17
181 .

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

Strock, C. , The Decree-Dav—A Fuel Estimating Unit » Heating and Ventilating") March 1954.

American Gas Association, House Heating , 1930.

Department of Energy, "Test Procedures for Water Heaters

*(Final Rule)," Federal Register 43, 70, 48986

(October 19, 1978).

, "Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing

Regarding Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners,

Including Heat Pumos (Proposed Rule) ,

Federal Register

44, 77, 23468-506 (April 19, 1979).

, "Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy,"

Federal Register 44, 125, 37534-5 (June 27, 1979).

, "Test Procedures for Central A.ir Conditioners,

Including Heat Pumps (Pinal Rule) ," Federal Register

44, 249 (December 27, 1979).

P-13
MB&IUA iRCv. 9.7S)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSm 80-1994

2^ fto. 3. Rect{itfi(fs A£C6$siei{ He.

4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE

HOUSESQID APPLIANCE USAGE DATA

5. Publication Date Febnaary 1980

7. AUTHOR(S)

Alan D. Davies; Radolph V. Kelly; Alvin C. Lewis;

n. TnT7P>-H-.r Thp^ore J. Wang

3. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO COMPLETE ADDRESS csrre**. CJtr, Sf-r*. ZiP)

The Department of Jhergy

Washington, D.C. 20545

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

IS. ABSTRACT {A 200-wont or I««o /aeatmi stamtary ai moat significant information. If doeumant inefadaa a significant bibtiographr or

Utarmttsrm sttrray, mantion it hara.) The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires the development of test

procedures for the measuirement of the energy efficiencies and the ccmpiitaticn of

Estimated Annual Operating Costs (EAOC's) of'consuiner products covered by the EPCA.

These products aire refrigerators, refrigerator-freezeirs, dishwashers , clothes dryeirs,

water heaters, roan air conditioners, haie heating equipment, television sets, kitchen

ranges and ovens, clothes washers, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, central air conditioners

and furnaces.

Each test procedure contains one or more factors that are determined by the

consumer and in.clude such items as uses per year, cutdcor and indoor environment,

household operating practices and ground water temperature- This report is a ccmpilaticn of the sources and background for the ccnsuner usage factors contained in the

current test procedures. Unceartainties in these factors are disoissed, and for

selected base cases, the corresponding uncertainties in EACC's are ccnputed. A

substantial bibliography is included.

The purpose of the report is to provide perspective in selecting usage

factors for future study and refinement. The items found to be most in need of refinement wera factors hearing on tempe2e.ture an^i humidity control and on water

heating, both on national and regional bases.

17. KEY WORDS ("j<z to aaaira antriaa; afp/iabaticaf ardart capitaffaa anty tha ffrat latiar of ifta first kay word mtiaaa a propar nmma;

saparatad try saaieoiona)

Appliances; conservation; costs; aneirgy; EPCA; residential; usage

13. AVAILABIUTY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS 21. NO. OF

(THIS REPORT) PRINTED PAGES

r~' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 137

1 Order From Suo. of Doc.. U.S, Government Printing Office, Wasnington, DC

20402, SD Stocx No, 3N003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22, Pnca

Oraer From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Soringfieid, VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED $10.00

USCOMM-OC
r^^5>

mc J^j

y, , 7y.7f4

V;

,

.V

, ,^;p,.

«ex-«8

i./».

*-^'-* ’.^sgQsifcrlm

•'•*

1^ «j9kX JUfid

'/ri^

^

-yXs- -._..»n - xija^x

19 V 19

<i> f ' #r'

xxci .0

rii :

' ’

'.252^iiS22^^

~i •"j*'r ogadt^tl^

ISflt^

185.

»to ui^,| mi

Oi. .<'. 44, i3$', 375;i^¥'

'

i <6i»

^

SbD

-.D.d

r-%1 ^'r;l

*jr£T

54iaW

-;

-Ji u iiMM

lli>^ll»M l»«*'|f» ^Wm4 «m4 8» »H»«T -0»t 'lk> ^ j,

’ ,v«^W'*^- .t^-^

3B#i ?o 3a«*?al6»--«fe Id? a«il«prt

to tsto.^fcyi.-qBjto #cb brut sus-^ooaiplSShi^ jf^oara mif' !!te' ;- ./D53 m!9.

^ benerrXi atotiteq torw««^!!0 ,,U *!Xitai:

«rar£Yb ssKttoXd ^rurf^sMdaib'

^ "'t. j

•,;;• .itj

’

}

esmaltfUnco :&U Jjtcsxsikk. i i.. zhiz^cit:^ 1

«S3 vrf btahT3*wdSj' »ii 5»rf:f Etocnait- Jtog :>ii<^ r<- ^y»'gijr£j:yta» tochrif bns to0hto6,. x'scsani^inc i««iu a# dbcm

wlzggaa m 4I yioqi aidT' .sto-rtciaq'to:? x*d«w »*Kibtf5a^ ,'pai

adf !&i i^i«dncr> rsxtz^ 9i^mj 7xatKJBW,«rl? bos ms^pjCM'-

^sdt Scisi t bwmpafctf? roi fTsssiot^ Mdif'''iU^^

f- *b$^"TtlgSlJO trfB

:|, d#i^ 5bo ij«cq3^["i

bMil

flCttf.* mJbtoei« til a^'itoaqrsirf 'aiJtwpa^t C^S^.iX

to bteo ci »ax ad at toud^r»dif«rtt^%dri^^

•jikM*' .to httt IcotoDO '^IbiJnart im' araq^sfii -ni^

wMuld 'fartV^i;i^t

^

--flp dtodS'

I—

5? f<» M . I>« ^>|«»>, « l««tt **« Ucvvit#^ «i<r«)t^A>'>(l^ MMM,ikit|ik'|M(Mi

^JSSf-y

; JUUJmdiiM atteco'

"Wisnr

< EK^A^ernn^ 'tS^

» V "sprir

00.

33»^i»4aOW

«kI‘?

' WTM 0 MwtMlI, !••> w’ J*^iJ!»rti‘0 M^aBW W*!:©

• i, C»<^*>tiHT^

i /-'

3T 4^

,. ^ 00 .«3^HHIM|I .«pfnO |l»4w«*(l W:;j

'* •MtnO'j

\som!

isri Sgi^lObUOMO uflHi||

i grf .aiTM) Mivi*{ m»0np0i «u«<wui*T mmIIM ra *^

1 .4!M

.'( -’i i mxi