NBS A 1 1 1 2 2 4 7 6 5 2

PUBLICATIONS NATL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C

NBSIR 86-3412 ss»Ko

DOE/NBS Forum on Testing and

Rating Procedures for Consumer

Products

October 2-3, 1985

Robert D. Dikkers, Editor

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Equipment Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

July 1986

QC

100

- U 5 6

86-3412

1986

C. 2

juipment Division

uilding Energy Research and Development

•tment of Energy

n, DC 20585

KBS

RESEARCH

INFORMATION CENTER NBSIR 86-3412

DOE/NBS FORUM ON TESTING AND

RATING PROCEDURES FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

OCTOBER 2-3, 1985

Robert D. Dikkers, Editor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Building Equipment Division

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

July 1986

Prepared for: Building Equipment Division

Office of Building Energy Research and Development

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler. Director
•

•
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements •••••••••• • • • • iv

1 Introduction. 1

2 Heat Pumps and Air Conditioners — David R. Tree

and Joseph A. Pietsch 3

3 Furnaces* Boilers and Household Heaters —

Jack H. Hollingsworth ••••• 10

4 Water Heaters — Robert E. Cook 17

3 Refrigerators* Refrigerator-Freezers and

Freezers — J. Benjamin Horvay 25

6 Summary....... ••••••••••••••••• 29

Appendix A - Agenda A-l

Appendix B - Preliminary List of Technical and Research Issues B-l

Appendix C - Final Registration List C-l

Appendix D - Registration Lists for Concurrent Discussion

Sessions D-l

Appendix E - The Determination of Evaporator Unit Performance

Ratios Required for the Calculation of Mixed

System Ratings — Joseph A. Pietsch E-l

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A special thanks to the following individuals who contributed significantly

to the forum and the preparation of this report: David R. Tree, Joseph A. Pietsch, Jack A. Hollingsworth, Robert E. Cook and J. Benjamin Horvay. The

efforts of the various industry associations (Air-Conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Gas

Appliance Manufacturers Association and Hydronics Institute) in helping to

plan and notify their members about the forum is also greatly appreciated.

Acknowledgement is also made of the following individuals who helped to

plan and actively participated in the forum: Michael J. McCabe and John

Talbott, DOE; and David A. Didion, Esher R. Kweller, James E. Harris and

Robert A. Wise, NBS. Thanks also to Dianna L. Mills for her administrative

support relating to the forum and for typing this report.

iv
1 - INTRODUCTION

1 .1 Background

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)

(Public Law 94-163), as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy

Act (NECPA) (Public Law 95-619) creates the Energy Program for Consumer

Products (Other Than Automobiles). The consumer products subject to this

program (also referred to as "covered products") are: refrigerators and

refrigerator-freezers; freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water

heaters; room air conditioners; home heating equipment; television sets;

kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers and dehumidifiers;

central air conditioners; and furnaces.

Under the Act the program consists essentially of three parts: testing,

labeling and mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards. The Department

of Energy (DOE), in consultation with the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS), is required to establish test procedures for each of the covered

products. The purpose of the test procedures is to provide for test

results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated

annual operating costs of each of the covered products. Test procedures

have been prescribed relating to all products. The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) is required by the Act to prescribe rules governing the

labeling of the covered products. These rules are to require that each

particular model of a covered product bear a label that indicates its

annual operating cost and the range of estimated annual operating costs for

other models of that product. At the present time, there is an FTC rule

requiring labels for the following products: room air conditioners,

furnaces, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters, freezers,

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.

1 .2 Forum Ob jectives

In regard to the testing part of the Energy Program for Consumer Products

mentioned above, DOE and NBS organized and conducted a forum at NBS on October 2-3, 1985. The objectives of this forum were:

(1) To provide a line of communication between test procedure users and

test procedure developers;

(2) To provide an opportunity for participants to present technical and

research issues concerning DOE test procedures that need to be

addressed; and

(3) To assist DOE and NBS in establishing a future agenda for the

development and/or revision of testing and rating procedures.

1 .3 Forum. Qrganig.aiioiL.aad. Format

Based on registration information received prior to the forum, it was

decided to limit the forum discussions to the following consumer products:

o Heat Pumps and Air-Conditioners

o Furnaces, Boilers and Household Heaters

1
o Water Heaters

o Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers.

Accordingly, following a brief general opening session, the forum was

divided into four concurrent sessions covering the above products. In each

of these sessions, opening presentations were made on current and planned

DOE/NBS research activities and potential technical and research issues.*

Detailed discussions were then held in each group to finalize a list of

technical and research issues and to develop recommendations for future

consideration and action by DOE and NBS. A summary of the issues and

recommendations developed were presented at the closing session of the

forum. The various presentations, discussions, conclusions and

recommendations for the four product areas are reviewed in Section 2

through Section 5 of this report. A brief summary of the conclusions and

recommendations is presented in Section 6.

The agenda for the forum is contained in Appendix A and a preliminary list

of technical and research issues which was circulated prior to the forum is

included in Appendix B. A final registration list comprises Appendix C.

Exception: During the opening presentations, the groups on heat pumpt.

and air conditioners and f urnaces/boi 1 er s/ househo Id heaters were

comb ined

2
2 - HEAT PUMPS AND AIR CONDITIONERS

David R. Tree

Purdue University

and

Joseph A. Pietsch

Consultant

2.1 Introduction

During the introductory session (Session II-A) for the heat pump and air

conditioning (HPAC) discussion group,* two presentations were given.

Dr. David A. Didion of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) discussed the

problems and activities of NBS relating to rating of mixed-matched air

conditioning systems. The other presentation by Dr. David R. Tree, Purdue

University, was divided into two parts: The first part discussed new

advances in heat pump and air conditioner (HVAC) design that may not be

covered by the present rating procedure (Fig. 1). The second part

discussed problems or potential problems with the present rating procedure

for present-day equipment (Fig. 2). The main emphasis of the second

session (Session III) was to make sure all issues and related problems were

raised and discussed in an open and frank manner. During the last session

(Session IV), the group focused on trying to prioritize the issues

discussed in the other sessions.

The problems and activities of the HPAC group are divided into three

categories and activities prioritized within each category. The three

categories are: 1) Problems and actions related to the existing rating

procedure; 2) New and/or innovative design of heat pumps and air

conditioners that may not be covered by the present rating procedure; and

3) Problems and activities relating to developing a rating procedure for

mixed-match coil systems that are not covered by a third party

certification program.

Some attempts were made to try to prioritize between categories, but

without much success. The group felt that the top priorities in each

category were important and needed to be solved. The discussion suggested

that most manufacturers considered the rating procedures for mixed-match

coil systems as the number one priority. There are obvious reasons for

this. We are now living with (and have for some time), the problems

associated with using the present rating procedure and still obtaining

"meaningful" results. The problems related to rating of new designs is not

yet here, but the problems of rating mixed-match coils are here and have

been for some time. Many have concerns with the present situation relative

to the rating of mixed-match coil systems.

2 .2 Existing Rating Procedure

During all the discussions about the heat pumps and air conditioners rating

procedure, it was assumed that American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 116, with its continuous

Participants in this discussion group are listed in Appendix D.

3
Figure 1

Advancements in Heat Pump Design*

That May Need Further Research Work

to Develop Rating Standard

Smart Controls

Variable Speed Compressors

More Than One Refrigerant Systems

Multi-Evaporator Systems

External or Engine Driven Heat Pumps

Ground Assist Water Source Heat Pumps

Figure 2

Problems With Ex isting Standard*

That Still Need Attention

Instrumentation:

o How good is good enough?

o Does instrumentation exist that will give accuracy we need?

o Two phase mass flow rate measurements

Calibration Devices:

o Rooms

o Air flow measuring devices

o Mass flow rate of two phase refrigerant

Repeatability

o Closer tolerances

o Standard test stand

Measurements

o Wet coil

o Refrigerant migration during start up and shut down

o Cycle time and rate

Presented by David R. Tree
indoor air flow during compressor off time, would be adopted by DOE. Thus,

those problems related to the dampers in the present rating procedure were

not discussed. This list of problems in order of priority are:

1. Annual hour usage of air conditioning

2. Indoor air flow requirements and correction factors

3. Enhancement factor approach to rating systems

4. Continuous air flow problems

5. Repeatability

6. Wet coil testing 2.2.1

Compressor Operating Hours

The current value used is 1000 full load compressor hours. A recent NBS

study, "A Review of Energy Use Factors for Selected Household Appliances,"

by J. Greenberg, B. Reeder and S. Silberstein, NBSIR 85-3220, August 1985,

which was distributed at the meeting recommends 1150 hours. This report

was challenged by some participants. Some data was presented by one

participant that indicated that improvement in design of air conditioners

may have reduced, not increased, the 1000 full load compressor hours. In

attendance at the meeting were several people who were involved in the

study that recommended the 1000 hours and one NBS staff member who

conducted the present study. It was felt that this issue was of such

importance that a separate ad hoc group was organized to discuss this

problem.

The heat pump-air conditioning group considered this problem to be the

number one issue relating to the present rating procedure and recommended

that NBS, DOE and ARI take whatever actions are needed to solve the

problem.

2.2.2 Indoor Air Flow

In regard to indoor air flow, there were three concerns: a) the sensible

to latent cooling ratio as a result of air flow rate, evaporator size,

evaporator temperature, and the needed ratio due to changes in building

construction (more insulation and less infiltration); b) needed air flow

rate to provide comfort and odor control because of building construction

changes; and c) due to equipment design changes, are the default values of

indoor fan power input and the resulting energy added to the air stream

representative of current design and installation practices?

2.2.3 Enhancement Factors

Since the beginning of the present DOE rating procedures, the question has

always been asked, "Is there a way to get the same information and still

reduce the testing burden?" This question again became the third priority

for the existing standard.

The specific question that the group would like to have answered is: "Is

it possible to conduct only one steady state test (i.e., test A), have a default value for the degradation coefficient, and have 'Enhancement

Factors,' for various devices which increase efficiency?"

5
2.2.4 Continuous Air Flow

ASHRAE Standard 116 requires maintaining air flow over the indoor coil

during the entire cycling test. Some manufacturers are experiencing

problems with this test condition when testing various devices which

prevent refrigerant migration during the compressor off part of the cyclic

test. These devices should increase efficiency but the continuous air flow

test as outlined in ASHRAE Standard 116, does not give these results. This

problem must be investigated further, and if indeed, the present test

procedure does not give credit to energy saving devices, it must be

modified

2.2.5 Repeatability

Whenever a third party certification program is being used, repeatability

of tests becomes a very important item. There were several questions

concerning repeatability raised and discussed. The main ones were:

o Test tolerances

o Equipment tolerances

o Accuracy of air flow rate measuring device.

There are some questions as to the accuracy of the present device used to

measure air flow rates over the coils. It appears that nozzle location

and/or number of nozzle used can affect the results.

It is not new, but the question was raised again at this meeting, "Should

there be a standard indoor test box?" This recommendation was made several

years ago by ETL Testing Laboratories and they even recommended the design

of such a box.

2.2.6 Wet Coil Test

If a reliable cyclic wet coil test could be designed, the two dry coil

tests (C&D) could be replaced by one wet cyclic test. This would reduce

the number of tests and simplify the equipment needed to condition the

indoor test room. Results of efforts to develop such a test outside the

United States are now becoming available in published articles. NBS should

follow these activities.

Two other subjects received some discussion. They were: 1) the ability to

measure two-phase mass rate of flow; and 2) refrigerant migration during

start-up and shut-down of the cyclic test. It was the opinion of this

group that these two topics did not cause any problems with using the

present rating procedure, but that additional knowledge in these areas

would be very useful. The participants encouraged DOE, ASHRAE, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), etc. to provide funds for

such research.

2.3 New Product Innovations

During the discussion sessions, many new product developments were

identified which may require changes or additions to the test procedures.

These developments were then rank-ordered on the expected impact on the

market place from a chronological standpoint. They are:

6
1. systems with variable pumping rate (other than two-speed) compressors;

2. systems with "smart controls" incorporated into the system;

3a(tie) system which combine space conditioning and domestic water

heating

3b(tie) water-source heat pumps with alternative heat sources/sinks (for

example ground assist heat pumps);

3c(tie) multi-evaporator split systems;

6. engine driven heat pumps;

7. systems having zoning capacity incorporated into the product;

8. absorption systems; and

9. multi-refrigerant systems.

All systems listed under 1, 2, and 3 are starting to appear or soon will

appear in the market place. Mr. McCabe stated in the opening session, that

DOE should try to anticipate problems and solve them so that there would be

fewer needs to have "exceptions to the rule." The first five (1, 2, 3a,

3b, and 3c) under new product innovations listed above are excellent

examples of problems DOE needs to consider and have answered before there

is a need for "exceptions to the rule." It is the recommendation of this

group that DOE give high priority to these systems.

It should be pointed out that the ASHRAE 116 will allow testing of multievaporator systems as single zone systems. Zoning was felt to be more of a system (ducting, building design and controls) characteristic than a unit

characteristic and to be outside the scope of the test procedure.

At present, ARI has a standard for rating ground water source heat pumps.

With minor modification this standard could be applied to all types of

water source heat pumps. Thus, it appears that items 1, 2, and 3a are the

items needing the most research.

The group felt that the probability in the near future of needing test

procedures for items 6, 8 and 9 was very small and should not be considered

at this time.

Although the group felt that zoning and multi-evaporator split systems were

adequately dealt with by the present standard, all agreed that additional

research into how these devices affect performance and comfort are needed.

The group strongly recommended that DOE and ASHRAE fund additional research

in these areas.

2.4 Miaed -Matched. Systems

The majority of the time in Session III was spent in discussing mixedmatched system rating procedures. After considerable research in this

matter, NBS ha6 concluded that at present, in order to rate a mixed system.

7
the minimum requirements are:

1) The manufacturer of the mixed evaporator coil to be supplied to

operate with another manufacturer's condensing unit must obtain rating

data of the condensing unit and physical data for the matched

evaporator. In many cases, this will require the mixed evaporator

coil manufacturer to have access to a sample of the matched evaporator

unit. This requirement could be financially burdensome to a small

manufacturer, especially if the matched evaporator units must be

purchased

2) Obtain the following ratios:

a) coil capacity ratio;

b) blower capacity ratio;

c) refrigerant flow ratio; and

d) experience factor ratio for energy saving design or innovations

See Appendix E for further explanation of these ratios.* There are some

energy saving designs such as suction superheat control and off-cycle

refrigerant migration controls that need to be considered in the mixed coil

systems. It is the present thinking of NBS that such devices could be

taken into consideration by allowing experience/ enhancement factors for

these design features.

It is strongly stressed by some of the evaporator coil manufacturers, that

this type of rating procedure would be very costly and in some cases

prohibitively expensive for them.

The prioritized list developed by the HPAC group for mixed-matched coil

systems was:

1) develop methods of rating mixed-matched coil systems based on the

above discussion for air conditioning systems;

2) expand procedure developed in item 1 to heat pumps;

3) develop for air conditioning systems a method for testing and rating

condensing units and evaporator units separately so that combined

ratings comparable to those obtained by the existing rating procedure

could be determined from published rating information of each unit;

and

4) extend concept of item 3 to heat pumps.

Not discussed in any of the sessions but presented to the authors and NBS

staff after the meeting to accomplish items 3 and 4 above was the fol lowing

recommendation. Design a series of standard evaporator units and

* Editor's Note: Also see "Rating Procedure for Mixed Air Source

Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Operating in the Cooling

Mode," Piotr A. Domanski, NBSIR 86-3301, February 1986.

8
condensing units* All condensing units would be rated using the

appropriate standard evaporator unit and all evaporator units would be

rated using the appropriate standard condensing unit* Even though this

proposal was not part of the formal meeting, the authors recommend that DOE

and NBS include this proposal in their considerations.

The formalized procedure for rating mixed coil systems may be limited to

those raters who do not participate in a third party certification program.

It was suggested that if that is the case* the need for procedures

disappears if it were a requirement for all raters to participate in such

program.

2.5 Conclusions

From the discussions at this forum* it can be concluded that for rating of

heat pumps and air conditioners:

1. We have learned to use and live with the present rating procedure for

present-day equipment and only minor problems still exist.

2. New designs and/or innovations in heat pump and air conditioners that

may not be covered by the present rating procedure are or soon will be

appearing on the market place. The two most pressing are variable

speed compressors and "smart controls."

3. The rating of mixed coil systems is the most immediate problem. At

present* it appears that a testing and rating procedure to cover these

systems may not be simple and therefore financially burdensome to coil

manufacturers.

9
3 - FURNACES, BOILERS AND

HOUSEHOLD HEATERS

Jack H. Hollingsworth

Consulting Engineer

3.1 Introduct i on

Two presentations pertaining to furnaces, boilers and household heaters

were given during the introductory session (Session II-A). Mr. Esher R. Kweller, NBS, summarized recent and current pertinent research activities

being conducted at NBS in support of the DOE Appliance Energy Standards

Program. Mr. Jack H. Hollingsworth presented current information

concerning testing and rating procedures for furnaces and boilers which

would serve as a background for the group discussions* during Sessions III

and IV. Mr. Hollingsworth's background remarks are contained in the

following section.

3 .2 Background Remarks

I would like to set the stage for our session this afternoon by first

reviewing the background leading up to where we currently stand on testing

and rating procedures for furnaces and boilers and how that relates to the

overview of technical and research issues we will be discussing.

As you are well aware, DOE initiated through NBS the development of furnace

and boiler test procedures that led to the present DOE rulings.

Paralleling this, with DOE/NBS support, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103 was

developed and issued in 1982, which provided a commercial standard that

could be, and now is, referenced in the federal rulings.

Early on in the development of Standard 103, the Standard Project Committee

(SPC) recognized the need for further research that would take us beyond

the product envelope into the building systems envelope. This prompted

ASHRAE Technical Committee (TC) 6.3 to propose a research project on "Dynamic Seasonal Performance of Forced Warm Air Heating Systems Installed

in Residences." This led to ASHRAE Special Project 43, sponsored jointly

by ASHRAE, DOE and the Gas Research Institute (GRI) and to an award of a contract with Battel le Laboratories three years ago. The objectives of the

project have been to provide information on dynamic and seasonal

performance that would not only form the basis for refinements to existing

test procedures, but also provide inputs to the ASHRAE Handbook on system

performance. While the scope includes the interaction of key system

components as they affect seasonal system efficiency, this initial project

is limited to single zone warm air heating systems incorporating

conventional upflow furnaces, condensing and non-condensing power

combustion furnaces.

Test measurements of energy associated with flue losses, duct losses,

infiltration and building envelope loses have been evaluated in both a single and two-story home. Effects of furnace sizing, stack dampers,

intermittent ignition devices, and thermostat set-back have been evaluated

Participants in this discussion group are listed in Appendix D.

10
in terms of energy requirements. The main thrust has been the development

and field validation of a computer simulation model. It appears the model

is now adequately validated so that a matrix of handbook cases can be

provided to compare energy use for different system configurations and

modes of operation in a prescribed house. The handbook information, and

the computer model should be available to all of us next year.

ASHRAE TC 6.3 again, with DOE and GRI support, is currently proposing an

extension of the comfort heating research program to expand the capability

of the SP 43 computer program. This would include zone control and

extended work on duct losses.

As we address technical and research issues this afternoon, we should keep

in mind there are seasonal efficiency issues dominated by the product

envelope, and conversely, those that are dominated by the building system

envelope. There is the third area where product design strategy for

efficiency improvement is dependent on a proper marriage with the building

system design strategy and mode of operation to be effective. Up to this

point in time, DOE testing and rating procedures have gone a long way

toward quantifying seasonal efficiency related to the first area - the

product envelope. It is a more difficult task to quantify the affects of

building system variables and their inter-relation with the product

envelope. The outputs from the SP43 project will be a good step forward in

this direction.

You received a preliminary list of technical and research issues with the

notice of this forum. The concerns that have been most often expressed to me generally fall into the category of one of the first three issues on the

preliminary list. These are:

1. Should Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) be modified to

account for both the fossil fuel and electrical consumption of

furnaces and boilers?

There are specific proposals addressing this from the Gas Appliance

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and others to which DOE has responded

negatively, but with the understanding that the issue is open for

further consideration. I can add this has been an issue of some

considerable discussion in SPC 103 meetings and needs resolution.

2. Should the annual cost of operation be extended to include system

effects (e.g., multizone operation of the central system); or adjustment factors as being developed under the SP 43 project?

This, together with the first issue is a meaty subject. The

manufacturer of a product that has the potential to measurably reduce

seasonal energy consumption when the product is installed with a system design that takes advantage of that potential looks for upfront credit that can be easily recognized by the consumer. Because

it is site and system specific, it is not easy to give credit without

qualifications.

A similar problem exists, to somewhat lesser degree, with the issue of

energy descriptors accounting for both fossil fuel and electric energy

consumption. Energy cost ratios change with time, and are site

11
specific. The questions become:

Are we technically in the position to define, with reasonable

accuracy, adjustment factors that will account for different system

configurations, sites and modes of operation? If not, what additional

information is needed? And then, how do we present this to the

consumer?

Are we in the position now to give the consumer something other than an AFUE number - a revised rating that accounts for electrical energy

consumption in at least a generalized way that is meaningful to the

consumer - and, force the product designer to give the same attention

to electrical energy consumption as he now gives to fossil fuel

consumption?

3. What DOE/NBS studies, if any, should be conducted to assist the

current ASHRAE activities to develop a test procedure that determines

the efficiency of combination heating and hot water appliances?

There will be a meeting of SPC 124 Friday on this issue. I expect our discussions today should be limited because of that.

In addition to these three primary issues, we will review, as necessary,

current DOE test procedures and related ASHRAE Standard 103 proposed

amendments

I should state here, the currently active SPC 103 revisions committee has,

this past week, presented to the ASHRAE Standards committee a revised

standard which we can anticipate will be issued for open review in the near

future. The proposed new standard includes all DOE amendments adopted in

the March 28, 1984 issue of the Federal Register. Also included on the

agenda are the subjects of vent damper test procedures, current DOE

waivers, and the subject of converting the current DOE Fortran computer

program to Basic language.

3.3 Technical and Research Issues

A summary of the technical and research issues raised in Sessions 111 and

IV and the discussions that resulted are presented in the following

sections.

3.3.1 Energy Efficiency Descriptor

The need for a means of including electric energy consumption as well as fossil fuel in the measure of utilization efficiency was a majority

expression. However, there was no consensus on a method of accomplishing

this. Round table discussions on this issue included the following

considerations:

o GAMA proposed n SEUF" (Seasonal Energy Utilization Factor) descriptor

in lieu of present AFUE descriptor;

o Adverse impacts of changing from the well-established AFUE number to a new rating descriptor;

12
o Retention of AFUE with a modifier to recognize electric energy

consumption; and

o Redesign of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fact sheets to emphasize

total annual energy cost

3*3.2 System Effects

Efficiency rating adjustment factors accounting for effects of system

design variables (e.g., multizone operation) raised the following

discussion items:

o Limitations of providing performance information dependent on installation parameters and consumer use;

o Limitation of DOE testing and rating beyond the appliance envelope;

o Definition of appliance accessories that are part of the appliance

envelope; and

o DOE supported ASHRAE role in research and development of a computer

simulation model to assess the dynamic interactions and performance of

entire heating systems and control strategies*

The group acknowledged that total system design and control strategies can heavily influence energy utilization* However, it was also acknowledged

that appliance testing and rating procedures could not be extended beyond

the inclusion of specified accessories supplied with the appliance by the

manufacturer.

3*3.3 Combination Heating/Water Heating Appliances

In view of the ASHRAE SPC 124 meeting on this specific subject to follow

this forum, discussion was limited and recommendations deferred.

Discussion indicated the FTC fact sheets should clarify that AFUE and

operating cost applies to the space heating function only*

3.3.4 Proposed Test Procedures for Stack Dampers

The proposed DOE tracer gas test method was reviewed and recognized by all

participants as an acceptable and needed improvement.

3.3.5 Fan Time Delay

Revisions to the test procedures to accommodate furnace designs where the

originally specified fixed time delay is not appropriate was acceptable to

all without comment.

3.3.6 Status of ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 103

ASHRAE SPC 103 members present reported the status of proposed amendments,

including the following:

o Incorporates all DOE amendments adopted in the March 28, 1984 Federal

Register;

13
o Incorporates DOE proposed test procedure revisions for the fan time

delay ;

o Incorporates editorial changes based on recommendations made by

Robert Wise, NBS, and

o Does not yet include DOE proposed tracer gas test method for stack

dampers

3.3.7 Direct Heating Equipment

The status of testing and rating procedures was reviewed with specific

attention given to:

o The completeness of current procedures for assigned factors (i.e.,

tables for Dp);

o Extension of procedures for condensing furnaces to include direct

heating appliances.

There was consensus agreement that both of the above items should be on the

DOE/NBS agenda for extension and revision of procedures.

3.3.8 Current Waivers

Following discussion, it was agreed there are no outstanding waivers of

concern, and that waivers are not an issue.

3.3.9 Computer Programs

Use of the current computer programs related to DOE test procedures, and

the issue of conversion of the programs from FORTRAN to BASIC language were discussed. The opinion was expressed by some attendees, without adverse

comment, that the cost of annual fuel consumption portion of the program

was of little value. There was no expression of need to convert from

FORTRAN to BASIC language.

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

As a result of the round table discussions, the group established the

following conclusions and recommendations relating to the furnaces, boilers

and household heaters.

3.4.1 Energy Efficiency Descriptor

It was acknowledged by all that the current AFUE number has short comings

in that it does not recognize electric energy consumption. However, it was recommended that the AFUE number be retained, and that other means of

describing electric energy consumption be explored.

It was further recommended that a proposal be made to FTC to redesign the

fact sheet's format to emphasize total electric and fossil fuel annual

energy consumption cost.

14
3.4.2

System Effects

It was concluded that the DOE testing and rating procedures could not be

extended beyond the appliance envelope* but there is the need to better

define appliance accessories that can be accepted as part of the envelope.

It was further concluded that test procedures are not applicable to system

designs such as zone control where the system performance is user

dependent.

A recommendation was made to record an expression of need for DOE to

continue their support of ASHRAE research projects related to seasonal

performance of central f orced-warm-air heating systems.

3.4.3 Combination Heating/Water Heating Appliances

It was recommended that FTC fact sheets state that AFUE and operating cost

for combination boiler/water heater appliances applies to the space heating

function only.

3.4.4 Test Procedures for Stack Dampers

A recommendation was made that the proposed amendments to ANSI/ ASHRAE

Standard 103 be withheld from presentation to the ASHRAE Standards

Committee until the DOE tracer gas test method for stack dampers is

incorporated in the amendments.

3.4.5 Direct Heating Equipment

In regard to direct heating equipment* it was recommended that: (1) the

testing and rating procedures be examined for completeness of assigned

factors and (2) the testing and rating procedures for condensing furnaces

be extended to include direct heating appliances.

3.4.6 Current Waivers

The group concluded that there are no current waivers of issue.

3.4.7 Computer Programs

It was concluded there is no consensus of need for conversion of programs

from FORTRAN to BASIC language.

3.4.8 DOE/NBS Workshops

A recommendation was made that an expression of need be recorded for

scheduling periodic test methods and procedures workshops (in concert with

industry associations* such as GAMA* ARI* etc.) to educate and update

technical personnel in all areas of involvement.

3.5 Priorities

With reference to the above conclusions and recommendations* the following

priorities are suggested for developing and revising testing and rating

procedures and related items:

15
Eriaxi-ty.

o

o

o

o

Priority,

o

o

1. Test Procedures

Expand procedures to include combination space heating/water

heating equipment* ( DOE/NBS directed)

ASHRAE adoption of DOE proposed stack damper test method.

(ASHRAE SPC 103 directed)

Assigned factors for space heaters (DOE/NBS directed)

Revise condensing type space heaters. (DOE/NBS directed)

2. Energy Descriptor (FTC Labelling)

Revise format of FTC fact sheets to emphasize total energy

consumption. (GAMA directed)

Clarify FTC fact sheets regarding AFUE rating for combination

appliances. (DOE/NBS directed)

16
4 - WATER HEATERS

Robert E. Cook

Consultant

4.1 Introduction

During the opening session on water heaters (Session II-B), presentations

were made by Mr. James E. Harris* NBS, and Mr. Robert E. Cook* Consultant.

Mr. Harris reviewed recent water heater tests conducted at NBS. Mr. Cook

presented a review of critical issues related to water heater testing and

rating procedures (Section 4.2) — many of these issues have been raised as

a result of the proposed DOE rules contained in the February 8* 1984

Federal Register. Following these presentations* there were wide ranging

"give and take" discussions by all participants*. These discussions helped

to refine the main issues (Section 4.3) and establish the conclusions and

recommendations presented in Section 4.4.

4.2 Critical Issues

A summary of the critical issues pertaining to water heater testing and

rating procedures as presented by Mr. Cook is contained in the following

sections

4.2.1 Testing Water Heaters by the Same Procedure

a. The suggested "actual" operating temperature range (58 F - 135 F)

should resolve the test difference provided to accommodate thermal

compensating dip tubes. It should be a satisfactory temperature range

for heat pump water heaters and should assure that other designs* when

tested by a uniform test will reflect actual performance under use

conditions.

b. The proposed simulated use test could apply to any tank type water

heater - or water heater that employs a storage tank. (Tank type

heater recovery mode allows the burner to reach a steady state

performance.) This test requires modification to give meaningful

results for instantaneous type water heaters (boiler or geyser type) as the burner efficiency during short draws must be addressed in this

type of fuel fired water heater.

c. One test should provide comparability between types of heaters.

Inlet* outlet and ambient air temperatures should represent typical

operating conditions:

Present Test Proposed Test

Inlet water

Outlet water

Ambient air

55 F (70 F for test)

135 F (160 F for test)

55 F (75 F for test)

58 F

135 F

65 F

Participants in this discussion are listed in Appendix D.

17
Observe that under present test procedures, the stored water

temperature is 160 F and room ambient is 75 F; a temperature

difference of 85 F. Under the proposed test, the temperatures will be

135 F and 65 F; an air to water temperature difference of 70 F.

Product development objectives would focus on expected operating

conditions, rather than test conditions. For ease of testing, where

needed, alternate temperatures could be permitted and be corrected to

standard by approved methods.

4.2.2 Heat Trap Allowance*

A fixed heat trap allowance misrepresents actual standby heat loss of the

unit. Unrestricted, uninsulated 1/2" pipe on an electric water heater in a standby mode will have the following heat loss:

Horizontal pipe 4.4 watts (15 Btu/H)

Vertical (infinite) 7.0 watts (24 Btu/H)

Typical basement 7.0 watts (24 Btu/H)

Testing water heaters with the heat trap (if any) supplied by the heater

manufacturer would reflect actual performance of the heat trap/heater

combination.

Properly designed and installed heat traps can provide rapid excellent

payback for the consumer. It is recalled that in the 1950's a NEMA

electric water heater was designed with a built-in heat trap - usually

within the jacket.

4.2.3 Average Daily Hot Water Use

The average gallons per day use is presently set at 64.3 gallons. Various

utility and other studies tend to confirm a figure in that range. Changing

only a couple of gallons per day could present confusion with little

offsetting benefit.

Hot water use does vary by

selection scale needed to

perhaps too small a heater?

4.2.4 DOE/NBS Role

In addition to the statutory requirement, how can DOE and NBS interface

with the private sector in standards development?

family size, however. Is some "family use"

prevent selection of a "most efficient" but

*References:

1. Schultz, William W., "Efficiencies of Electric Service Water Heating

Systems: Measurements and Modelling," Purdue University Thesis,

Department of Mechanical Engineering. December 1977.

2. Harris, James E., "Test Results and A Recommended Test Procedure for

Heat Traps," NBSIR 84-2851. March 1984.

3 ETL Testing Laboratories. Consumption comparisons for GAMA.
Present policy encourages cooperation with the private sector in the

development and use of standards*

Some areas of cooperation might be:

o Continue to participate in the voluntary standards project committees.

o Use NBS facilities or contractors to confirm or disprove test concepts

and procedures proposed for voluntary standards.

o Provide feedback to industry on NBS time table relative to projects so that issues and tests that need to be accomplished can be addressed by

others without duplication of effort.

o Develop public domain PC software that will assist in test routines.

4.3 Technical and Research Issues

The various issues which were addressed (and discovered) during the water

heater group discussions are reviewed in following sections.

4.3.1 Standardized Terms

A minor point - yet important to the discussion was the realization by many

that various sections and/or groups use different terms to describe certain

things; or use the same term to describe totally different functions. It was agreed that standardized terms need to be adopted and defined. It was

suggested that the ASHRAE Terminology Committee could address this issue,

then have government and industry adopt those standardized terms.

4.3.2 Average Hot Water Use

Some questions were raised on this issue. There was agreement (with one

exception) that the current figure (64.3 gallons per day) was a valid

average for a household. There is substantial research evidence that

supports the present figure. Any minor adjustment (i.e., 60 gallons per

day) would have little merit.

The principle discussion centered on the problems of:

o Various family sizes and therefore different needs.

o Should the fixed gallonage be replaced with a more flexible number

related to family size?

o Water heater size, especially the need to provide selection criteria

for offpeak water heating applications.

o Is the label information misleading - should the dollar emphasis on the label be replaced with an (Energy Factor) (EF) or some similar

number?

19
4.3.3

Test Temperatures

If all types of water heaters are to be tested with a test that is as uniform as possible so that results from one type of heater to another can

be fairly compared, the tests should be run at temperatures that reflect

actual operating temperatures rather than the elevated temperatures that

were selected for ease of testing.

4.3.4 Present Recovery Test Versus Simulated Use Test

The present recovery test is suitable for most tank type water heaters. It

may not be valid for large mass water heaters, and is not valid for heat

pump water heaters and instantaneous water heaters. It appears that a simulated use test, properly designed, could be applied to all types of

water heaters.

4.3.5 Draw Rate

Should the draw rate remain at the presently prescribed 5 gallons per

minute (GPM) or should it be some other rate?

Draw rates can effect first hour ratings.

Draw rates are more critical for instantaneous water heaters than for

storage type water heaters.

Perhaps 3 GPM would be a suitable figure.

4.3.6 Piping, Insulation, Heat Trap Allowance

If test procedures are to be developed that treat all designs equally and

fairly, and in addition are technically accurate, the piping arrangement

must be adaptable to all types of water heaters without favoring any.

Presently prescribed insulation of piping must be reconsidered and the

merits of fixed allowances for heat traps needs review.

4.3.7 Burden of Test Procedures

The test procedures should be as free of cost burden as possible.

Some public domain PC software to assist in testing might further this

objective.

Any new test procedures need to be phased in over time to prevent

disruption and excess cost to both manufacturers and consumers.

4.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The conclusions and recommendations presented below were adopted with

agreement of all participants in the water heater group discussions.

20
4.4.1

Priorities

Priority conclusions and recommendations established were as follows:

a. The February 8, 1984 Federal Register proposed rule on water heaters

should NOT be implemented!

b. Develop a common test that will fairly and accurately test and compare

- in so far as possible - all types of water heaters.

c. Cost data on the FTC label should be replaced with a measure that is

less misleading and better guides the selection process.

d. There is a need for agreed upon standard terms.

e. DOE/NBS needs to provide support in a number of areas.

Specific comments on these priorities are reviewed in the following

sections

4.4.2 February 8, 1984 Proposed Rule

Implementing the February 8, 1984 proposal would only delay and confuse the

effort to proceed with the major changes recommended by the forum.

4.4.3 Common Test

A common test should include a number of elements (as discussed below).

a. Consider a simulated use test in place of the present recovery test.

It should include a draw schedule with standby. The draw schedule

needs configurations that establish:

o frequency

o time

o rate(s) (GPM)

Perhaps the simulated daily use test should be related to the capacity

of the water heater. Perhaps multiple ratings could be accomplished

or recognized by calculation. Some consideration must be given to the

comparison, test and rating of off-peak water heaters.

b. Test temperatures can be those temperatures in NBSIR 85-3220 with the

proviso that alternate test temperatures can be used and corrected to

standard with a specified correction method and test confirmation.

However, the allowable room temperature range specified in NBSIR 85-

3220 is too great and should be tightened.

c. Test Setup

Piping . The piping should be adaptable to various styles/ types

of water heaters.

21
Consider a modification to the ASHRAE 118P approach to piping

setup for testing. Nipple height, etc. needs specification

(perhaps 6" or 12").

There should be no insulation on piping or relief valve (unless

supplied as part of the water heater by the manufacturer).

The heater should be tested only with accessories (i.e., heat

traps, insulation) furnished as standard by the manufacturer.

No fixed, arbitrary credit (Jc & Jh) should be given. Use actual

test results.

Venting . The existing setup needs modification. Category 1 and

2* (non-positive vent pressure) water heaters can be tested under

the present language.

Category 3 and Category 4* (positive vent pressure) and direct

vent heaters should be tested with the manufacturer's recommended

hookup. Where manufacturers have several recommended alternative

hookups, select that system that provides the greatest standby

loss for the test.

* The categories referenced are those categories in

ANSI/Z21.13 (August, 1985 Review and Comment Text) Part IV.

Temperature Measurement. If all types of water heaters are to be

tested some alternative to the presently prescribed six

thermocouple drop stick must be provided to measure water

temperatures

4.4.4 FTC Label

a. It is suggested that the present emphasis on operating cost ($) that

highlights the present FTC label be replaced with some other measure.

o $ is sometimes confused as cost of the unit.

o $ is not representative of the consumption of different sire

families.

o $ is not the same for various area fuel costs.

o $ changes each time new fuel rates are issued; therefore, old

water heaters in stock are different from later models.

Consider: Use of low - standard - high EF depending on water heater

size or family requirements. The present comparison bar should

continue to reflect the Energy Factor.

b. First hour rating needs review. There is a need for a hot water

capability measure. Review the present 1st hour rating test and

address how it can reflect low or no water volume water heater

performance.

22
Review those types of water heaters where storage acts as a reserve

and the energy source is not available on demand) such as:

o Solar

o Off-peak electric

o Desuperheater water heaters

o Perhaps seme boiler systems

Perhaps scsne combination test must be developed to address the various

types of water heaters (and water heating systems) if we are striving

for a goal to develop a test method and FTC label that will address

"all types" of water heaters*

4.4.5 Standard Definitions

The requirement for a definition of standard terms should not be dismissed.

Part of the early concerns during the forum disappeared when participants

learned what was really intended.

4.4.6 NBS/DOE Role

a. The waiver process needs to be streamlined and speeded up so that new

innovative designs can enter the market without delay or penalty.

Perhaps a voluntary technical group can assist in the review - have

confirming tests performed or witnessed (by NBS or other appropriate

agency) and issue recommendations to DOE. Place a requirement on the

petitioner to supply adequate data so that it can be checked and

verified.

b. Speed-up the rule making procedure.

c. NBS needs to continue their work to develop a suitable simulated use

test that can be used for all types of water heaters.

d. NBS needs to run tests to assess the impact of suggested new/ revised

test procedures or ratings) the time required and the test

reproduc ibility

e. NBS should determine the actual heat loss from insulated versus bare

T&P valves during the test.

f. DOE and NBS technical personnel should continue to participate in the

voluntary standards project committees.

g. The NBS facilities should be used to confirm/disprove test concepts

and procedures proposed for voluntary standards.

h. NBS should provide feedback on what tests they can and cannot do (due

to time and budget constraints) in order to eliminate unnecessary

duplication of effort.

i. Develop public domain software that will assist in test procedures.

It should be written in BASIC language.

23
j. There is a need for an educational video to explain the new test

procedures when adopted.

%(||
5 ~ REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

AND FREEZERS

J. Benjamin Horvay

Consulting Engineer

5*1 Introduction

The introductory session (Session II-C) for the group discussions on

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers was opened with remarks

by Robert A. Wise, NBS. Mr* Wise reviewed a history of pertinent test

procedures, and past and future NBS research activities* Following his

remarks, Mr* J* Benjamin Horvay presented the following questions with

regard to the present DOE test procedures, based on the preliminary list of

technical and research issues (Appendix B) and various inputs from

industry:

o Is there a satisfactory correlation with actual field condition

results?

o Are the various types of refrigerated appliances and subsystems

adequately covered?

o Is the thermocouple calibration, presently specified, too restrictive?

o Test results according to foreign (Japanese) testing standards deviate

significantly from those obtained by U.S. standards, to the

disadvantage of the American products* Should this be of concern?

Mr. Horvay urged the participants not only to identify and verbalize these

and other issues relating to the present test procedures, but also to

attempt to assess the magnitude of the potential changes* This would be

helpful in deciding whether the existing standards should be amended or if

major revisions are needed*

If major revisions are needed to the existing test procedure, the question

is, who should develop these new procedures, and how should this work be

financed? Mr. Horvay suggested the following potential participants:

ASHRAE, AHAM, DOE/NBS* Finally, he discussed the possible objectives and

limitations of any new testing procedures*

The following added concerns were expressed by the participants with regard

to the current test procedure*:

o Do the results properly reflect the response of the appliance to

various usage conditions in the field (such as freezing rate)?

o Does the present test procedure adequately cover the various types of

defrost systems?

o Is the humidity condition of the ambient air correctly reflected in

the response of the various defrost systems?

Participants in this discussion group are listed in Appendix D.

25
o Could an "average" environmental condition be devised to assist in the

establishment of the frequency of defrost initiation?

5.2 Technical and Research Issues

Based on discussions in the opening session, it was quite clear that most

participants considered the val idity (correlation of performance

characteristics as determined under laboratory conditions with actual field

performance) of the present test procedure as the primary issue on hand.

This issue has already confronted ASHRAE Technical Committee 7.1 (Domestic

Refrigerators, Freezers and Water Coolers) resulting in an ASHRAE sponsored

research project at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, titled

"Determination of the Validity of Refrigerator/Freezer Energy Testing".

With concurrence from ASHRAE, Professor William Stewart, a participant in

the Forum, and the principal investigator of the aforementioned research

project, reviewed the status of the work at the University of Missouri.

The present phase is basically the design of an experiment that may be

conducted, in the laboratory and in the field, at 6ome later date. The

data available from published information is insufficient to confirm or to

challenge the validity of the present test procedure.

The participants agreed that the ASHRAE research project is most pertinent

to the question on hand, and that DOE involvement would be desirable.

Furthermore, it was the consensus that one should not consider changes to

the present test procedures until the determination of validity has been

completed •

The next issue discussed was that of determining the effect of defrosting

schemes on the energy consumption of refrigerators. Two alternate

approaches were proposed:

1. Laboratory simulation to determine the effect of defrosting on the

energy consumption during field usage.

2. A standardized field test procedure that could quickly determine the

impact on energy consumption of various design modifications, not only

defrost schemes but also other new innovations that might emerge.

Both of these approaches represent monumental tasks, yet it was the

consensus of the participants, that unless a solution i6 found, test

procedure users, developers and enforcers will be faced with unending

frustrations when trying to introduce or evaluate innovative new designs.

The last issue discussed in considerable detail involved the discrepancy

between U.S. and foreign test procedures and results. Of particular

concern to industry representatives, was the indiscriminate use of energy

consumption data that has been generated by various national test

procedures when comparing one refrigerator to another. Implied in these

comparisons is the technical superiority of the foreign product, while more often than not, it is the result of the difference in test procedure. It was the consensus of the participants that it would behoove DOE/NBS to get

involved in this issue, so that an authoritative assessment of the

differences between the more significant testing standards can be made

available to the public. Of course, if there are genuine technological

innovations incorporated into some of the foreign products, it would be of

26
great benefit to industry and to the consumer if such innovations would be

recognized and made public by this process.

5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

The following three major issues were identified relating to the test

procedures of refrigerated appliances:

1. The validity (i.e.» correlation of performance characteristics as determined under laboratory conditions with actual field performance)

of the present test procedure has been questioned.

2. The present testing procedure does not cover adequately new defrosting

schemes recently introduced.

3. Energy consumption* when determined according to foreign testing

standards* often deviates significantly from that obtained by the U.S.

procedure* more often than not* to the disadvantage of the American

product

Recommendations concerning three issues are outlined below.

Primary Issue: Validity, of the Present Test Procedure

o DOE/NBS review the Research Project: "Determination of the Validity

of Refrigerator/Freezer Energy Testing" sponsored by ASHRAE at the

University of Missouri.

o DOE organize the overall effort to determine test procedure validity

in cooperation with Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(AHAM)* ASHRAE* electric utilities* and all other interested parties

willing to contribute financially* or otherwise.

o Consideration for changes to test procedures* with regards to

correlation* be delayed until the determination of validity is

completed.

o If changes to test procedures are warranted* recommendations for these

changes be spearheaded by AHAM at the appropriate time.

Secondary. Issue; Effect of Defrosting Schemes on the Energy Consumption

of Refrigerators

o DOE/NBS establish a laboratory simulation of the effect of adaptive

defrosting on the energy consumption of refrigerators in field usage

and/ or

o DOE/NBS develop a standardized field test procedure that can readily

determine the impact on energy consumption of various design

modifications.

27
NOTE: It is fully recognized that these tasks are of major magnitude and

will probably involve extensive research, considerable creativity, and

significant funding* Yet, it was the collective opinion of the

participants, no matter how difficult it will be to find a solution, this

problem Kill HQiL away_.

Secondary Issue: Discrepancy Between U.S. and Foreign Test

Procedures and Results

o DOE/NBS coordinate efforts with other interested agencies and

organizations to expeditiously quantify the differences in energy

consumption of refrigerators when tested according to U.S. versus

Japanese and other significant foreign test procedures, so that the

discrepancies can be properly attributed to technological advances

and/or differences in test procedures.

28
6 - SUMMARY

The major conclusions and recommendations developed within each of the

discussion groups are briefly summarized in the following sections* For

additional details and background information* interested readers should

refer to Sections 2 through 5*

6.1 Heat Pumps and Air Conditioners

The rating of mixed-matched coil systems is the most immediate problem

which needs to be addressed. A method for testing and rating condensing

units and compressor units separately should be developed so that combined

ratings comparable to those obtained by the existing rating procedure could

be determined from published rating information of each unit.

In regard to new designs and/or innovations in heat pumps and air

conditioner designs* the two most important areas that may not be covered

by the present rating procedure are: (1) variable speed compressors and

(2) smart controls.

The problems identified with the present testing and rating procedures for

heat pumps and air conditioners are relatively minor.

6.2 Furnaces. Boilers and. Household Heaters

The following items (listed in priority order) were recommended:

Testing and Rating Procedures

o Expand procedures to include combination space heating/water

heating equipment.

o Incorporate the DOE proposed stack damper test method into ASHRAE

Standard 103.

o Revise procedures for direct heating appliances in regard to

assigned factors (tables for Dp) and condensing type units.

Energy Descriptors (FTC Labelling)

o Revise format of FTC fact sheets to emphasize total energy

consumption.

o Clarify FTC fact sheets regarding AFUE rating for combination

appliances

6.3 Water. Heaters

Priority conclusions and recommendations established by the participants in

the water heater discussion group were as follows:

(1) The Federal Register proposed rule on heat pump water heaters

(February 8, 1984) should not be implemented because its

implementation would only delay and confuse the efforts to proceed

with major changes recommended by the forum.

29
( 2 ) A common test that will fairly and accurately test and compare - in so far as possible - all types of water heaters should be developed.

Consideration should be given to a simulated use test in place of the

present recovery test.

(3) Cost data on the FTC label should be replaced with a measure that is

less misleading and better guides the selection process.

(4) There is a need to develop standardized terms. It was suggested that

ASHRAE could address this issue.

(5) DOE/NBS needs to provide support in a number of areas including:

speeding up the waiver process and rule making procedures; continuing

development of a suitable test for all types of water heaters;

continuing participation in voluntary standards project committees,

etc .

6 .4 Refrigerators. Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers

The primary issue identified by the refrigerated appliance discussion group

was the validity (i.e.> correlation of performance characteristics as determined under laboratory conditions with actual field performance) of

the present test procedure. It was recommended that DOE/NBS continue to

follow the ASHRAE project being conducted at the University of Missouri and

DOE should organize an overall effort to determine test procedure validity

in cooperation with AHAM, ASHRAE, electric utilities and all other

interested parties.

Two secondary issues were also identified. The first issue was the effect

of defrosting schemes on the energy consumption of refrigerators. It was recommended that DOE/NBS establish a laboratory simulation of the effect of

adaptive defrosting and develop a standardized field test procedure. The

second issue was the discrepancy between U.S. and foreign test procedures

and results. It was recommended that DOE/NBS coordinate efforts with other

interested agencies and organizations to expeditiously quantify the energy

consumption of refrigerators when tested according to U.S. versus Japanese

and other significant foreign test procedures, so that the discrepancies

can be properly attributed to technological advances and/or differences in

test procedures.

6.3 Future. PQE/HB-S-lfarkshppfi

A recommendation was made that DOE/NBS should consider scheduling (in

concert with industry associations such as GAMA, ARI, etc.) periodic

workshops on testing and rating procedures in order to educate and update

technical personnel in all areas of involvement. The need for an educational video to explain new test procedures when adopted was also

identified

30
Appendix A

DOE/ NBS FORUM

ON

TESTING AND RATING PROCEDURES

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

October 2-3 , 1985

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland

October 2. 1985 (Wednesday)

8:30 a. in. Registration & Coffee (Lecture Room A, Administration Bldg.)

SESS.XQH.1.

(Lecture Room A)

Robert D. Dikkers, Forum Chairman

Croup Leader, Combustion Equipment

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology, NBS

9:00 a.m. Welcome Richard N. Wright, Director

Center for Building Technology, NBS

9:10 a.m. Forum Objectives Michael J. McCabe, Chief

Test and Evaluation Branch

Building Equipment Division

Office of Building Energy R&D

Department of Energy

9:25 a.m. Break

SESSIOH II-A

(Lecture Room A)

9:30 a.m. Test Procedures for Heat Pump

o Current and Planned

Research

o Technical and Research

Issues

o Discussion

and Air Conditioners

David A. Did ion. Group Leader

Thermal Machinery

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology, NBS

David R. Tree

Professor, Mechanical Engineering

Ray W. Herrick Laboratories

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN

A-l
10:40 a.m Break

11:00 a.m.

9:45 a.m.

9:45 a.m.

Test Procedures for Furnaces , Boilers and Household Heaters

o Current and Planned

Research

o Technical and Research

Issues

o Discussion

Esher R. Kweller

Combustion Equipment Group

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology, NBS

Jack H. Hollingsworth

Consulting Engineer

South Laguna, CA

SESSION II-B

(Room B157 , Bldg. 225)

Test Procedures for Water Heaters

o Current and Planned

Research

o Technical and Research

Issues

o Discussion

James E. Harris

Combustion Equipment Group

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology, NBS

Robert E. Cook

Consultant

Kankakee, IL

session n=fi

(Room B221, Bldg. 226)

Test Procedures for Refrigerators, Ref r igerator-f reezers and

Freezers

o Current and Planned

Research

o Technical and Research

Issues

o Discussion

Robert A. Wise

Combustion Equipment Group

Building Equipment Division

Center for Building Technology, NBS

J. Benjamin Horvay, P.E.

Consulting Engineer

Louisville, KY

12:15 p.m LUNCH (on your own) NBS Cafeteria
SESSION III

(Concurrent Sessions for discussion

of technical and research issues)

1:30 p.m. o Furnaces, Boilers and Room A340, Bldg. 220

Household Heaters

o Heat Pumps and Air Lecture Room A, Admin. Bldg

Conditioners

o Water Heaters Room B157, Bldg. 225

o Refrigerators, Refrigerator- RoomB221, Bldg. 226

freezers and Freezers

3:00 p.m. Break

3:20 p.m. Concurrent Discussion Sessions (continued)

5:00 p.m. Adjournment

5:15 p.m. Bus to Quality Inn (Administration Bldg.)

October 3 . 1985 (Tharsdav)

8:30 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

SESSION IV

(Concurrent discussion sessions

to prioritize technical and

research issues)

o Furnaces, Boilers and Roam A340, Bldg. 220

Household Heaters

o Heat Pumps and Air Lecture Room A, Admin. Bldg

Conditioners

o Water Heaters Dining Room C, Admin. Bldg.

o Refrigerator, Refrigerator- Dining Room A, Admin. Bldg,

freezers, and Freezers

Coffee Break NBS Cafeteria

SESSION Y

(Lecture Room A, Admin. Bldg.)

Robert D. Dikkers, Forum Chairman

10:30 a.m. Reports on Technical and Research Issues for Various Products

o Furnaces, Boilers and Jack H. Hollingsworth

Household Heaters

A-3
o Heat Pumps and Air

Conditioners

David R. Tree

o Water Heaters Robert E. Cock

o Refrigerators/Freezers J. Benjamin Horvay

12 noon C one lud ing Rema rk

Michael J. McCabe, DOE

12:15 p.m. Adjournment

1:30 p.m.

to

3:30 p.m.

Optional Tours of MBS Thermal

Machinery Laboratories

(Building 226) and Combustion

Equipment Laboratories

(Building 202)

( Individuals interested in

tour, should sign up at

registration desk by

10:30 a.m., October 3)

A-4
Append ix B

Preliminary List of

Technical and Research Issues

to be discussed at the

DOE/NBS Forum on Testing and Rating Procedures

for Consumer Products

October 2-3, 1985

I* Furnaces and Boilers

1* Should AFUE be modified to account for both the fossil fuel and

electrical consumption of furnaces and boilers?

2* Should the annual cost of operation be extended to include system

effects (e.g«, multizone operation of the central system;

integrated appliances; adjustment factors as being developed by

Battelle Laboratory)?

3* What DOE/NBS studies, if any, should be conducted to assist the

current ASHRAE activities to develop a test procedure that

determines the efficiency of combination heating and hot water

appliances?

4. Review of current DOE test procedures including:

a. tracer gas test method for stack dampers;

b. revision of fan delay time;

c. status of ASHRAE Standard 103 amendments*

5. Should the current FORTRAN computer programs relating to the DOE

test procedures be rewritten in the BASIC language?

II. Household Heaters (other than furnaces and boilers)

1* Is the simplified AFUE rating method adequate for newer high

efficiency products?

2* Should current DOE test procedures be revised to include

provisions for condensing heaters?

3. Review of current work to develop test procedures for catalytic

heaters (i.e., provisions for unreacted fuel).

III. Heat Pumps and Air Conditioners

1. Evaporator coil testing and/or rating for mix-match air

conditioners.

a. Are the current catalogues (e.g., Bohn, HcQuay, etc.)

consistent with each other and representative of other

manufacturer's coils?

B-l
b. Is testing of individual coil design essential or is

theoretical prediction possible?

c. Can existing test procedures be simplified for comparative

results only (i.e., Qmix/Qmatch)?

d. How do the enhanced surfaces effect this overall rating

problem?

2. What is the impact of expansion devices on mix-match coil

ratings?

a. Interchangeable devices (i.e., match coil has 1XV and mixed

has cap tube).

b. Device in series (e.g., orifice ahead of high pressure

distributor and multiple parallel cap tubes downstream).

3. Is heat pump mix-match test and rating procedure necessary? If

so, what are its unique problems?

4. Should mix-match have limits on the capacity ratio range for

reliability purposes?

5. Should there be a rating procedure for the following:

a. Zoning of multi-evaporator system?

b. Heat pump/hot water integrated system?

c. Variable speed?

6. Should there be a humidity criteria for air conditioner testing

in general (i.e., new fast responding humidity sensors have been

developed)?

7. Should a wet coil cycle test be considered to simplify the air

conditioning test procedure (i.e., the Japanese are supposedly

developing one)?

8. Central Air Conditioners - Annual Hours of Use. The current

value used is 1000 full load compressor hours. A recent NBS study

recommends 1150 hours. What should be done to confirm this value

or determine a more representative value?

IV. Water Heaters

1. What provisions should be included to allow for efficiency and

energy consumption comparisons of all types of water heaters at

different usage rates (i.e., models designed for ins ta 1 1 a t ions

requiring more than 64.3 gallons of hot water per day are presently penalized by the energy factor calculation)?

2. Should piping and temperature/pressure relief valve be insulated

during testing?

B-2
3. Are revisions needed for the recovery efficiency testing of high

mass water heaters?

4. Should the current 90° temperature rise specified for water

heating testing be revised? Should the actual temperature rise

be used in the energy factor calculation?

5. What should be done to determine a more representative daily hot

water usage value?

6. Should procedures be developed to permit all water heaters to be

tested in the same manner insofar as practical or possible?

7. Review of current work to develop test methods for residential

instantaneous water heaters.

8. Should DOE/NBS develop computer software for water heater

efficiency testing?

V. Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers

1 „ Test procedure validity.

a. Is the present correlation factor of 1.0 for all units

except freezers an acceptable number?

b. Should there be other classes with other correlation

factors?

c. Should there be other classes that have modified test

methods?

d. Should the test method be changed to provide better

correlation with actual field conditions results?

e. Should field testing be initiated to provide the data needed

to resolve these questions and again to confirm the adequacy

any proposed new test procedure?

f. Is the thermocouple calibration presently specified too

restrictive?

g. Participation of ASHRAE, AHAM, DOE, and NB S in the

resolution of the above questions?

2. Foreign test procedures.

a. Should test results resulting from the use of foreign test

procedures be compared to DOE results to evaluate the

possibilities of improving uniformity of testing

requirements?

3. Adaptive defrost controls.

a. Will adaptive control designs inherently provide for

external initiation of a defrost period?

B-3
b. Should a water vapor frost source test be evaluated for

testing ADC and perhaps other types of defrost control

designs?

c. How extensive does a field test need to be to evaluate an ADC correlation factor?

B-4
Appendix C

FINAL REGISTRATION LIST

DOE/NBS FORUM

ON

TESTING AND RATING PROCEDURES

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

October 2-3, 1985

Mr. David R. Abrey

New York State Energy Office

2 Rockefeller Plaza

Albany, NY 12223

518/473-4879

Mr. Charles Adams

Lennox Industries, Inc.

1600 Metrocrest

Carrollton, TX 75006

214/245-2525

Mr. Stephan P. Amicone

New Yorker Steel Boiler Co.

Route 309

Colmar, PA 18915

215/822-0114

Dr. Swiki Anderson

Swiki Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Phillips Industries Inc.

1516 Shiloh

Bryan, TX 77803

409/779-6068

Mr. Edward Baily

Carrier Corporation

P.0. Box 4800

Syracuse, NY 13221

315/433-4737

Mr. John Batey

Brookhaven National Laboratory

6100 Empire State Building

New York, NY 10001

212/564-5800

Mr. Sam Beach

Chief Engineer

Greenville Products

Division of White Consolidated

635 W. Charles Street

Greenville, MI 48838

616/754-7131

C-l
Mr. Edward Becker

Amana Refrigeration, Inc

Am an a, I A 52204

319/622-2163

Mr. Joseph L. Behr

Alco Controls Division

P.0. Box 12700

St. Louis, MO 63141

314/569-4541

Mr. Valter H. Blanck, Jr

AHAM

20 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312/984-5841

Mr. John C. Bock

Bock Water Heaters

110 S. Dickinson Street

Madison, WI 53704

608/257-2225

Mr. R. H. Bohman

Amana Refrigeration, Inc

Amana, IA 52204

319/622-2163

Mr. W. J. Bowen

Trane Company

6200 Troup Hy

Tyler, TX 75711

214/581-3356

Mr. Ralph S. Bryant

Heil-Quaker Corporation

1136 Heil-Quaker Blvd.

P.0. Box 3005

Lavergne, TN 37086-1985

615/793-0450

Mr. Paul Buckley

Lennox Industries, Inc.

1600 Metrocrest

Carrollton, TX 75006

214/245-2525
Mr. D. J. Canclini

Rheero Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 6444

Fort Smith) AR 72906-0444

501/646-4311

Mr. Roger Carl one

Virginia KMP Corporation

4100 Platinum Way

Dallas, TX 75237

214/330-7731

Mr. A. R. Carnevale

Brad ford -White Corporation

200 Lafayette Street

Middleville, MI 49333

616/795-3364

Mr. Bruce Cleveland

Duo th erm

508 Poplar

LaGrange, IN 46761

219/463-7602

Mr. Robert E. Cook

1435 Budd Blvd.

Kankakee, IL 60901

815/932-2257

Mr. J. L. Cox

Rheem Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 6444

Fort Smith, AR 72906-0444

501/646-4311

Ms. Marie E. Dasher

Whirlpool Corporation

Highway 41 North

Evansville, IN 47727

812/426-4673

Mr . Pale Dassler

Comfortmaker , Synd e rGeneral Corporation

401 Randolph Street

Red Bud, IL 62278

618/282-6262

C-3
Mr* Paul F. Davis

The Williamson Company

3500 Madison Road

Cincinnati, OH 45209

513/731-1343

Mr. R. Denny

ARI

Suite 600

1501 Wilson Blvd*

Arlington, VA 22209

703/524-8800

Mr* Trvin L* Derks

Bard Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 607

Bryan, OH 43506

419/636-4127

Dr. David A* Didion

Group Leader

National Bureau of Standards

B 1 2 2 , Building 226

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2994

Mr. Robert D. Dikkers

Group Leader

National Bureau of Standards

Building 226, Room B320

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3285

Mr • Peter Doman ski

Na ti onal Bureau of S

Ro om B 1 24 , Bldg. 266

Ga it hersburg, MD 208

301/ 921-3532

Mr • Gordon D. Du f fy

A-c. Heating , & Ref.

P. 0 . Box 2600

Tr oy , MI 48007

31 3/ 362-3700

News

C-4
Mr. Donald R. Dupraa

Williams Furnace Company

225 Acacia Street

Colton, CA 92324

714/825-0993

Mr. Phil Fairchild

Electric Power Research Inst.

3412 Hillview Avenue

P.0. Box 10412

Palo Alto, CA 94303

Mr. George C. Fanelli

Ford Products Corporation

Ford Products Road

Valley Cottage, NY 10989

914/758-8282

Mr. Robert D. Fischer

Battelle

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

614/424-5326

Mr. Randy Forristal

Borg Warner

5005 Interstate Drive

Norman, OK 73069

Mr. Richard Fort

AGA Laboratories

8501 East Pleasant Valley Road

Cleveland, OH 44131

216/524-4990

Mr. Howard Geller

Associate Director

ACEEE

#535

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036

202/429-8873

Prof. Victor W. Goldschmidt

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN 47907

317/494-2132

C-5
Mr. Dirk Granberg

A. 0. Smith Co

Suite 600

10767 Gateway West

El Paso, TX 79935

915/595-1011

Mr. Joseph Greenberg

National Bureau of Standards

Building 226, Room B320

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3285

Mr. Richard Greenhaus

Consumers Union

256 Washington Street

Mt. Vernon, NY 10553

914/667-9400

Mr. Russ Griffith

Copeland Corporation

Campbell Road

Sidney, OH 45365

513/498-3579

Mr. Wilbur L. Haag, Jr.

Rheem Mfg. Company

7600 S. Kedzie Avenue

Chicago, IL 60652

312/471-7825

Mr. James G. Hammond

Tecumseh Products Company

Compressor Manufacturers

100 E. Patterson Street

Tecumseh, MI 49286

517/423-8692

Mr. Richard J. Hanna

Bard Manufacturing Company

P.O. Box 607

Bryan, OH 43506

419/636-4127

Mr. James E. Harris

National Bureau of Standards

Building 202, Room 149

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3304

C-6
Mr. Richard B. Harrison

Whirlpool Corporation

Highway 41 North

Evansville, IN 47727

812/426-4630

Mr. Charles A. Hastings

American Standard Inc.

Suite 408

2020 14th Street, North

Arlington, VA 22201

703/525-4015

Mr. Thomas L. Hildreth

Magic Chef Air Conditioning

851 West Third Avenue

Columbus, OH 43212

614/294-3547

Dr. James E. Hill

Division Chief

National Bureau of Standards

Building 226, Room 306

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3465

Mr. Adam W. Hinge

New York State Energy Office

2 Rockefeller Plaza

Albany, NY 12223

518/473-4879

Mr. Jack H. Hollingsworth

22902 Via Cordova

South Laguna, CA 92677

714/499-2498

Ms. Sally Hooks

Edison Electric Institute

1111 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036-3691

202/828-7510

Mr. Byron Horak

ETL Testing Labs.

Industrial Park

Cortland, NY 13045

607/753-6711

C-7
Mr. J. Benjamin Horvay

Consulting Engineer

613 Indian Ridge Road

Louisville, KY 40207

502/897-0836

Mr. George W. Hurl

The Coleman Company

3110 North Me ad

Wichita, Kansas 67219

316/832-6542

Mr. Donald L. Hussong

Consolidated Industries Corp.

800 Sagamore Parkway South

P.0. Box 7800

Lafayette, IN 47903

317/447-1194

Mr. Ron Hutchison

Locke Stove Company

127 West 10th Street

Kansas City, MO 64105

816/421-1650

Mr . Sad ik Imral

Intertherm, Incorporated

3345 Morganford Road

St. Louis, MO 63116

314/894-1829

Mr. Frank E. Jakob

Ba t tel le

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

614/424-5326

Mr. Robert W. Johnson

Whirlpool Corporation

Highway 41 North

Evansville, IN 47727

81 2/426-4610

Mr. Nick Johnson

Williams Furnace Company

225 Acacia Street

Colton, CA 92324

714/825-0993

C-8
Mr. Gary K. Jones

AIRMAX, Incorporated

P.0. Box 159

Gilmer, TX 75644

214/843-5666

Mr. Theodore Kapus

Department of Energy

Room GF217

Washington, DC 20585

202/252-9389

Mr. Esher R. Kweller

National Bureau of Standards

Building 226, Room B320

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-2627

Mr. Joseph A. Lane

Amtrol Incorporated

1400 Division Road

West Warwick, RI 02893

401/884-6300

Mr. J. P. Langmead

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association

1901 North Moore Street

Arlington, VA 22209

703/525-9565

Mr. Eric Lannes

Hoyt Heater Company

P.0. Box 60129

Reno, NV 89506

702/972-3680

Mr. Peter W. Likes

Huesmann Corporation

12999 St. Charles Rock Road

Bridgeton, MO 63044

314/291 -2000

Mr. Danny C. Lim

Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

202/252-9130

C-9
Mr. Robert M. Little

Tampa Electric Company

P.0. Box 111

Tampa, FL 33601-0111

813/228-1619

Mr. Bruce R. Maike

Magic Chef Air Conditioning

851 West Third Avenue

Columbus, OH 43212

614/294-3547

Mr. John D. Marran

Energy Kinetics, Incorporated

P . 0 . Box 407

B e rna rd svi 1 1 e , NJ 07 924

Mr. Karl W. Mayer

Burnham Corporation

Hydronics Division

P.0. Box 3079

Lancaster, PA 17604

717/393-31 81

Mr. Donald L. Mays

Consumers Union

256 Washington Street

Mount Vernon, NY 10553

914/667-9400

Mr. Michael J. McCabe

Department of Energy

Room GF217

Washington, DC 20585

202/252-9127

Mr. Bruce McCowan

Canadian Gas Association

55 Scarsdale Road

Ontario Canada M3B 2R3

416/447-6465

C-10
Mr. Peter Miller

Natural Resources Defense Council

25 Kearny Street

San Francisco, CA 94108

Mr. Marvin Muchmore

Red T Coil

5004 South Street

Nacogdoches, TX 75961

409/560-3553

Mr. Bill Mulroy

National Bureau of Standards

Room B 1 24 , Bldg. 226

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3532

Mr. Melvin J. Myers

Director of Engineering

Peerless Heater Company

Div. of Peerless Industries, Inc.

Spring & Schaeffer Streets

Boyertown PA 19512

215/367-2153

Mr. James R. Nanni

Hyd ro therm

Rockland Avenue

Northvale, NJ 07647

201/768-5500

Mr. Robert Napp

Borg Warner

5005 Interstate Drive

Norman, OK 73069

Ms. Beverly Kim Naylor

GAMA

1901 North Moore Street

Arlington, VA 22209

703/525-9565

Mr. Lome Nelson

Honey we 1

1985 Douglas Drive

Golden Valley, MN 55422

612/542-6743

C-ll
Mr. R. W. Newell

Rheem Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 6444

Fort Smith, AR 72906-0444

501/646-4311

Mr. Edwin A. Nordstrom

AMTROL Incorporated

14000 Division Road

West Warwick, RI 02893

401/884-6300

Mr. Steve R. Petersen

National Bureau of Standards

B 1 20 , Poly.

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3701

Mr. H. M. Pham

Trane Company

6200 Troup Hy

Tyler, TX 75711

214/581-3356

Mr. Herbert Phillips

Director of Engineering

ARI

Suite 600

1501 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22209

703/524-8800

Mr. Joseph A. Pietsch

4319 Bobbitt Drive

Dallas, TX 75229

214/350-8209

Mr. Frank J. Powell

National Bureau of Standards

B 2 20 , Building 226

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3637

Mr. W. Glenn Pracejus

The Williamson Company

3500 Madison Road

Cincinnati, OH 45209

513/731-1343

C-12
Mr. Fernando Preto

Energy, Mines & Resources Canada

555 Booth Street

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G1

613/ 9 96 -4570 -X 182

Mr. William F. Raleigh

Teledyne Laars

13230 Saticoy Street

P.0. Box 3911

No. Hollywood, CA 91605

818/765-2277 X272

Mr. James A. Ranfone

GAMA

1901 North Moore Street

Arlington, VA 22209

703/525-9565

Mr. Robert W. Rankin

American Gas Association Laboratories

8501 E. Pleasant Valley Road

Independence, OH 44131

216/524-4990

Mr. Allan J. Reifel

Intertherm, Incorporated

3345 Morganford Road

St. Louis, MO 63116

314/771-2410

Mr • C. Keith Ric e Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Building 9102-1

P.0. Box Y

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

615/574-2016

Mr . F . L . Ri va rd

Greenville Products

Div. of White Consolidated

635 W. Charles Street

Greenville, MI 48838

616/754-7131

Mr. Russ Sasnett

General Electric

Building 3, Room 220

Appliance Park

Louisville, KY 40225

502/452-3261

C-13
Mr* Roger Sheridan

AGA Labs.

8501 E. Pleasant Valley Road

Cleveland, OH 44131

216/524-4990

Mr. Gary L. Sirois

Project Engineer

Peerless Heater Company

Division of Peerless Industries,

Spring & Schaeffer Streets

Boyertown, PA 19512

215/367-2153

Mr. Donald B. Smith

First Company

8273 Moberly Lane

Dallas, TX 75227

214/388-5751

Ms. Cyndy Snov

General Manager

AIRMAX, Incorporated

P.O. Box 159

Gilmer, TX 75644

Mr. Werner Specht

Rezpor

McKinley Avenue

Mercer, PA 16137

412/662-4400

Mr. Frank A. Stanonik

GAMA

1901 North Moore Street

Arlington, VA 22209

703/525-9565

Mr. Terry Statt

Department of Energy

Ro om GF 217

Washington, DC 20585

202/252-9142

Dr. Bill Stewart

Univ. of Missouri - Kansas City

Truman Campus

Independence, MO 64050

816/254-3663

Inc •

C-14
Mr. Erwin H. Stras semeyer

Empire Comfort Systems

P.0. Box 529

Belleville, IL 62222

618/233-7420

Mr. Gerry Sturgeon

General Electric

Building 3, Room 220

Appliance Park

Louisville, KY 40225

502/452-3261

Mr. Bodh R. Subherwal

BR Laboratories, Inc.

15542 Computer Lane

P.0. Box 1249

Huntington Beach, CA 92647

714/891-0206

Mr. Frank Sucbomel

A.O. Smith Co.

Suite 600

10767 Gateway West

El Paso, TX 79935

915/595-1011

Mr • John Talbott

Department of Energy

Room GF217

Washington, DC 20585

202/252-9127

Mr. Stan Tomlinson

Heil-Quaker Corporation

1136 Heil-Quaker Blvd.

P.O. Box 3005

Lavergne, TN 37086-1985

615/793-0450

Prof. David R. Tree

Purdue University

The Ray W. Herrick Laboratories

West Lafayette, IN 47907

317/494-5694

C-15
Mr. George W. Ullrich

Audi Company

2100 North Central Avenue

Fort Lee, NJ 07024

201/585-9362

Mr. Robert "Dutch" Uselton

RB Uselton Engr. Co.

P.0. Box 855

Lancaster, TX 75146

214/227-4509

Mr. Otto Vago

State Industries, Inc.

By Pass Road

Ashland City, TN 37015

615/792-4371

Mr. James Vaughn, Jr.

Vaughn Mf g . Corp.

386 Elm Street

P.0. Box 431

Salisbury, MA 01950

617/462-6683

Mr. J. J. Verderber, Jr.

Rheem Manufacturing Company

P.0. Box 6444

Fort Smith, AR 72906-4311

501/646-4311

Mr. Bernie Warning

I EC

5000 S.W. 7th Street

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

405/947-7666

Mr. Rob Watson

Natural Resources Defense Council

25 Kearny Street

San Francisco, CA 94108

Mr. John T. Weizeorick

AHAM

20 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312/984-5842

C-16
Mr . E. L. West

B r ad f ord -Wh i t e Corporation

200 Lafayette Street

Mid dleville, MI 49333

616/795-3364

Mr. Thomas Wetherington

Florida Power Corporation

P.0. Box 14042

St. Petersburg, FL 33733

813/866-5660

Mr. Larry Wethje

ETL Testing Labs.

Industrial Park

Cortland, NY 13045

607/753-6711

Mr. John R. Williams

AMF/Paragon Elect. Co.

606 Parkway Blvd.

P.0. Box 28

Two Rivers, WI 54241

414/793-1161

Mr. Robert A. Wise

National Bureau of Standards

Building 202, Room 149

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3304

Mr. Michael W. Woodford

ARI

Suite 600

1501 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22209

703/524-8800

Mr. John I. Woodworth

Hydronics Institute

35 Russo PI.

P.0. Box 218

Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922

201/464-8200

C-17
Dr. Richard N. Wright

Direc tor

National Bureau of Standards

Building 226, Room B250

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/921-3377

Mr. R. E. Ziebol

Trane Company

6200 Troup Hy

Tyler, TX 75711

214/581 -3356

C-18
Appendix D

List

I. Heat Pump s and Air

Name

David Tree (Moderator)

David Did ion

Swiki Anderson

Ted Baily

Joseph L. Behr

Ralph S. Bryant

Paul K. Buckley

Dan Cane 1 ini

Roger Carlone

Jimmy Cox

Richard Denny

Irvin Derks

Peter Domanski

Phil D. Fairchild

R. C. Forristall

Victor Goldschmidt

Russ Griffith

Jim Hammond

Charles Hastings

Tom Hildreth

Byron Horak

George W. Hurl

Sadik Imral

Frank Jakob

Nick Johnson

Gary K. Jones

Peter W. Likes

Marvin R. Muchmore

Bill Mulroy

Bob Napp

Lome Nelson

Robert Newell

Hung M. Pham

Herb Phillips

Joseph A. Pietsch

Glenn Pracejus

Keith Rice

Don Smith

Cindy Snow

Terry Statt

Dutch Uselton

Bemie Warning

Mike Woodford

R. E. Ziebol

of Participants in Various Forum

Discussion Sessions

Conditioners

Organization

Purdue University

NBS

Phillips Industries Inc.

Carrier Corporation

Alco Controls

Heil-Quaker Corporation

Lennox Industries

Rheem A/C Division

Virginia KMP

Rheem Manufacturing Company

ARI

Bard Manufacturing

NBS

EPRI

Borg Warner

Herrick Laboratories

Copeland Corporation

Tecumseh Products

American Standard Incorporated

Magic Chef Air Conditioning

ETL Testing Labs

The Coleman Company

Intertherm Incorporated

Battelle Labs

Williams Furnace

Airmax, Incorporated

Hussmann Corporation

Red T Coil

NBS

Borg Warner

Honeywell

Rheem

Trane Company

ARI

Pietsch Engineering

The Williamson Company

ORNL

First Company

Airmax, Incorporated

DOE

RB Uselton Eng. /Aspen

I EC

ARI

Trane Company

D-l
II. Furnaces. Boilers and Household Heaters

Name Organization

Jack Hollingsworth (Moderator)

Esher Kweller

Consultant

NBS

Charles Adams

Steve Amicone

John Batey

Ed Becker

V?. J. Bowen

Bruce Cleveland

Paul F . Davis

Don Dupras

Robert D. Fischer

Richard Fort

Dick Hanna

Adam Hinge

Sally Hooks

Don Hussong

Ron Hutchison

Joseph Lane

Danny C. Lim

Bruce Maike

John Marraw

Karl W. Mayer

D. Bruce McCowan

M. J. Myers

Jim Nanni

Kim Naylor

Fernando Preto

William F. Raleigh

Jim Ranfone

Allan Reife

Roger Sheridan

Gary Sirois

Werner Specht

Erwin Stras semeyer

Frank Sue home

John M. Talbott

Stan Tomlinson

Jacob J. Verderber, Jr.

John Woodworth

III. Water Heaters

Lennox Ind

New Yorker Steel Boiler Company

Steven Winter Associates

Amana Refrigeration

Trane Company

Duo Therm

Williamson Company

Williams Furnace

Battelle-Columbus Labs

American Gas Association

Bard Manufacturing Company

NY State Energy Office

EE I Consolidated Industries Corporation

LSC/Locke Stove

Amtrol Incorporated

U.S. DOE

Magic Chef

Energy Kinetics Incorporated

Burnham Corporation

Canadian Gas Association

Purlen Heater Company

Hydro therm

GAMA

EMR Canada

Teledyne Laars

GAMA

Intertherm, Incorporated

American Gas Association

Peerless Heater Company

Reznor Company

Empire Climate Systems

A. 0. Smith

U.S. Department of Energy

He il -Quaker

Rheem-Air Conditioning Division

Hydronics Institute

Name Organization

Robert Cook (Moderator)

Jim Harris

Consultant

NBS

David R. Abrey

John C. Bock

Bob Camevale

NYS Energy Office

Bock Water Heaters

Bradford - White

D-2
George C. Fanelli

Victor Goldschmidt

Dirk Granberg

Joseph Greenberg

Richard Greenhaus

William Haag, Jr.

Sally Hooks

Jack Langmead

Eric Lannes

Peter Miller

Ed No rd storm

Fernando Preto

Bob Rankin

Frank A. Stanonik

Bodh R. Subherwal

Otto Vago

Jim Vaug hn , Jr.

Eugene West

Thomas I. Wetherington

Larry Wethje

IV. Refrigera tors. Refrigerators

Name

J. Benjamin Horvay (Moderator)

Robert A. Wise

Sam Beach

Walter H. Blanck

Raymond H. Bohman

Marie E. Dasher

Robert D. Dikkers

Howard Geller

Richard B. Harrison

Robert Johnson

Donald L. Mays

Michael J. McCabe

Peter Miller

Francis L. Rivard

Russ Sasnett

Terry Statt

William Stewart

Gerry Sturgeon

George Ullrich

John T. Weizeorick

John R. Williams

Ford Products Corporation

Herrick Labs (Purdue University)

A.O. Smith Water Products

NBS

Consumer Reports

Rheem Manufacturing Company

EE I GAMA

Hoyt Heater Company

Natural Resources Defense Council

Amtrol Incorporated

EMR Canada

AGA Laboratories

GAMA

BR Laboratories, Incorporated

State Industries, Incorporated

Vaughn Manufacturing Company

Bradford - White

Florida Power Corporation

ETL

•Freezers and Freezers

Organization

Consultant

NBS

Greenville Products

AHAM

Amana Refrigeration Incorporated

Whirlpool Corporation

NBS

ACEEE

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool Corporation

Consumers Union

U.S. Department of Energy

NEDC

Greenville Products

General Electric Company

U.S. Department of Energy

University of Missouri

General Electric Company

Audi Company

AHAM

AMF/Paragon Elect. Company

D-3

Appendix E

The Determination of Evaporator Unit Performance Ration

Required for the Calculation of Mixed System, Ratines

Joseph A. Pietsch

Consultant

The procedures for determining system performance ratings of mixed systems

from system ratings of tested-matched systems employing the same condensing

unit requires the determination of several performance ratios relating the

mixed system evaporator to the tested-matched system evaporator* This has

been studied at length by NBS and they have concluded that the minimum

information required is as follows:

Coil capacity ratio

Blower power ratio

Expansion device refrigerant flow ratio (fixed devices only)

Experience factor ratios

Suction superheat control

Off-cycle refrigerant migration control

Other

These ratios can be determined in a variety of ways with varying degrees of

accuracy* Effort will continue to be applied to develop alternatives and

to appraise their suitability from both accuracy and practical standpoints*

Also effort will be directed to determine the degree of accuracy required

to achieve acceptable projections of system performance*

Methods for determining these ratios identified to date include:

Coil.. Capacity. Ratio

Evaporator Testing - Testing to determine the evaporator capacity of the

mixed evaporator at its specified air flow and the tested-matched coil at

its specified airflow at some standard rating condition*

Coil Performance Curves - Information on the details of an evaporator (tube

diameter* tube pattern* number of tube rows* fins per inch and fin detail)

can be obtained from examining the coil or in some cases from

manufacturer's printed literature* With the additional knowledge of the

air flow across the coil* the evaporator performance can be determined by

utilizing performance curves generated from tests of representative coils

within a coil family* For some configurations these curves are available

from coil manufacturers but the information is not always consistent* In

most cases, they do not consider the effects of variations in internal tube

circuitry* Methods for defining tube circuitry and its effects on evaporator performance should be developed to improve the accuracy of this

approach* These methods could include analytical procedures, simplified

test methods or combinations of testing and calculation procedures. Indoor

airflow quantity is sometimes available from printed manufacturer's

literature. Another approach is to use a nominal 400 to 450 cfm/ton if the

actual airflow is not known.

E-l
Evaporator Capacity Prediction Model - Some sophisticated computer models

of evaporator performance develop performance characteristics on a tube-bytube basis which allows for circuitry considerations. NBS has developed

such a model* but it needs to be verified.

Blower Power Ratio

Evaporator Unit Testing - Tested-matched system evaporator units and mixed

evaporator units which contain an indoor blower motor can be tested for

power input with a simple wattmeter test.

Default Values - For coil-only systems* if the indoor airflow is known* the

blower power can be determined utilizing the default value of 0.365 watt

per cfm prescribed in the standard. If both the tested-matched system and

the mixed system utilize coils-only, the blower power ratio is the ratio of

the indoor airflows.

Manufacturer's Literature - Many manufacturers provide printed performance

literature which provides the blower watts input for evaporator blower

motors. Some manufacturers may provide the horsepower rating of the blower

motor which can be used to establish a crude estimate of blower watts.

Expansion Device Refrigerant Flow Ratio (fixed devices only)

Measurement of Physical Dimensions - The physical dimensions of fixed

expansion devices used in the tested-matched system and the mixed system

can be measured and the relative flow rates determined through the use

plotted performance curves or calculated by formula.

Flow Rate Measurements - Air (or other gasses) flow tests can be run on the

tested-matched system expansion device and the mixed system expansion

device at a fixed pressure drop to determine the relative flow of each

device. The ratio of flow of the expansion in a refrigeration system can be approximated by the flow ratio obtained by the airflow test.

Experience. Factor. Eafcioa

Analysis of Rating Data - An analysis of rating data where the only

difference between the rated systems is variations in hardware which affect

factors such as suction superheat control and off-cycle refrigerant

migration control* could yield patterns which quantify the value of the

specific hardware difference. Strong correlations of existing rating data

would support the extension of same performance differences to other

systems which have similar hardware differences.

Computer Simulations - Sophisticated models of air conditioning systems can identify the magnitude of performance differences caused by changes in

hardware which affect performance. Prescribed values based on the computer

simulations can be verified by spot checks against existing rating data of

systems with the same hardware differences.

Sources of Information

The procedures for projecting the performance of mixed system require the

rater to have a knowledge of certain evaporator unit parameters for both

E-2
the mixed evaporator unit and the tes ted-matched evaporator unit* This

information can be obtained in a variety of ways* They include:

Directly from the manufacturer of the evaporator unit* This path is

not always available since the manufacturer may consider some or all

of the needed information to be proprietary*

From manufacturer's published product data* Selected evaporator unit

information is provided in published product data which is generally

available to engineers* distributors and installing contractors*

Some evaporator unit parameters can be determined by physical

examination of a sample of the evaporator unit*

Some evaporator unit parameters can be determined by actual tests of

the evaporator unit and/or its components*

E-3
NBS-114A (rev. 2 -eo) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1 . PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report NoJ 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 86-3412 July 1986

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

DOE/NBS Forum on Testing and Rating Procedures for Consumer Products — October 2-3,

1985

5. AUTHOR(S)

Robert D. Dikkers, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see in struction s)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No. DE-AI01-86CE23842

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. State, ZIP)

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Building Energy Research & Development

Building Equipment Division

Washington, DC 20585

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

j Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl iography or literature survey, mention it here) One hundred thirty-four persons participated in a Forum on Testing and Rating

Procedures for Consumer Products held at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

,

Gaithersburg, Maryland, on October 2-3, 1985. The objectives of the forum, which

was planned in cooperation with various industry associations, were: (1) to provide

a line of communication between test procedure users and test procedure developers;

(2) to provide an opportunity for participants to present technical and research

issues concerning Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures that need to be

addressed; and (3) to assist DOE and NBS in establishing a future agenda for the

development and/or revision of testing and rating procedures. The report summarizes

discussions, conclusions and recommendations developed by the forum participants for

the following consumer products: heat pumps and air conditioners; furnaces, boilers,

and household heaters; water heaters; refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and

freezers .

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon ») Air conditioners; boilers; consumer products; energy efficiency; Energy Policy and

Conservation Act; furnaces; heat pumps; refrigerator-freezers; testing and rating

procedures: water heaters.

13. AVAILABILITY

[jjj Uni imited

Q3] For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[~n Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

[x 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

67

IS. Price

$11.95

UlCOuu.QC #0«»-e»0