## Department ofEnergy Washington, DC 20585



### MEMORANDUM TO DOCKET EE-RM-93-801 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS FROM: DOUG SMITH DEPUTY GENERAL OUNSEL FOR ENERGY POLICY DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1996 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH OFFICIALS FROM WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION

On September 30, 1996, Secretary O'Leary, Deputy Secretary Curtis, Chief of Staff Dan Reicher, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Joseph Romm, and I met with the following officials from Whirlpool Corporation: Ralph Hake, Executive Vice President, North American Appliance Group; Andy Takacs, Vice President Government Relations; Ed Wendholt, Director, Laundry Technology; Robert W. Johnson, Director, Product Technology, Refrigerator Group; and Michael Thompson, Director, Government Relations. Whirlpool made a presentation on the subject of energy efficiency standards for washing machines and refrigerators. The briefing materials are attached.
Attachment

' Printed with soy ink on recycled paper , 

# . Department ofEnergy Washington, DC 20585



### MEMORANDUM TO DOCKETEE-RM-93-801 ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS FROM: DOUG SMITHVJ-'7
. . DEPUTY

# GE~El{AL fuUNSEL FOR ENERGY POLICY DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1996 SUBJECT: MEETING WITH OFFICIALS FROM WHIRLPOOL COR,eORATION

On September 30, 1996, Secretary O'Leary, Deputy Secretary Curtis, Chiefof Staff Dan Reicher, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy Joseph Romm, and I met with the following officials from Whirlpool Corporation: Ralph Hake, Executive Vice President, North American Appliance Group; Andy Takacs. Vice President Government Relations; Ed Wendholt, Director, Laundry Technology; Robert W. Johnson. Director, Product Technology, Refrigerator Group; and Michael Thompson, Director, Government Relations. Whirlpool made a presentation on the subject ofenergy efficiency standards for washing machines and refrigerators. The briefing materials are attached.
Attachment



# .',® Printed wtth say ink on recycled paper

# DOE BRIEFING: APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS September 30, 1996 

# DOE BRIEFING: APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
'-. September 30, 1996

# AGENDA
* Introductions * Why are we here? 

# * Background: Whirlpool has spent millions based on high efficiency appliances 

# * Justification for early effective dates * Justification for stringent efficiency levelsX * Other comments (time permitting)

- Cumulative burden



# - Consumer perspectives on energy & water savings | Whirlpool's plans to build energy efficiency appliances 

# I Our request

// /~~~~~~~//~~~- 

### ~~~:- / / 9~~~~~~ 

# AGENDA

• Introductions • Why are we here? • Background: Whirlpool has spent millions based on hig,h

, efficiency appliances

, 

# • Justification for early effective dates • Justification for stringent efficiency levels '. • Other comments (time permitting)

- Cumulative burden

- Consumer perspectives on energy & water'savings • Whirlpool's plans to build energy efficiency appliances

., Our request

# Overview of Whirlpool Corporation Founded: 1911 Products: All major home appliances plus some portables Number of Brand Names: 11 Number of Countries:

· where we manufacture: 12 * where we market: 140 

# Number of Employees: 45,000 Annual Revenues: $8.3 Billion

_ _ .... _ · · '
_ ..-. ". '. ' 

# Overview of

.Whirlpool Corporation
Founded: Products:
Number of Brand Names: Number 

# ofCountries: . •where we manufacture: • where we market: Number of Employees: Annual Revenues: 

# 1911
..

. . 

# All major home appliances plus some portables 

# 11 12 140 45,000 $8.3 Billion

# -NAWIECA Language Section 325 "(g) Standards for Dishwashers; Clothes Washers; Clothes Dryers. "(4)(A) The Secretary shall publish final rules no later than January 1,1990 "(B) After January 1, 1990, the Secretary shall publish a final rule no later than five years after the date of publication ofthe previous final rule. (May 14, 1996) "(C) Any such amendment shall apply to products manufactured after a date which is five years after- "(i) the effective date ofthe previous amendment;

-..,,..... -,~~.... ,,~.~.~~~~:;.,~~ ~~..i~~~~~i~~~~!! !::'" ~-!i ; ii; i: ~i ,.~ ........ ,.,..~7

..................... ·........... Oi:lz¢. .,.',,
.. ~": 

# NAECA Language

. . 

# Section 325 "(g) Standards for Dishwashers; Clothes Washers; Clothes Dryers. "(4)(A) The Secretary shall publish final rules no laterthan January 1, 1990 

# "(8) After January 1, 1990, the Secretary shall publish a final rule no later than five years after the date of publication ofthe previous final rule. (May 14, 1996) "(C) Any such amendment shall apply to products manufactured after a date which is five years after- 

# "(i) the effective date ofthe previous amendment;

# DOE Clothes WNasher Energy Standards Rule - May 14, 1991 DOE said

"Because ofthe greatenergysavingspotential ofthis design (ie.horizontal-axis), DOE is evaluating this technologyas soon aspossible" (FR22269, 5/14/91) "Since DOE has decided to considerthe horizontal axis technology with its associatedfixedcosts as soon as possible, the Department issues aFinalRule today

thatimposes minimal impact on manufacturer's retooling costs" (FR22270, 5/14/91) 

# DOE Clothes Washer Energy Standards Rule
- May 14, 1991

. .



# . DOE said "Because ofthe great energysavings potential

# ofthis design (ie. horizontal-axis), DOEis evaluating this technology

# as soon 

# aspossible" (FR22269, 5/14/91)

. . 

# "Since DOEhas decided to considerthe horizontalaxis technology with its associatedfixed costs 

# as soon 

# as

.possible, the Departmentissues 

# a Final Rule today thatimposes minimalimpa,ct on manufacturer's retooling costs"(FR22270, 

# 5/14/91)

# NAECA Language
Section 325 "(b) Standards for refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

# "(3)(A)(i)...The Secretary shall publish afinal rule no later than July 1,1989...which shall apply to products manufactured after January 1,1993" "(B) After the publication of a final rule under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall publish a final rule no laterthan five years after the date of publication of the previous final rule." (111/95)

.Cfl~~~~~~~.. .*.n,.,. . . .*, 

### ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~. A' 

### ~~~~~~g 

# -NAECA Language
Section 325 "(b) Standards for refrigerator-freezers, and freezers "(3)(A)(i)

...The Secretary shall publish a final rule no later than July 1, 1989

...which shall apply to products manufactured after January 1, 1993"**~** 

# "(8) After th'e publication ofa final rule under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall publish a- final rule no later than five years after the date of publication ofthe previous final rule." (1/1/95)

# High Efficiency Clothes Washer Technology
Company Activity Other Comments Purchased commercial H-axis plant 2 Division of Raytheon AMANA yearago. (approx. $11-12 billion annual sales) Has marketed H-axisfor years; new Part of Swedish parent -ElectroluxFRIGIDAIRE H-axis promised for the last year. (approx. $11-12 billion annual sales) "Plans to market H-axis washers in Approx. $70 billion inannual sales. GENERAL the U.S. for those consumers who (One of the world's top companies with ELECTRIC choose to buy them." (Appliance Mfgr., $137.3 billion inassets, USA Today p.28 8/95) 

### 7/1/96) 

### Iscommitted to building H-axis Final stages of a$50-M investment to MAYTAG products. Expected introduction is develop H-axis and companion dryer
... we 

### 1997. are "stronger financially" and have "choices -9~~ ~~..~ ~for 

### growth that we have not had for 

### sometime." (CEO Hadley-PR Newswire 9/16/96) WHIRLPOOL Has more than one high efficiency Has largest clothes washer production inthe clothes washer design. U.S.

_H B
_ _ 

### Company

AMANA
FRIGIDAIRE
GENERAL ELECTRIC

MAYTAG

WHIRLPOOL 

# High Efficiency Clothes WasherTechnology

Activity Purchased commercial H-axis plant 2

.year ago.

Has marketed H-axis for years; new H-axis promised for the last year. "Plans to market H-axis washers in the 

### U.S. for those consumers who choose to buy them." (Appliance Mfgr., 8/95) Is committed to building H-axis products

..Expected introduction is 1997.

Has more than one high efficiency clothes washer design. 

### Other Comments Division of Raytheon (approx. $11-12 billionannual sales) Part of Swedish parent -Electrolux- (approx. $11-12 billion annual sales) Approx. $70 billion in annual sales. (One ofthe world's top companies with $137.3 billion in assets, USAToday p.28 7/1/96) Final stagesofa $50-M investment to develop H-axis and companion dryer

... we are "strongerfinancially" and have "choices for growth that we have not had for sometime." (CEO Hadley-PR Newswire 9/16/96) Has largest clothes washer production in the U.S.

# CL 

# OTHES 

# W\.ASHER ENEPRGY STAnDARDS



# IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY USE (over the life ofthe roduct at3.0enegy factor)



# Total: =' 

# l0. 

# miio barel ofioi equivalent=
Consumerr Cost Impactl.


# 4_ ilo nt. $ .6Iyr 

# x 14_years 1 bilio p 

### ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~.... .:i ei 

# r,LOTHES \A1ASHER ENERGY**ST,L~\f'JD,L\RDS** 

# IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY USE
-

# CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY STANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON DRYER ENERGY USE (overthe life ofthe product at 50% RMC)

... 

# " ~ 

# cz2>'- .1 2.7 mliion..barrels of oil equivalent
I ilion uitsx56 hrs/rx1 years ;7sr8.4iP~ion therms itl~i Elcti Dryers >::::::::::::I :_:::::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O .:e ~



# .Gas.Dryer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....!Ils m

iiouits $14 yers i $ 4mdniion 5li:~ii~i-i~i 6807" million 9 

# 1 y.: 

# ...... -!Haiti .... .. institutional::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r:! 

# :C~v::n: 2~:: 

# iiii:·iiiiijiaail~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ijjiiiiiaiiiii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~i I ~~~~~~~~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ 

# ::::i~~~~~~~~~~i!:::::i,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~# x:::::::g::::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::l~~~~~~~i...
....... li::::::::iI3 hi i fb Iva:::·iiiiijai iii~~~~~~i i~~~~~~~~~'i:~~~~~iiiiiiiilisjiiiii:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Xiiiii~~~~~~~~ii...... a·:I::::i~ii~l~i~~:i::i ::::::;:::::::::::i ....... .... .:::::4: 1 ::::: I...... I y b::i

77= 77777 = 

### ........... :::: 

### I:I~~l~i~i~i~ia::si~~ilil:~:iiii~~iii~ ~ 

### l ::: I· :·:·'

·:::::li:·:-l-::i~
......... 

# b

~~~~h 

# a ............ 

## :::::::i:::::::I:il: 

## ::I:::I::: II: ~ 

## .........

iiliiiiiii

### ~1~ii01

. . .. .... 

### ~i~iili ~ln::-::;*r 

# · I~:~:_::: ::I-': 1III :i i xL::: 

# liN 

# 11 P ii I 

# -: i iiii i~'.::::: ::: ':::::::: ::: :::l~l13iii~iii~ii~$ 1:.:i-3 6 Jk 1_-4 7-62:i:X~li~:`!ji!-i 0i · n ,li

li:,~~~~~:~ il,_,:~~~~,:e:::.::::::::-: -::·:::::::::-:::·:::::::::-::,:·::::::,:.::.:: ,:::::::,:::: . ::::::::1:::::::::4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ....I

. .

...... ..... 

# .h fii ,li i ilingsii li lilii:ciiiili 

# .0 Ve:~~~~~~~~~iiii~i:l:S~ii~i~iiliii 

# :::::I:::::+r?~~iii~~iZ:·i~i·~::::ii~MET,:~ilii:-::::::::: CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY STANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON_ DRYER ENERGY USE (over the life ofthe product at 

# 500/0 RMC)A 

### ~~~~4 ~ ---- -- - ----------- 

# CLOTHES WASHER ENERGYSTANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON WATER USE ' ' 

# (over the life of the product) 

# W aterim ct.

... .. 

# .......... .... .

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

# 7

# :: mili~~i:i:iii::lion units 6240gallon/yearx 14 yars =612 

# biliop allon Consumerlij~j Cost mpac I: i

ili i 

### ~ : .......

/ 

# 6240 gallons/year.x.$2.84/.O gi.y allnr=$772ui

A'. . <.... . ... ' ....... .... ..... .. . ::~~~:·....... ........



## i~i~~i~~i~~~i~::i~r::..... ...... liii

l-j:- .iii:Iiiiibi iumi: iii :: : : : : :

: : : : :

: : : :: ·····

: ·· w . ... iil: : 

# ,:::,:~~i~jji:~~:-i:;;:::::i·:::4 

# 4 

# Vea

. 1.
........ 

# ............ :: : ::,.: : :: : :: :- : i:t

~~ib 

# .:::~I .:I:::::r::::::: (i ilii :~~~il ~iiliilillllii~~i 

# - I i-ii l-......

...

... ........ CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY STANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY ON WATER USE (over the life ofthe product)-4, 

# CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY STANDARDS TOTAL IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY 

# (over the life ofthe product)

d 

# Clothes W,,a sh! 

# P ere'!" 

# 60.0t0 

# | w milion

# ibarrel ofsoiileqialn A.... -~~~~~~~~~ 

# 0 equiale

# T tl 

# 74l mlionsinwSc barres ofoilx

___________ 

# 612 illion 

# gallonslri~



# iii Drye·r $
. bilio 

# i~~~~~i · :.:::::::::::I:I::··:·:·i: :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:':: i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l:P-i:Ji ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .::...... .W 4~s's~'. / 

### ~ *r* ' / / 

### ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~isiiri:i_ii::-:::::: 

# CLOTHES WASHER ENERGY STANDARDS

TOTAL IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY (over the life ofthe product)

# i Energy Levels Available - Refrigerators
TopFreezer Produds Product inufacturer



## Size Arana Frigidaire GE Maytag V poo 15/16 _100/ 

### 20%/ -0%0/ 15% 

### 17/18 20% 10%* 25% 15% 20% 19/20 15% 0%0/* 25% 15% 20% 21/22 20%0/ 0/* 20% 15% 25% 

## 23+ 25% 0/0%* 

## 100/o 00/ 00/a * Betterefficiencylevelswere availablein1995.
'_______~ -Side-by-Side Productds 

### Product IManufraurer



## Size Anrrna Frigidare GE Maytg 19/20 20% 10%/ 0.% 15% 21/22

- 25% 20%/ 20% 15% 400o/ 

## 23/24 20%/o 20%/o 15%
. 25/26 25% 15% 35% 27+ 20%/ 15% 20% 0/0 35% 

## Nurb ers represent amount betterthan '93 Federal Standard (rounded doaM tonearest5%), basedon datafromtheJune, 1996AHAM DrecoryofCertified Rerierators and Freezers.

::~-.".',~?...'/..-~.~.~.~,,~.~ _~ .! .z.~. . - .......... "
........................ 

# Energy Levels Available -- 

# Refrigerators**~I** 

### reezer 

## s AOOtd 

## l\A3nt.Jfcdurer

Size 

### ArrEna Frigidaire 

## GE rvl3ytaJ 

# WlinJXd 15'16 10010 2QO/o 

## -0010 15% 17/18 2QO/o 

## 100/0* 25% 15% 2QO/o 

## 19120 15% 00/0* 25% 15%
. 2QO/o 

## 21/22 2QO/o 

## 0010* 2Q01o 

## 15% 250/0 23+ 

## 25% '00/0* 100/0 00/0 00/0 *

### Better€ffiden,ylevels'Aereavailalle in 1995.
Side-Of-Side

## PnxJLds PrOOLd rv'tanufocturer

Size 

### Arrena Frigidaire 

## GE rvl3ytaJ 

# Wlinp:n 19120 2QO/o 

## 100/0 0.% 15% 21/22
.. 25% 2QO/o .2QO/o 

## 15%, 40'10 23124 2QO/o 2QO/o 

## 15%

,. 

## 25/26 25% 15% 350/0

27+ 2QO/o 

## 15% 2QO/o 

## 0010 ·35% 

## N.Jrrtas rep-esent

## arrounttetterthan 

## '93 Federal 

## Stardard (rc:x.Jr"daj

### cbMltonearest

## 50/0), 

## tmroCX1

### datafremtheJure, 

### .1900

## AI-Wv1 [)rEdoryci

### Certifioo Refrieratcrs

### ard Freezers.

# REFRIGERATOR ENERGY STANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY (TIER 2) (Over the life ofthe product) 

# Energy Imverath , ffi

- ,,,,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... .... ............, ,.., .... 

# ::i:,:I: !6 S X1 = I:i 8

.5.EE~~E..FE -.0-..~.E m iion!EuEflf -it

i .145 kw /y S~#E ~ 

# 17 yearsid- =. 

# 20. bdin w er- > 

# 28,,4 m l b r o::...nili: .. 

# fvtl

. 

# .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. 

# ... 'n' : .. :g ... .. -p



### ro.

. . ... ii

..... E...-.i.-...i...;..... 

## a:31111 n.,?

.

# tP. P P. C qell I z i es t: /:::li,:r~i:^i~i:·::_:i::: I~i8

:i~ii~l-:r::::i:::::::::::::::::::: i:::::::::: i~i:.:l:::i::l::::: -·li~l~i

i~i~i~iiiiiiili~i-i~i~l~.......... ...... .......

/ - 

# $250 

# million per yr~~~~~~~alig 4.... ... 

# (produ..t. cost) 

# tiiiwlilirisiijiiijii:i1 5 biMlio lo........ ss.

.......... ...... iii l -i jjiiiiiii iii. iiiliipe r y r d e lay

~



# :::-7 :::T: ::::::::: -:: iii~j ~~i



# -:li

I: :::

~i 

# jii.::::i~i:::: ::(:I:: : i i::i~i

-::: i~: ............ .: :·::·:::::-::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~......... a l~~~i ~~i ~

# i ~~i

# :,i~~~i 

# : : : :

::iil:: : ::·i:: : ::·: ::::::::::::::::::::·:-~~......... ......... ii,:.:::::::::-::::::::::::::li~ssa iii'liiiiiiir·::::::::::-::::::::I::........... ........... :
......... .. .............. :::i-:::jl i~i~~ii~~ii~:II- :i-i~i::i~i;_iiiilif

# l-7i uonlil eiir

........... ......... .~ 

### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~::::::::;. .......- · :.·.·· .·-::.:.:::::::-:::::-

....... . .. 

### ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.''.':IR:::~j:j::

.......... 

### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~:: ::

... . . .. . . . .. . ... 

# REFRIGERATOR ENERGY STANDARDS IMPACT OF EACH YEAR'S DELAY (TIER 2) (Over the life ofthe product)

# Trends inRefrigerator Energy Consumption

87 CEC Std. 

### 1;400 - : , 90 DOE Std. 93 DOE 

### 1200



# . 1 '000
>1 00 - Predicted

-600-
- 

### -,IHstnical

a, .. .. I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~irs 

# Trends in Refrigerator Energy Consumption

1400
13lO

200 I· I 87 CEC Std. 90 DOE Std. 93 DOE

Predicted 

# I

I I . I**O~~~~~-r~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1~1~1~** **1~ 1~** **1~1m1~1~ 1~~~~**  

# ...**~~0I12 ~q1iori4** 

### -41-H~c3I

# Quotes from "Joint Comments Relating to Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerator/Freezers" (November 15, 1994)


# Isection, "yThe agreed to standards comport fully with the standards 

# criteria in NAECA" S(page23) 

# * "The 

# energy savings..

# .are very significant." 

# [ "These standards were chosen at alevel that provides for no significant lessening of utility or performance." * "None ofthe parties to these agreements believe that the standards will lead to a likelihood of reduced competition."
(g

2 

# * "The non-HCFC standard avoids the possibilitythat some or all manufacturers would have to drastically reduce product 

# offerings because oftheir inability initiallyto meet the 1998 standards without HCFC-141b." -- * siniiant le s nn of utS:.::>:~ilfit or.... peform nc .".....5 Section VI (page 22)

Section VI (page 23) 

# Quotes from "Joint Comments Relating to Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerator/Freezers" (November 15, 1994)

. 

# • "The agreed to standards comport fully with the standards

.criteria in NAECA" • "The energy savings

...are very significant." • "These standards were'chosen at a level that provides for no significant lessening of utility or performance." • "None ofthe parties to these agreements believe that the standards will lead to a likelihood of reduced competition."
'. 

# • "The non-HCFC standard avoids the possibility that some or all manufacturers would**hav~** 

# to drastically reduce product offerings because oftheir inability initially to meet the 1998 standards without HCFC-141b."

### WON= ---- - 

# Appliance Market Pull & Utility Incentive Programs Program Activity Location Timetable Energy Star (DOE)* Pre-pilot D.C. only 1995 Pilot 4Cities Late 1996 Implement Nationwide Mid 1997 Federal Energy Appliance purchasing 1997 Management Program guidelines are being (DOE) developed SERP Super efficient refrigerators 23 Utility Ends Districts Mid 1997 Consortium on Energy High efficiency clothes Mostly Ongoing Efficiency washers West Coast
* Clothes washers are not part of the pilot program.

/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iii 

# ·
.


# Appliance Market Pull & Utility Incentive Programs
Program Activity Location Timetable**Energ~** 

### Star (DOEt Pre-pilot. D.C. only 1995 Pilot 4 CiHes Late 1996 Implement Nationwide Mid 1997 Federal Energy Appliance purchasing 1997 Management Program guidelines are being (DOE) developed SERP Super efficient refrigerators 23 Utility Ends Districts·
- Mid 1997 Consortium on Energy High efficiency clothes Mostly Ongoing -Efficiency -washers West Coast

.. Clothes washers are not part ofthe pilot program.

# Importance of Features on Consumer Purchase Decision Clothes Washer
Load Position Wash Time Ease ofOpening Price

Axis
. Agitator Noise Level Water Savings Spin Speed Energy Savings i 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

# UtilityValue of Feature on Purchase Decision Base: 200 female washer owners

,rce: WhirlpoolCorp., WasherConjoinoAnalysis,Mar., 1992 (BasesCorp.) 

## 8 

# Importa'nce of Features on Consumer Purchase Decision Clothes Washer
Load Position Wash Time Ease ofOpening Price 

## Axis

.. Agitator Noise Level Water 

## Savings 

## Spin Speed Energy 

## Savings '. 

# o 10 20· 30 40 50 '60 70 80 

## Utility 

## Value of Feature on Purchase Decision

, 

## Base: 200**fem~le** 

# washer owners

"nur,r:p.." 

### OWhirlpoolCorp" WasherConjoinJAnalysis, Mar., 1992 (Bases Corp.)

# Importance of Features on Consumer Purchase Decision 

# Dishwasher Cleaning Reliability Durability

Capacity Price Quiet Water Usage Energy Usage 

# - Rack Loading Controls mm 0% 20% : 

### 40% 60% 80% 100% 

# s; % of Consumers Rating Extremely orVery Important Base: 1930 Nationally Representative Households
Source: WhirlpoolCorp.,DisirnasherPurchase Process, I 992;MarelFoacs, 

## Inc. 

# . Importance ofFeatures on Consumer Purchase-Decision Dishwasher Cleanln'g ReUabllity Durability Qual. ofConstruction Safety Ease ofService Capacity Price Quiet Water Usage Energy Usage**Ra~k** 

## Loading

.. Controls 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% >

### ~_ 

# %of Consumers Rating Extremely orVery 

## Important 

## Base: 1930 Nationally Representative Households
DishwasherPurchase Process, 1992;

### MamlFacls,Inc.

# Standardized Appliance Measurement of Satisfaction Importance of Factors Washers 

# 1995/96 Refrigerators Cleaning Clothes Quality Clothes Care ShelfAccess OEM= Capacity Performance Appearance Capacity Durability
_ _ Appearance Energy ESf. Energy Eff. Balance Adjustability Operation
_ Quietness 0 20 40 60 s0 0 20 40 60 Correlation with Satisfaction Correlation with Satisfaction Base: 2498 Washerowners Base: 6535 Top Mount & Sidex Side owners 

## Dishwashers Dryers Cleaning _i~b~-~Fasx~ Drying Clothes Capacity Clothes Care

_ Appearance
__ Appearance Drying I Capacity Durability Balance Convenience ' Energy Eff. Energy Eff. Durability

operation
__ ______ 

### Operation
. . 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Correlation with Satisfaction Correlationwith Satisfaction Base: 3970 DW owners , Base: 2262 Dryer owners

____ ...... , , n X s wrim Inn X no. Isr~n Do SOL r ..... 20 

# .§.tandardized Appliance ,Measurement of §atisfaction'**~** 

# Importance of Factors Washers 

# 1995/96 Refrigerators Cleaning Clothes Clothes Care capacity Appearance Durability 

### Energy Eff. Balance Operation 

## o 20 010 60 

### Correialion with Satisraction Base: 2498 Washer

### owners Cleaning Capacity Appearance Drying Durabfllty

. 

### Convenience



### Energy Elf.

Operation 

## o Dishwashers

20 40 60 

### Correlationwith Satisfaction 80

80. 

### • Quality 

### ShelfAccess Performance Capacity Appearance

Energy Eff. Adjustability Quietness o 20 40 60 

### Correialion with Satisfaction Base: 6535 Top Mount aSide)( 

### Side 

### owners Dryers Drying Clothes Clothes Care

Appearance Capacity

.Balance EnergyEff.

Durability Operation 

### o 2Q 40 60 

### Correlationwith Satisfaction ,Base: 2262 Dryerowners 80

# Request * Clothes Washers

- Continue the clothes washer rule where it left off

- Place maximum resources on the clothes washer rule

- Have afinal rule at 3.0 energy factor that will become effective no later than 1/1/2001 

# * Refrigerators

- Publish the final rule quickly

- Establish Tier 2 levels (16-23% more efficient than current standard) that will become effective no later 

# than 1/1/2000 

# Request
II 

# Clothes Washers

- Continue the clothes washer rule where it left off

- Place maximum resources on the clothes washer rule

- Have a final rule at 3.0 'energy factor that will become effective no laterthan 1/1/2001
II 

# Refrigerators

- Publish the final rule quickly

- Establish Tier 2 levels (16-23% more efficient than current standard) that will become effective no later

. than 1/1/2000 , .

# Request (cont.)

It is our opinion that everyone in the industry is capable of meeting tough new standards.

* _'''..:..;:.::::' .. '. .:.:-::..:,,.. .,::-.:; 

# Request (cant.)

It is our opinion that everyone in the industry is·capable of meeting tough new standards.

## I+*Pfa~ rr~Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

October 15, 1996



### DRAFT REPORTS ON THE DESIGN OPTIONS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS, AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP

The Department of Energy has initiated an extensive standards rulemaking process improvement effort which includes priority setting for various products. The Department has determined that the clothes washers standards rulemaking be assigned a "High Priority." Therefore, the Department is initiating the first phase ofthe new process which is to consider design options for efficiency improvements. The procedures ofthe new process can be found in the July 15, 1996, Federal Register notice which outlines the planning and prioritization process, data collection and analysis, and decision making criteria. The Department has recently drafted the following documents: "Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers," and "Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers." The design option report identifies product categories and narrows the range ofdesign options being considered for the development oftechnically feasible designs. The preliminary engineering analysis is being provided because the Department had previously received extensive data from the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers and is providing it for informational purposes. The engineering analysis, selection ofcandidate standard levels, and draft consumer/forecasting (energy and water) analyses will be completed before the Department publishes an Supplemental Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for clothes washers planned for April 1997. The Department seeks information from stakeholders and interested parties relative to the validity ofthe design option report, and on how to conduct and complete the engineering analysis. These reports are currently being peer reviewed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Author D. Little, and an independent consultant. A screening workshop for clothes washer standards will be held on November 15, 1996, at the U.S. Department ofEnergy. 1000 independence Avenue, SW., Washington. DC. 20585-0121 in room IE-245 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The objective ofthe workshop will be to discuss the enclosed reports, comments received, the peer review, and other relevant topics pertaining to the standards. Ihave enclosed a preliminary draft agenda for the workshop.

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 

### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

October 15,. 1996

DRAFT REPORTS ON THE DESIGN OPTIONS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS. AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP

The Department ofEnergy has initiated an extensive standards rulemaking process improvement effort which includes priority setting for various products. The Department has determined that the clothes washers standards rulemaking be assigned a "High Priority." Therefore, the Department is initiating the first phase ofthe new process which is to consider design options for efficiency improvements. The procedures ofthe new process can be found in the July 15, 1996, Federal Register notice whichoutlines the planning and prioritization process, data collection and analysis, and decision making criteria. The Department has recently drafted the following documents: "Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers," and "Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers." The design option report identifies product categories and narrows the range ofdesign options being considered for the development oftechnically feasible designs. The preliminary engineering analysis is being provided because the Department had previously received extensive data from the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers and is providing it for informational purposes. The engineering analysis, selection ofcandidate standard levels. and draft consumer/forecasting(energy and water) analyses will be completed before the Department publishes an Supplemental Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for clothes washers planned for April 1997. The Department seeks information from stakeholders and interested parties relative to the validity ofthe design option report, and on how to conduct and complete the engineering analysis. These reports are currently being peer reviewed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Author D. Little, and an independent consultant. A screening workshop for clothes washer standards will be held on November 15, 1996, at the U:S. Department ofEnergy. 1000 Independence Avenue, S\\', Washington, DC. 20585-0121 in room lE-245 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The objective ofthe workshop will be to discuss the enclosed reports, comments received, the peer review, and otherrelevant topics pertaining to the standards. I have enclosed a preliminary draft agenda for the workshop. 

# *

Printed with soy ink on recycled paperIf you have any comments, please send them to: Ms. Sandy Beall, Office ofEnergy Effciency 

### and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-431, U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574; FAX: (202) 586-4617. In order to ensure full consideration, comments must be received by the Department ofEnergy no later than November 8, 1996. Ifyou have any questions or plan to attend the workshop, please contact Marc LaFrance at (202) 586- 8423 or Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371. Sincerely,

Mi haelJ. Mcabe, Di ctor OfficEofCodes and Standards Building Technology, State and

Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Enclosures Ifyou have any comments, please send them to: Ms. Sandy Beall, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Statton EE-431, U.S. Department ofEnergy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574; FAX: (202) 586-4617. 

### In order to ensure full consideration, comments must be received by the Department ofEnergy no laterthan November 8, 1996. Ifyou have any questions orplan to attend the workshop, please contact Marc Lafrance at (202) 586- 8423 orBryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371.

Enclosures abe, Di ector Offic ofCoaes and Standards Building Technology, State and

Community Programs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

### DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLOTHES WASHER WORKSHOP November 15, 1996 U.S. Departmentof Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 1E-245 Purpose of Workshop: To review and comment on the "Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers," and "Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for ClothesWashers." Outcomes of Workshop: Determination on how to conduct and complete the engineering analysis. Based on this work and additional stakeholder input, the Department plans to issue a Supplemental AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) forclothes washers in April 1997. Preliminary DraftAgenda Opening Remarks, Introductions, Agenda Review Overview ofClothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule Discussion on Design Options Discussion on Preliminary Engineering Analysis Discussion on How to Improve Future Workshops Closing

- Next Steps**~** 

### - , 

### DEPARTMENT OFENERGY CWTHESWASHER WORKSHOP November 15, 1996 u.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room lE-245 Purpose ofWorkshop:

. To review and comment on the "Draft Report onDesign Options for ClothesWashers," and "DraftReport onthePreliminary Engineering Analysis for ClothesWashers." 

### Outcomes ofWorkshop: Determination on howto conduct and complete the engineering analysis. Based on this work and additional stakeholder input, the Department plans to issue a Supplemental AdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for clothes washers in April 1997. 

### Preliminary DraftAgenda Opening Remarks, Introductions, Agenda Review Overview ofClothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule Discussion on Design Options Discussion on PreliminaryEngineering Analysis Discussion on How to Improve Future Workshops Closing

- Next Steps

....... -
. f

### DRAFT REPORT ON DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

October 1996

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY Energy & Environment Division Technology and Market Assessment Group Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office ofCodes and Standards DRAFT REPORT ONDESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHESWASHERS

October 1996

LAWRENCEBERKELEYNATIONAL LABORATORY Energy & EnvironmentDivision Technology and Market Assessment Group Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for 

# u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office ofCodes and Standards

### TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFT REPORTON DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 1. INTRODUCTION

............. 1 2. PRODUCT CLASSES

............. ........ 1.
. . . 1 3. DESIGN OPTIONS

......... ..... .... ... 2 4. CONCLUSIONS

............................... . 15
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Current Product Classes & Efficiency Standards

........................ 2 Table 2 Proposed Product Classes

............ ........ .............. 2 Table 3 Design Options

........... ........... 3 Table 4 Design Options Eliminated from Further Analysis

..... ................. 15 Table 5 Remaining Design Options

................................ 15

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DRAFTREPORT ONDESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 1. INTRODUCTION
.. , .. '.'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2. PRODUCT CLASSES
........................... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3. DESIGNOPTIONS
......... , .. '.'
................................... 2 4. CONCLUSIONS
.................................................. 15
LIST OFTABLES Table 1 Current Product Classes & Efficiency Standards

........................ 2 Table 2 Proposed Product Classes

.............. : ......................... 2 Table 3 Design Options

................................................ 3 Table 4 Design OptionsEliminated from FurtherAnalysis

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Table 5 Remaining Design Options

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

### Draft Report On Design Options for Clothes Washers
1.INTRODUCTION This report discusses possible design options forimproving the energy efficiency ofstandard capacity, residential clothes washers. The procedure used inthis design option analysis isbased on a Department ofEnergy (DOE) interpretive ruling outlining process improvement measures [1]. After the different appliances subject to possible regulation are ranked, potential design options areidentified as the next step in the process ofpromulgating appliance efficiency standards. Screening factors arethen used to determine ifany design options should be eliminated fromfurther consideration. Much ofthe input used for screening design options was provided by clothes washer manufacturers. Other sources include trade publications and the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). Although (under the new process) the design option stage ofthe analysis now precedes an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR), responses to the original ANOPR [2], data previously collected from manufacturers, and existing input from AHAM and other stakeholders will still be considered in this report. The DOE intends to issue a Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the future. 

### 2. PRODUCT CLASSES Appliance features that provide utility to the consumer are incorporated into the analysis through the creation ofproduct classes. Classes are a subset ofappliance types. For example, clothes washers are an appliance type, but a compact clothes washer is aproduct class. Appliance types are segregated into separate classes to which different energy-efficiency standards apply. DOE differentiates classes by capacity or other performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer and affect efficiency. In general, classes are definedusing data collected in discussions with appliance manufacturers, trade associations, and other interested parties. Those classes for which no DOE test procedure has been specified are omitted from further analysis. Currently, clothes washers are separated into the product classes shown in Table 1. The corresponding minimum efficiency requirements which became effective May 14, 1994 are also provided [3].

1 

### Draft Report On Design Options for Clothes Washers

1. INTRODUCTION Thisreport discusses possible design optionsfor improvingthe energy efficiency ofstandard capacity, residential clotheswashers. The procedureused inthis design optionanalysis is based on a Department ofEnergy (DOE) interpretive ruling outlining processimprovement measures [1]. Afterthedifferent appliances subject topossible regulation areranked, potential design options areidentified as the next step in the process ofpromulgatingappliance efficiency standards. Screening factors arethen used to determineifany design options shouldbeeliminated from further consideration. Much ofthe input used for screening design options was provided by clothes washer manufacturers. Other sources include trade publications and the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). Although (underthenew process) the design option stage ofthe analysis nowprecedes an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANOPR), responses to the original ANOPR [2], data previouslycollectedfrom manufacturers, and existing input from AHAM and other stakeholders will still be considered in this report. The DOEintends to issue a Supplemental Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking in the future. 

### 2. PRODUCT 

### CLASSES Appliance features that provide utility to the consumer are incorporated into the analysis throughthecreation ofproductclasses. Classes are a subset ofappliancetypes. Forexample, clothes washers are an applianc.etype, buta compact clothes washeris a product class. Appliancetypes are segregated into separate classes to which different· energy-efficiency standards apply. DOE differentiates classes by capacity or other performance-related features that provide utility to the consumerand affect efficiency. Ingeneral, classes are defined using data collected in discussions with appliance manufacturers, trade associations, and otherinterested parties. Thoseclasses for which no DOEtest procedurehas been specified are omitted from further analysis. Currently, clothes washers are separated into the product classes shown in Table 1. The corresponding minimum efficiency requirements which became effective May 14, 1994 are also provided [3].

1

### Table 1. CurrentProduct Classes & Efficiency Standards Product Class Efficiency Standard Compact top loading

. EF 2 0.90 ft'/(kWh/cycle) Standard top loading EF 21:18 ft'/(kWh/cycle) Semi-automatic top loading Musthave unheated rinse option Front loading Musthave unheatedrinse option Suds saving Musthave unheated rinse option 

### In a previous rulemaking [4], the terms top loading and front loading wereused to refer to vertical and horizontal axis clothes washers, respectively. Since horizontal axis machines can be manufactured in atop loading configuration, product class distinction-based on how clothes are loaded-is no longer made. Instead, vertical and horizontal axiswashers are considered as design strategiesthat manufacturers can use to achieve different efficiency levels. Forthe present analysis, the product classes in Table 2 were considered. Table2. Proposed Product Classes Product Class Definition

-Compact less than 1.6 ft' capacity

Standard 1.6 ft' or greater capacity 

### In this report, since data were not available for the compact class, only standard capacity clothes washers will be discussed. 3. DESIGN OPTIONS 

### Design options are changes in clothes washer design that may have the potential to save. energy.

### The DOE issued an ANOPR on November 14, 1994, that proposed design options for increasing clothes washer efficiency [5]. A questionnaire based on these design options was sentto AHAM for distribution to its clothes washer manufacturer members. The questionnaire requested data onthe energy use and cost ofdesign options. After theinitial questionnaire was distributed, workshops were held between stakeholders including AHAM, manufacturers, and DOE. These interactions resulted in modifications and additions tothe initial design option list. Several ofthe original ANOPRdesign options were renamedto betterdefinetheir technology. Microprocessor controls & fuzzy logic was renamed advanced controls/sensor. Configuration/tolerance ofinner and outer tubs was changed to tightertub tolerance. Higher spin speed was redefined as improved water extraction and was separated into four different valuesfor 2 i ' * * ' * * . * * '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. 

### Table 1. 

### CurrentProductClasses & 

### Efficiency Standards ProductClass Compacttop**loa~ing** Standardtop loading**Semi-autom~tic** top loading Frontloading Suds saving Efficiency Standard EF**~** 0.90ft'!(kWhlcycle)**EF~** 1.18 ft'/(kWhlcycle) Musthave unhel!-tedrinseoption Musthaveunheatedrinseoption Musthaveunheatedrinse option

, In aprevious ruleniaking [4], thetermstop loading, and fron.t loading wereusedto referto vertical and horizontal axis clothes washers, (espectively. ,Since horizontal axis machines can be manufactured in a top loading corifiguration, product class distinction-based on how clothes are '. loaded-is

### BO longer made. Instead, vertical and horiZontal axis washers are considered as design

strategiesthat manufacturers canuse to achieve different efficiency levels. Forthepresent analysis, theproquct Classes in Table 2 were considered. 

### Table 2. Proposed\Product Classes ProductClass Compact Standard Definition less than 1.6 ft· capacity

. 1.6ft' 

## or greatercapacity

. In this report, since data were not**avail~ble** for the compact class, only staiidard capacity clotheswasherswill be discussed. 

### 3. DESIGN OPTIONS Design options are changes in clothes washer design that may have the potential to'save, energy.The DOE issued art ANOPR on'November 14, 1994, that proposed design options for increasing clotheswasherefficiency [5]. A questionnaire based onthese design 'options wassentto AHAM for distribution to,its clothes washermanufacturermembers. The questionnaire requested data onthe,energy use and costofdesign'options. After theinitial questionnaire was distributed, workshops were held,between stakeholders including 

### AHAM, manufacturers, and'DOE. These interactions resulted in modifications and additions tothe initial design option list. ' Several oftheoriginal ANOPRdesign optionswererenanied tobetterdefinetheirtechnology. Microprocessor controls & fuzzy logic was renamed advanced controlS/sensor. ,Configuration/tolerance ofinner and outertubs was changedto tightertub tolerance. Higher spin speed was redefined as improved waterextraction and**~as** separated into four differentvalues for

.. ! 2

### remaining moisture content (RMC); 50%, 40%, 35%, and 30%. The RMC design option isthe same in all four cases but it varies in the amount offinal moisture content ofthe cloth. Different costs and energy usages are required to achieve the different levels ofRMC. Several design options were split into two or more options. Improved fill control was originally interpreted differentlyby individual manufacturers (withlarge differences in cost and energy savings) and was therefore split into two options: improved fill control and automatic fill control. The horizontal axis design option was separated into two design options: horizontal axis and horizontal axis with recirculation. Table 3 shows the final design options considered in this analysis.
Table 3. Design Options Improved fill control Tighter tub tolerance Added insulation Increased motor efficiency Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMV) Improved water extraction (remaining moisture content; RMC = 50%,40%,35%, 30%) Horizontal axisdesign Horizontal axiswith recirculation Advanced controls/sensor (soil load sensor) Suds saving Direct drive motor Automatic fill control Reduced thermal mass Electrolytic disassociation ofwater Ultrasonic washing Bubble action Ozonated laundering


### Some ofthe design options in Table 3 are eliminated from further consideration (later inthis report) ifone ofthe following criteria are not met [6]:
3 remaining moisture content (RMC); 500/0, 40%, 35%, and 30%. The RMC design optionis the same in all four casesbutitvaries in the amount offinal moisture content ofthe cloth. Different costs and energyusages are required to achieve the different levels ofRMC. Several design options were split into two or more options. Improved fill control was originallyinterpreted differentlyby individual manufacturers (withlarge differences in cost and energy savings) and was therefore split into two options: improved fill control and automatic fill control. The horizontal axis design option was separated into two\design options: horizontal axis and horizontal axis with recirculation. Table 3 shows the final design options considered in this analysis.


### Table 3. Design Options Improvedfill control Tightertub tolerance Added insulation Increased motor efficiency Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMV) Improvedwater extraction (remaining moisture content; RMC

### =50%,40%,35%, 30%)

.Horizontal axis design Horizontal axis with recirculation Advanced controls/sensor (soil load sensor) Suds saving Directdrivemotor Automatic fill control Reduced thermal mass Electrolytic disassociation ofwater Ultrasonic washing Bubble action Ozonatedlaundering

Some ofthedesign options in Table 3 are eliminated from further consideration (later in this report) ifone ofthe following criteria are not met [6]: 3

### 1) Technological Feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible. 2) Practicability to Manufacture, Install and Service. Ifmassproduction ofatechnology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing oftechnology could be achieved onthe scale necessary to serve therelevant market at the time ofthe effective dateofthe standard, thenthat technology willbeconsidered practicable to manufacture, install and service. 3) No adverse Impacts onProduct Utility or Product Availability. 4) No adverse Impacts onHealth or Safety. The reasons for eliminating a design option shown in Table 3 (or keeping for further consideration) are discussedintheindividual descriptions ofthe design options outlined below. The design options that are not recommended forelimination in thisreport willbe analyzed furtherina later report. Inthis laterreport, the efficiency and cost ofdesign options and combinations ofdesign options will be analyzed. Included inthe discussion ofdesign options are limiting performance factors (ifthe same factor was submitted by-two ormore manufacturers). These limiting performance factors describe parameters affected by a design option. Typically, these factors affect the utility ofthe clothes washer. A limiting performance factor does not necessarily exclude a design option from further analysis but describes performance factors that are affected by a design option and should betaken into consideration. BaselineModel 

### A clothes washer baseline model isused as a reference for evaluating the energy saving potential and increased manufacturing costs ofvarious design options. The potential for energy savings isbased on a proposed future DOE test procedure (Appendix JI) [7]. This testprocedure will take effect only when anew clothes washer standard is enacted. Thebaseline represents the typical vertical axis washer with an energy efficiencyjust above theminimum allowable, as specified byupdates totheNational Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA). Currently, all standard sizewashers must achieve the minimum allowed energy factor of 1.18 ftV/kWh, as rated according to the existing DOE test procedure. The baseline model will'be assumed to have a plastic tub, non-thermally controlled mixing valves, an unheated rinse and the capabilityto achieve a62% remaining moisture content on the normal spin cycle.

4 1) Technological Feasibility.

### Technolo~es incorporated in commerCial products or in workingprototypes

### will beconsidered technologicallyfeasible.'

. 2) Practicabilityto**Manufactur~,** Install and Service. 

### Ifmassproductionofa technologyin commercial products and reliable installation ,and servicing**~of** technology could be achieved onthe scale necessaryto servetherelevant market atthetime oftheeffective, 'dateofthe 

### standard, thenthattechnologywillbeconsidered practicabletomanufacture, install and service. ': 3) No adverseImpacts onProductUtility orProductAvailability.

, ' 4) No adverse ImpactsonHealth**~r** Safety: The reasons for eliminating a design option shown in Table 

### 3{ or keeping fot

### furthe~ consideration)arediscussed intheindividual descriptions ofthe design options outlined below. The design ()ptionsthat are.notrecommendedfor elimination in this report

### will be analyzed further'in a laterreport. Inthis laterreport, the efficiency and cQst ofdesign options and combinations ofdesign options

### will beanalyzed. Included in the discussion,ofdesign options are,limiting perfoimance factors' (ifthe same factor was submittedbytwo**~r** more manufacturers). These'limiting performancefactors describe parameters affected by a design option. Typically, these factors affect the utility ·ofthe clothes washer. A limiting performance factor does'notnecessarily exclude a design option from further analysis but describes performancefactors that are affected by a design option and should betaken ,into consideration. 

### BaselineModel . A clothes

### ~ashei baseline model is

### ~sed as 

### a reference for'evaluating the energy saving potential and increased manufacturing costs ofvarious design options. The potential for energy

.,s,avings is based on a proposed future DOEtest procedure (Appendix 11) [7]. This test procedure willtakeeffect onlywhen a new clotheswasher. standardis enacted.

,Thebaselinerepresentsthetypical vertical axis'washerwith

# an'energy efficiencyjust above the nlinimum allowable, 

## as specified byupdatestotheNational Appliance Energy.Conservation Act (NAECA). Currently, all'standard sizewashers must achieve,theminimum allowed energyfactor of 1.18 fiHkWh, as rated according to the existing DOEtest procedure. The baseline model 

### will'be assumed to.have a plastictub, non-thermally controlled miXingvalves,an unheated rinse and the ' capabilityto achieve a 62% remaining moisture content onthenormal spin cycle. "

4

### Improved fillcontrol This design option is defined as improving the tolerance on existing wash water fill sensing. This can be accomplished by reducing tolerances ofpresently used pressure sensors or improving switch design. This design option relates primarily to vertical axis design washers, although it is sometimes applicable to horizontal axis washers depending on the specific fill control design. In a typical vertical axis washer, one end ofan air hose is connected near the bottom ofthe washer tub and the other end is connected to a pressure switch. As water fills the tub, air inthe hose is forced into a smallervolume, thereby increasing the airpressure. The airpressure increases until it activates apressure switch, which inturn shuts offthe water inlet valve. A more accurate water level setting system would avoid overfilling the wash tub,thereby reducing the amount of water and energy used. Limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1)soil removal, 2) gentleness of action, and 3) wear. One manufacturer said it wasnot aware ofany opportunity to reduce tolerances ofpresently used pressure sensors. But because several manufacturers provided cost and efficiency data for improving the fill control, it was analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency. Tighter tub tolerance This design option reduces the space (the annulus) between the inner wash basket and the outertub. This annulus fillswith water, but doesnot add to the clothes washer capacity. Having less space between the inner washbasket and the outer tub reduces the amount ofwater required for a fill, thereby saving the energy required to heat it. This option applies primarily to vertical axis washers. In a horizontal axis washer, water only occupies the lower portion ofthe annulus. Since most ofthe annulus in a horizontal axis washer is filled with air, a smaller annulus does not yield significant energy savings. Other considerations are also important in determining an appropriate clearance between basket and tub. Manufacturers state thatifthe annulus istoo small there may be problems with "suds lock", where suds from the wash water remain between the inner wash basket and outer tub. Clearance is also needed to drain water during the spin dry cycle. Also, enough space must be retained to allow fordeflection ofbaskets with out-of-balance loads. Increasing the spin speed ofthe washer basket during the spin dry cycle may also require a larger space between tub and basket to allow for greater deflection at higher spin speeds. For this reason, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with the improved water extraction design options. Other limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1)noise, 2) vibration, and 3) sand removal. One manufacturer stated that the space between inner and outer tubs is already at the minimum. However, tub tolerances vary among manufacturers. Therefore, manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data were used to estimate thebenefit oftightening the tub tolerance.

5 Improved fillcontrol This design optionis defined as improving thetolerance on existjng wash waterfill sensing. This can be accomplished by reducing tolerances ofpresently used pressure sensors orimproving switch design. This design option relates primarily to vertical axis design washers, although it is sometimes applicable to horizontal axis washers depending onthe specific fill control design. In a typical vertical axis washer, one end ofan air hose is connected nearthebottom ofthewashertub andthe otherend is connected to a pressure switch. As waterfills thetub, air in thehose is forced into a smallervolume, thereby increasingthe airpressure. The air pressure increasesuntil it activates apressure switch, which in tum shuts offthewater inlet valve. A more accurate water level setting systemwould avoid overfillingthewashtub, therebyreducing the amount of water and energy used. Limiting performancefactors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) soil removal, 2) gentleness of action, and 3) wear. Onemanufacturer said itwas not aware ofany opportunity to reduce tolerances ofpresently used pressure sensors. But because several maimfacturers provided cost and efficiency'datafor improving the fill control, it was analyzed as 

## amethodto improve clotheswasherefficiency. 

### Tightertub tolerance This design option reduces the space (the annulus) between the inner wash basket and the outertub. This annulus fills with water, but does not add tothe clothes washer capacity

..Having less space between the inner wash basket and the outertub reducesthe amount ofwaterrequired for a fill, thereby saving the energy required to heat it. This option applies primarily to vertical axis washers. In a horizontal axis washer, wateronly occupiesthe lower portion ofthe annulus. Since most ofthe annulus in a horizontal axis washer is filled with air, a smaller annulus does not yield significant energy savings. Other considerations are also important in determining an appropriate clearance between basket and tub. Manufacturers statethat 

### ifthe annulus is too small there may beproblems with "suds

.lock", where suds from the wash water remain between the inner wash basket and outer tub.

Clearance is also needed to drain water during the spin dry cycle. Also, enough space must be retained to allow for deflection ofbaskets with out,.of-balance loads. Increasingthe spin speed ofthe washerbasket during the spin dry cycle may also require a larger space betweentub and basket to allow for greater deflection at higher spin speeds. For this reason, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with the improved water extraction design options. Other limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) noise, 2) vibration, and 3) sand removaL One manufacturer stated that the space between inner and outer tubs is already at the minimum. However, tub tolerances vary among manufacturers. Therefore, manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency datawere used to estimate thebenefit oftightening thetub tolerance.

5

### Addedinsulation 

### This design option adds insulation around the outer wash tub. Because some heat energy is lostthrough the shell ofthe clotheswasher, adding insulation around the outer tub slightly reduces the water temperature needed fora hot wash. However, since the wash cycle is short, thethermal mass ofthe water is very high, and thetemperature ofthe tub is relatively low there is very little change in water temperature from adding insulation. Computer simulations performed for a 20- minute wash cycle at 140°F showed that adding one inch offiberglass insulation relative to no insulation resulted in only a 1

- 2°Fincrease in water temperature during parts ofthe wash [8]. Some manufacturers stated that thisdesign option would produce little savings and should be eliminated. Since several manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data forthis design option, it was analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency. Increasedmotor efficiency 

### About 10% of thetotal electrical energy consumed by atypical clotheswasher is used by the electric motor. The typical washing machine has a y2-% horsepower motor. One manufacturer states 

### that replacing a split-phase motor with a capacitor start motor may increase the efficiency ofthe' motor by 1P% [9]. Limiting performance factors mentioned bymanufacturers include: 1)physical size and2) servicing/installation. Manufacturers supplied data for this option but suggested that since the motor energy is a small part ofthe total energy, even.a 10% reduction in motor energy would result in only a 1% reduction inoverall energy consumption. Although only small energy savings would berealized by improving the motor efficiency, it was still considered as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency. Thermostaticallycontrolled nixingvalves (TCMVs)l 

### This design option achieves energy savings by more accurately controlling inlet water temperature forhot orwarmfills. Inatypicalnon-thermostatically controlled water inlet system, two solenoid valves are used; one valve controls hot waterfills while the other controls cold water fills. Both solenoidvalves are opened ifawarmwater settingis selected. In the warm wash mode, a fixed fraction ofhot and cold water are controlled'by flow control devices. For example, amanufacturer may decide to let warm water be 50% hot and 50% cold. To reduce hot water energy use, some manufacturers have reduced the warm water temperature by using other ratios such as 40% hot and 60% cold. A thermostatically controlled mixingvalve (TCMV) refersto a set ofclothes washer valves which sense water temperature and adjust the supply ofhot and cold water to maintain a desired

1Alsoreferred to as "Thermostatically Controlled Water Valves". 

### 6 

### Addedinsulation

. . . This design option adds insulation aroundthe outerwash tub. Because some heat energyis lostthroughthe shell oftheclothes'washer, adding insulation around the outertub slightlyreduces

.the watertemperature needed for a hotwash. However, sincethewash cycle is short, thethermal

mass ofthe water is very high, and thetemperature ofthe tub is relatively low there is very little change inwater temperature from adding insulation. Computer simulations performed for

# a 20- minute wash cycle at 140°F showed that adding one inch of**fib~rglass** insulation relative.to no insulationresulted in only a 1.- 2

### OF increasein watertemperature during parts ofthew,ash [8].

I

. ,
, Some manufacturers stated that this design option wouldproduce little savings and should be'eliminated.**Sinces~veral** manufacturers supplied'cost and efficiency datafor this design option, it was analyzed as a methodto improve clotheswasherefficiency.

. 

### .'Increased

### moto~efficiency , About 10% of thetotal electrical energy consumedby atypical clotheswasheris used by**th~** electricmotor. Thetypical washingmachine

### has a 

### %-2fshorsepowermotor. Onemanufacturer states 

### i that.replacing a split-phase motor with a capacitor start motor may increase the**effic~ency** ofthe( motorby 1,0% [9]. Limiting performance factors mentionedbymanufacturers include: 1) physical size and 2) servicinglinstallation. Manufacturers supplied datafor this optionbut suggested that since the motor energy is a small part ofthe total energy, even.a 10% reduction in motor**en~rgywould** result in only a 1% reductioninoverall energy consumption. Although only small energy savings would berealized by , improving the motor efficiency, it was still considered as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency.



### ,**Th~rm~statically** 

### controlledmixingvalves rrCMVs)l

. '

## Thisde~ign option achieves

## ~nergy savings.by more accurately controlling'inlet

## wa~er temperatureforhotorwarmfills. Inatypical non-thermostatically controlled water inlet system, two' solenoid valves areused; onevalve controlshotwaterfills while the othercontrols cold waterfills. Bothsolenoidvalves are opened 

### ifawarmwater setting is selected. In thewarmwash mode, afixed fraction ofhot and cold water are controlled by flow control devices. Forexample, a manufacturer may decide to let warmwaterbe 50% hot and 50% cold. To reduce hot water energy use, some manufacturershavereduced thewarmwaterteinperaturebyusing otherratios such as 40% hot and 60% cold. ' Athermostatically controlled miXiIig valve (TCMV) refersto a set ofclothes**wa~her** valves which sense watertemperature and adjust the supply ofhot and cold watertomaintain a desired

, 

### -
1 AlS? referredto

## as "Thennostatically.Controlled Water Valves;'. 6

### warm water temperature [10]. In the June 1996 comments to the DOE test procedure, AHAM commented that it is not necessary to define thermostatically controlled water valves but to define clothes washers with thermostatically controlled water valves. It is likely that DOE will revise the aforementioned definition to that recommended by AHAM: "Clothes washers with thermostatically controlled water valves refer to clothes washers which sense water temperature and adjust the hot water and cold water supplies appropriately to maintain a mixed water temperature" [11]. Energy canbe saved with aTCMV by either reducing the hot water temperature orreducing the warm water temperature. For example, the TCMV could be used to lower the hot wash temperature from 135°F to 130°F by mixing hot water (at 135°F test inlet conditions) with cold water. Warm water temperature could be similarly reduced. The energy savings can vary widely depending on the test standard's specified inlet hot water temperature and the selected temperature ofthe tempered water. A TCMV design option hasthe potential to overstate the actual in-home energy savings when tested under laboratory conditions. The magnitude ofthe discrepancy depends on the proximity of the water heatertothe clothes washer. When tested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer isnext tothe hotwater source, whereas this is generally not the case in the home. As a result ofthe distance between the hot water source and the clothes washer, there is atemperature drop due to line losses. As a result ofthe line losses, a clothes washer with aTCMV may use more hot water than predicted under the laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real world application savings will also vary with the temperature ofincoming cold water (i.e. ground water). The unheated water temperature will vary with both geographic location and time ofyear. More energy would likely be saved in cases ofwarmer inlet water as aTCMV would then reduce the amount oftime a hot water valve is open. The amount ofsavings is also dependent on the set point ofthe TCMV, the water heater set point, the temperature selection ofthe wash (hot orwarm cycle), and the location ofthe sensing thermostat controlling the inlet water valves. A limiting performance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer was soil removal. Because TCMV's are commercially available on high end machines they were considered as away to increase clothes washer efficiency. Manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this design option. Improvedwaterextraction There are several ways to reduce the remaining moisture content (RMC) inthe laundry load after the final spin cycle. One method isto increase the spin speed ofthe wash basket for the final spin cycle. Other ways include: 1) changing the direction ofrotation to more evenly distribute clothes, 2) having a longer spin cycle, and 3) increasing the size ornumber ofdrainage holes inthe washer drum. Since mechanical drying is more efficient thanusing heat to dry, energy consumption for the combined wash and dry process is reduced.

7 warm water temperature [10]. In the June 1996 comments to the DOE test procedure, AHAM commented that it is not necessaryto define thermostatically controlled watervalves butto define clothes washers with thermostatically controlled watervalves. Itis likelythatDOEwill revise the aforementioned definition tothat recommendedby AHAM: "Clotheswashers with thermostatically controlled watervalves refer to clothes washers which sense.watertemperature and adjust thehot water and cold water supplies appropriately to maintain a mixed watertemperature" [11]. Energy canbe saved with aTCMVby either reducing thehot watertemperature orreducing the warm water temperature. For example, the TCMV could be used to lower the hot wash temperature from 135°Fto 130°F by mixing hot water (at 135°Ftest inlet conditions) with cold water. Warm watertemperature could be similarly reduced. The energy savings can vary widely dependingonthe test**standard~s** specified inlet hot watertemperature and the selected temperature ofthetempered water. ATCMVdesign optionhas thepotentialtooverstatethe actual in-homeenergy savings when testedunder laboratory conditions. The magnitude ofthe discrepancy depends onthe proximity of thewaterheatertothe clothes washer. Whentested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer

. is nexttothehotwater source, whereas this is generally not the case in the home. As a result ofthe distancebetweenthehotwater source and theclotheswasher, there is a temperature drop due to line losses. As a result ofthe line losses, a clothes washerwith a TCMVmay use more hot waterthan predicted under the laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real world application savings will also vary withthetemperature ofincomirtg cold water (i.e. ground water). Theunheated watertemperature will varywithbothgeographic location and time ofyear. More energy would likely be saved in cases ofwarmerinletwater as a TCMVwould then reduce the amount oftime a hot watervalve is open. The amount ofsavings is also**depen~ent** onthe set point ofthe TCMV, thewaterheater set point, thetemperature selection ofthewash (hot orwarm cycle), and thelocation ofthe sensing thermostat controlling the inlet water valves. A limiting performance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer was soil removal. BecauseTCMV'sare commercially available on high end machines they were considered as awayto increase clothes washer efficiency. Manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this design option. 

### Improvedwaterextraction There are several ways to reduce theremaining moisture content (RMC) in the laundry load after the final spin cycle. One method is to increase the spin speed ofthewashbasket for the final spin cycle. Other ways include: 1) changing the direction ofrotation to more evenly distribute clothes, 2) having a longer spin cycle, and 3) increasing the size ornumber ofdrainage holes in the washer drum. Since mechanical drying is more efficient thanusing heat to dry, energy consumption for the combined wash and dry process is reduced.

7

### Limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1)greater wrinkling of clothes, 2) noise and, 3) vibration. Manufacturers state that the washing machine structure would have tobe redesigned to handle greater dynamic loads, stresses, deflections, and increased braking. In addition, different spin cycle options would have to be available on a washer to account for the load type. Different fabrics require different maximum spin speeds to avoid clothes damage. 'The probable, future test procedure (Appendix J1) will most likely assume that the improved water extraction feature will not be used for 25% ofthe time that the clothes washer isin use (based on AHAM response to the test procedure Supplemental ANOPR) [12]. Since this feature can be consumer selectable, clothes subject towrinkling can bewashed with a conventional spin cycle option to avoid awrinklingproblem. Somemanufacturers were doubtful that RMCs of35% and 30% could be practically obtained. In laboratory testing, RMCs on commercially available horizontal axis washers ranged from 49% to 36% with a 50/50 cotton/polyester cloth load. Forthe same test load, a vertical axis machine had a 52% RMC. The washers for the above testing were loaded at 3 pounds per cubic foot of basket capacity [13]. The future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1), generally based on AHAM recommendations, specifies the testload asbeing closer to 4 pounds per cubic foot ofbasket capacity [14]. Since the amount ofcloth testload has an effect on theRMC achieved, it is unknown whether the above laboratory tested machines can achieve their stated RMC values under future DOE test conditions. Somemanufacturers already have models which can achieve 40% RMC levels. For example, General Electric applied for a test procedure waiver for a vertical axis washing machine that can achieve RMC levels of less than 40% [15]. Several European horizontal axis models are able to achieve 40% RMC including: Asko model 20005; Creda model CWA242; and Miele models W1903, W1918, and W1930 [16]. There do not appear tobe any commercially available orknown prototype clothes washer that achieves RMCs of35% or 30% and, therefore, these two RMC levels will be eliminated from any further analysis. RMC levels of 50% and 40% are analyzed with manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data. Horizontal axis design Horizontal axis machines rotate the drum (wash basket) and clothes about a horizontal axis. With this design, the drum does not have to be filled with water to cover the top ofthe clothes. Therefore, horizontal axis machines use much less water than conventional vertical axis machines. In some designs the washer is first filled to a specified level. As clothes absorb the water, a water level sensor allows more water to enter to maintain the specified level. In this way the water level is matched to the laundry load. Washing performance appears to be equal to that ofvertical axis machines. In laboratory testing, horizontal axis machines used on average 40% less energy and 25% less water when normalized to clothes container volume. The horizontal axis machines also had a greater soil removal effectiveness [17].
8 Limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) greaterwrinkling of clothes, 2) noise and, 3)vibration. Manufacturers statethat thewashing machine structurewould havetoberedesigned to handlegreaterdynamic loads, stresses, deflections, and increasedbraking. In addition, different spin cycle options wouldhave to be available on a washerto account for the load type. Different fabrics require different maximum spin speeds to avoid clothes damage

..The probable, future test procedure (Appendix 11) will most likely assume that the improved water extraction feature will not be used for 25% ofthetime that the clothes washer is in use (based on AllAM response to the test procedure Supplemental ANOPR) [12]. Since this feature can be consumer selectable, clothes subjectto

### wrinkling canbewashedwith a conventional spin cycle option to avoid awrinkling problem. Somemanufacturerswere doubtful that RMCs of35% and 30% could be practically obtained. In laboratorytesting, RMCs oncOIllIilercially available horizontal axis washers ranged from 49% to 36%with a 50/50 cotton/polyesterclothload. Forthe sametest load, a vertical axis machine had a 52% RMC. The washers for the above testing were loaded at 3 pounds per cubic foot of basket capacity [13]. The future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11), generally based on AHAM recommendations, specifies thetestload as being closerto4 pounds per cubic foot ofbasket capacity [14]. Sincethe amount ofclothtest load has an effect ontheRMC achieved, it is unknown whether the above laboratory tested machines can achi'eve their stated RMC values underfuture DOEtest conditions. Somemanufacturers already have models which can achieve 40%RMC levels. Forexample, General Electric'applied for a test procedure waiver for a vertical axis washing machine that can achieve RMC levels of less than 40% [15]. Several European horizontal axis models are able to achieve40%RMC including: Asko model 20005; Credamodel CW A242; and Miele modelsW1903, W1918, and W1930 [16]. There do not appeartobe any commerciallyavailable orknownprototype clothes washerthat achieves RMCs of35% or 30% and, therefore, these two RMC levels will be eliminated from any further analysis. RMC levels of 50% and 40% are analyzed with manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data. 

### Horizontalaxis design Horizontal axis machines rotatethe drum (washbasket) and clothes about a horizontal axis. With this design, the drum does not have to be filled with water to cover the top ofthe.clothes. Therefore, horizontal axis machines use much less waterthan conventional vertical axis machines. In some designs the washer is first filled to a specified level. As clothes absorb the water, a water level sensor allows more water to enter to maintain the specified level. In this way the waterlevel is matched to the laundry load. Washing performance appears to be equal to that ofvertical axis machines. Inlaboratorytesting, horizontal axis machines used onaverage 40% less energy and 25% less water when normalized to clothes container volume. The horizontal axis machines also had a greater soil removal effectiveness [17].
8

### In a previous analysis, it was estimated that less detergent would be needed based on some detergent manufacturers' recommendations [18]. New information now suggests that if a low sudsing detergent is sold in theU.S., detergent use would remain unchanged [19][20]. Inthe May 8, 1995 data submittal by AHAM [21], one manufacturer commented that there will be many consumer utility issues impacted by the use ofahorizontal axis design including: * Clothes washer water bath will still not be at household water heater settings: Agreater portion ofthe fill water will be affected bythermal losses (since less hot water is used) due to 1)household supply piping, 2) washing machine structure, and 3) clothes load.

e 

### There will be an increased cycletime to complete the washing process: This manufacturer states that there is the need to tumble clothes longer as there is less mechanical action in tumbling than agitation. Multiple rinses will be required to remove higher detergent concentration versus rinses inhorizontal axis washers. More time is required to heat water ifan internal heater is utilized. * Loading/unloading accessibility is impaired: There is aneed to stoop to load front loader style horizontal axiswashers. A small opening (to load clothes) isrequired to avoid water.leaks. The door is locked to avoid water spillage and therefore garments cannot be added after the cycle has been initiated without draining water. Top-loading horizontal style horizontal axis washers have an "unfriendly" springloaded trap door. In addition, excessive reach is required to retrieve garments at bottom of cylinder on top loading style horizontal axis machine. * Rewiring ofelectrical system may be required: Afinancial impact to consumers may result from having to rewire the electrical system ofthe home to 240V in the washer area ifan internal heater is utilized. * A new low-sudsing formulated detergent would be required: Leading detergent manufacturers are still developing detergents for horizontal axis machines. Ascompared to horizontal axis designs, the detergent costper load will increase. The dosage isthe same or slightly less than horizontal axis designs, not one third ofvertical axis designs as claimed by advocates ofhorizontal axis designs. Limiting performance factors mentioned by more than one manufacturer include: 1) soil removal, 2) consumer interface (ergonomics), 3) tangling, 4) cycle time, 5) rinsing and 6) suds sensitivity. Horizontal axis machines are currently commercially available in the United States, and although manufacturers have several concerns overthis design, it is analyzed as amethod to improve clothes washer efficiency.

9 Inaprevious analysis, it was estimatedthat less de:tergent wouldbe needed based on some detergent manufacturers' recommendations [18]. New information now suggests that ifa low sudsing detergent is sold in theU.S., detergent usewould remain unchanged [19][20]. IntheMay 8, 1995 data submittal by AHAM [21], one manufacturer commented that there will be many consumerutility issues impactedbytheuse ofa horizontal axis design including:


### •



## •

•

•

• Clotheswasherwaterbathwill'still notbe athousehold waterheater settings: A greater portion ofthe fill waterwill be affected bythermal losses (sinceless hot water is used) dueto 1) household supply

### p~ping? 2) washing machine structure, and 3) clothes load. There will be an increased cycle time to completethe washing process: This manufacturer states that there is the need to tumble clothes longer as there is less mechanical action in tumbling than agitation. Mu.ltiple rinses will be required to remove higherdetergentconcentrationversusrinses in horizorital axiswashers. Moretime is required to heat waterif

# an internal heater is utilized. Loading/unloading accessibility is impaired: Thereis aneed to stoop to load front loader style horizontal axis washers. A small opening (toload clothes) is required to avoid water·leaks. The door is locked to avoid water spillage and therefore garments cannot be added after the c:ycle has been initiated without draining water. Top-loading horizontal style horizontal axis washers have an "unfriendly" springloadedtrap door. Inaddition, excessive reach is required to retrieve garments atbottom of cylinder ontop loading style horizontal axis machine. Rewiring ofelectrical system may be required:.

. Afinancial impact to consumersmay result from having to rewire'the electrical system ofthe hometo 240V in the washer area ifan internal heater is utilized. A new low-sudsing formulated detergent would be required: Leading detergent manufacturers are still developing detergents for horizontal axis machines. As comparedtohorizontal axis designs; thedetergent costperload will increase. The dosage isthe same or slightly less than horizontal axis designs, not onethird ofvertical axis designs as claimed by advocates ofhorizontal axis designs. Limiting performance factors mentioned by more than one manufacturer include: 1) soil removal, 2) consumer interface (ergonomics), 3) tangling, 4) cycle time, 5) rinsing and 6) suds sensitivity. Horizontal axis machines are currently,commercially available in the United States, and although manufacturers have several concerns overthis design, it is analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency.

9

### Horizontal axis withrecirculation This design option is a variation on the horizontal axis design option. It differs in that this design uses a pump to circulate water from a sump underneath the rotating drum through a spray nozzle into the interior ofthe rotating drum. The small amount ofwater in thebottom ofthe drum ofa standard horizontal axis washer is not required. Less hotwater is needed per wash cycle, thereby saving energy. In the May 8, 1995 data submittal by AHAM, one company commented that they have not been able toverify that asavings exists with recirculation. Limiting factors mentioned by more than one manufacturer include: 1) soil removal, 2) tangling, 3) cycle time, 4) rinsing, and 5) suds sensitivity. Manufacturers submitted data on cost and energy use for this design option. Electrolux models EW 1550, EW1450, andEW 1250 use direct spray (eight liters per minute ofwater/detergent solution is sprayed into the drum by means ofa supply valve above the porthole) [22]. Advancedcontrols/sensor(soilloadsensor) According to the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1), "an adaptive control system refers to a clothes washer control systemwhich is capable ofautomatically adjusting washer operation or washing conditions based on characteristics ofthe clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or requiring consumer intervention and/or actions." This design option would use sensorsto measure the soil load to adjust the wash temperature, agitation and/or tumble cycle time, number ofrinse cycles, spin speed, and other parameters. Water and energy use can then be tailored to the load, thereby avoiding washing the clothes more than necessary. The future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) would account for energy savings due to this design option, and in some cases would allow for specific field test procedures to measure energy consumption [23]. The Electrolux Intuition and Zanussi Dialog washing machines use fuzzy logic to weigh laundry loads and regulate the length ofthe cycle, water level, number ofrinses, and drying time [24].AEG unveiled the Oko-Lavamat 6953 in mid-1993. This washing machine incorporates fuzzy logic to optimize the washing process while conserving water usage. The fuzzy logic control determines the absorbency ofthe itemsbeing washed at the earliest stage possible after the start of the washing cycle. The system determines the correct water quantity for clear-water washing and the subsequent rinsing (the phase ofwashing that uses a majority ofthe water) [25]. Manufacturers submitted cost and energy data for this design option, therefore, this option will be included in further analysis. Sudssaving A suds saving feature allows water from one wash cycle to be reused in the next wash cycle. After agitation, sudsy wash water is pumped into a separate storage tub, remaining there until the
10 Horizontalaxiswith recirculation This design option is a variation onthe**horizon~al** axis design option, It differs in thatthis design uses a pump to circulate waterfrom a sump underneath the rotating drum through a spray nozzleinto the interior ofthe rotating drum. The small amount ofwaterin thebottom ofthe drum ofa standardhorizontal axis washeris notrequired. Lesshotwateris neededperwashcycle, thereby saving energy. In the May 8, 1995 data submittal byAHAM, one companycommented that they have not been able toverifythata savings exists withrecirculation. Limiting factors mentioned by morethan one manufacturer include: 1) soil removal, 2) tangling, 3) cycle time, 4) rinsing, and 5) suds sensitivity. Manufacturers submitted data on cost and energy use for this design option. Electrolux models EW 1550, EW1450, andEW 1250usedirect spray (eightliters perminute ofwater/detergent solution is sprayed into the drumby means ofasupply valve abovetheporthole) [22]. 

### Advancedcontrols/sensor(soil loadsensor) According to the future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11), "an adaptive control system refersto a clotheswashercontrol systemwhichis capable ofautomatically adjusting washer operation or washing conditions based on characteristics ofthe clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing orrequiring consumerintervention and/or actions." This design optionwould use sensorstomeasurethe soil load to adjust thewash temperature, agitation and/or tumble cycle time, number ofrinse cycles, spin speed, and otherparameters. \Vater and energy use can thenbetailored to the load, thereby avoiding washing the clothes more than necessary. The future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) would account for energy savings due to this design option, and in some cases would allow for specific field test proceduresto measure energy consumption [23]. The Electrolux Intuition and Zanussi Dialog washing machines use fuzzy logic to weigh laundry loads and regulate the length ofthe cycle, water level, number ofrinses, and drying time [24].AEGunveiled the Oko-Lavamat 6953 in mid-1993. This washing machine incorporates fuzzy logic to optimize the washing process while conserving water usage. The fuzzy logic control determines the absorbency oftheitems beingwashed at the earliest stage possible after the start of the washing cycle. The system determinesthecorrectwaterquantity for clear-waterwashing and the subsequentrinsing (the phase ofwashing that uses a majority ofthe water) [25]. Manufacturers submitted cost and energy datafor this design option, therefore, this optionwill be'included in further analysis. 

### Sudssaving A suds saving feature allowswaterfrom onewash cycle to be reused in the next wash cycle. After agitation, sudsy wash wateris pumped into a separate storage tub, remaining there until the
10 t.

### next wash cycle. While the water is stored, soil settles to the bottom ofthe tub. During the next wash cycle, all but an inch ofthe water is pumped back into the washer tub for use again [26]. Manufacturers have commented that this option saves water but not energy. They also believe that there is low consumer demand for this option and would, therefore, notbe used often. In addition, this option cannot be used for all loads or soil conditions. This option is useful only when there is more than one wash cycle perload oflaundry, e.g., apre-wash (which is nottypically the case), or if the consumer washed more than one wash load at a time. Subsequent washes could receive diminishing benefits, since the water intheholding tub would cool ifleft standing too long. A limiting performance factormentioned by more than one manufacturer forthis design option was soil removal. This design option is currently commercially available. An example is AB Electrolux's Recycle 40. It uses water from the final rinse ofone load to use again as the prewash ofthe next cycle [27]. Maytag features this option as a water saving option on one ofits washers. The future (Appendix J1) DOE test procedure will nolonger provide an energy saving benefit for this design option. The two interested parties that commented on this provision during the comment period for the test procedures, were not in favor ofretaining credit for this design option [28][29]. In addition, because this option requires an external wash tub, consumer utility is affected. This option is eliminated from further consideration for the above stated reasons. Directdrivemotor This design option is primarily intended for use in vertical axis machines. A conventional vertical axis clothes washer uses an induction motor, a mechanical transmission, and sometimes a pulley belt. A direct drive motor can replace a conventional motor/transmission system. Rather than using a belt and/or transmission, amotor could be directly connected to the agitator, thereby avoiding transmission (gearbox) losses. Eaton, a motor manufacturer, claims that this will result in less mechanical energy required, i.e., less energy needed to run the agitator motor. This is accomplished byusing aBrushless DC (BLDC) motor with electronic controls. Cleanability was notmeasured by Eaton. In addition, other parameters such as cycle time or spin speed were not kept constant in a comparison test with a conventional washer. For the machines tested, Eaton found savings ofabout 140 W-hr per cycle or 64% ofmotor energy use. When adjusted forthe direct drive standby power, this difference drops to about 35 W-hr per cycle or 16%. The direct drive standby power is the energy consumption whenthe machine is "off'. Inthe "off"mode, the direct drive motor system has a power drain of4.78 watts. The current DOE test procedure does not account for standby power use. Energy savings could be improved ifthe standby power loss was decreased [30]. One company submitted a comment that energy losses in the drive system are a very small percent oftotal energy use. Therefore, savings from a direct drive motor would be minimal. A limiting performance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer for this design option was physical size.

11 

# •

next wash cycle. While the wateris stored, soil settles to the bottom ofthe tub. During the next wash cycle, all but an inch ofthe water is pumped back into the washer tub for use again [26]. Manufacturers have commented that this option saves waterbut not energy. They also believe that thereis low consumer demand for this option and would, therefore, notbeused often. In addition, this option cannotbeused for all loads or soil conditions. This optionis useful only when there is more than onewash cycle perload oflaundry, e.g., a pre-wash (which is nottypically the case), or ifthe consumer washed more than one wash load at a time. Subsequent washes could receive diminishingbenefits, sincethewaterintheholdingtub would cool ifleft standingtoo long. A limiting performancefactormentionedbymorethan onemanufacturerforthis design optionwas soil removal. This design option is currently commeJ;'cially available. An example is AB Electrolux's Recycle 40. Ituses water from the final rinse ofone load to use again as the prewash ofthe next cycle [27]. Maytag features this option as a water saving option on one ofits washers. The future (Appendix 11)DOEtest procedurewill no longer provide an energy saving benefit for this design option. The two interested parties that eorrimented on this provision during the comment period for the test procedures, were not in favor ofretaining credit for this design option [28][29]. Inaddition, because this optionrequires an external washtub, consumerutility is affected. This option is eliminated from further consideration for the above stated reasons. Directdrive motor This design option is primarily intended for use in vertical axis machines. A conventionai vertical axis clothes washer uses an induction motor, a mechanical transmission, and sometimes a pulley belt. Adirectdrive motorcanreplace a conventional motor/transmission system. Ratherthan using abelt and/ortransmission, amotorcouldbe directly connected tothe agitator, thereby avoiding transmission (gearbox) losses. Eaton, a motor manufacturer, claims that this will result in less mechanical energyrequired, i.e., less energy needed to run the agitatormotor. This is accomplished by using aBrushlessDC (BLDC) motorwith electronic controls. Cleanability was not measuredby Eaton. In addition, otherparameters such as cycle time or spin speed were not kept constant in a comparisontestwith a conventional washer. Forthe machines tested, Eaton found savings ofabout 140W-hrper cycle or64% ofmotorenergy use. When adjusted for the direct drive standby power, this difference drops to about 35 W-hr per cycle or 16%. The direct drive standby power is the energy consumptionwhenthe machine is "off'. Inthe "off' mode, the direct drive motor system has apowerdrain of4.78 watts. The current DOE test procedure does not account for standby power use. Energy savings couldbeimproved ifthe standbypowerloss was decreased [30]. One company submitted acomment that energy losses in the drive system are a very small percent oftotal energy use. Therefore, savings from a direct drive motor would be minimal. A limiting performance factor mentioned by more than one**manufac~rer** for this design option was physical size.

11

### InJapan, Australia, and Asia, vertical axis direct drive washers are currently available. Some horizontal axismachines also use a direct drive motor. Thus, using manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data, this design option is analyzed as amethod to improve the clothes washer efficiency. Automaticfill control2 

### This designoption incorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes load and adjustthe water level accordingly. Foravertical axis machine, this may mean setting the water level tojust submerge the clothes load. This design option would overcome the tendency ofconsumers to manually select a water level greater than required. Energy is saved in either the vertical or horizontal axis designs byreducing the amount ofhot water used in the wash cycle. The future (Appendix J1) DOE test procedure (unlike the existing DOE test procedure) uses an actual clothes load and, therefore, possible savings due to this design option can be measured. Limiting performance factors mentioned bymore than one manufacturer for this design option were: 1)gentleness ofaction and 2) wear. Washing machines with automatic fill control are available. Test procedure waivers for this design option have been applied for, and in some cases a decision or order has been issued by the DOE. Using manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data, this design option is analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency. Reduced thermalmass This designoption uses aplastic tub to reduce the thermal mass that would be heated by the water. Testsby manufacturers indicate that very little energy can be saved this way because the bulk ofthe thermal mass is contained in the hot water. One manufacturer compared the impact ofboth porcelain enameled steel and polypropylene outer tubs on water temperature. Both machines were filledwith 16 gallons of 140°F water and agitated for ten minutes. After ten minutes, there was no significant difference in watertemperature between the two machines. Calculations show that ifthere were no heat losses through the outer tub, the equilibrium temperature for the tested steel tub described above would be 138.9°F. Therefore, there is little tobe gained by decreasing the thermal mass ofthe outer tub [31]. Plastic outertubs are commonly used by manufacturers and canbe considered as part ofthe baseline model. There is no practicable way to manufacture washing machines with alower thermal mass beyond the current practice. Therefore, this design option is eliminated from further analysis.

2In the test procedure the terminology used is "adaptive water fill control". 

### 12 InJapan, Australia, and Asia, vertical axis direct drive washers are currently available. Some horizontal axis machines also use a**dire~t** drive motor. Thus, using manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data, this design option is analyzed as a method to improve the clothes washer efficiency. Automatic fillcontroz2 This design optionincorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes load and adjustthewaterlevel accordingly. Fora vertical axis machine, this may mean settingthe waterlevel tojust submergethe clothes load. This design optionwould overcomethetendency ofconsumers to manually select a waterlevel greaterthanrequired. Energyis saved in eitherthevertical orhorizontal axis designs by reducing the amount ofhot water used in the wash cycle. The future (Appendix 11) DOE test procedure (unlike the existing DOEtest procedure) uses an·actual clothes load and, therefore, possible savings due to this design option can be measured. Limiting performance factors mentioned by morethan onemanufacturer for this design optionwere: 1) gentleness ofaction and 2)wear. Washingmachines with automatic fill control are available. Test procedurewaivers for this design optionhave been applied for, and .in some cases a decision or orderhas been issued by the DOE. Using manufacturer supplied cost and efficiency data, this design option is analyzed as a method to improve clotheswasher efficiency. 

### Reducedthermalmass This design optionuses a plastictub to reducethethermal mass that would beheated by the water. Testsby manufacturers indicatethatvery little energy canbe saved this waybecause thebulk ofthe thermal mass is contained in thehot water. One manufacturer compared the impact ofboth porcelain enameled steel andpolypropylene outertubs on watertemperature. Both machines were filled with 16 gallons of 140°F waterand agitated for tenminutes. Aftertenminutes, there wasno significant difference in watertemperaturebetweenthetWo machines. Calculations showthat ifthere were no heat losses through the outer tub, the equilibrium temperature for the tested steel tub described above would be 138.9°F. Therefore, there is littletobe gained by decreasingthe thermal mass ofthe outertub [3 1]. Plastic outertubs are commonlyused by manufacturers and can be considered as part ofthe baseline modeL There is no practicablewayto manufacturewashing machines with a lowerthermal mass beyond the current practice. Therefore, this design optionis eliminated from further analysis.

2In the test procedure the terminology used is "adaptivewaterfill control". 12

### Electrolytic disassociation ofwater The goal ofelectrolytic dissociation ofwater is to reduce hot waterusage by substituting the electrolytic production ofbleaching agents forthe water heating process. Aprototype clothes washer with electrolytic dissociation ofwater has been successfully tested [32]. Although commercial detergents perform better at high temperatures, the same: hypochlorite concentration obtained by adding bleaching agents towater can be achieved at low temperatures, ifthe agents are produced by electrolytic disassociation within the machine. Thebleaching action is due to the chemical reaction ofthe oxygen (derived from the chemical decomposition ofthe hypochlorite) with the insoluble organic compounds that constitute the soil inthe clothes. Together they make soluble compounds that are dissolved in the water. Electrolytic dissociation was tested in a laboratory electrochemical cell. Medium soiled clothes and whitematerials were used inthetest. Thewashing cycletest was conducted in two steps. The first was with electrolytic action, which was performed by adding 4 gm/liter ofsalt to the room temperature water. The second stage was with a commercial detergent at a temperature of95°F to 113°F. The usual rinses, spinning, and drainage followed. Initial tests showed that energy use dropped from about 2.65 kWh/cycle for a typical washing machine to 1.35 kWh/cycle forthe new electrochemical method. The costs ofsuch a system are not available. Manufacturers do not feel that electrolytic dissociation is a workable approach. Primary concerns are negative effects on garments resulting from the bleaching process and poor consumer acceptance due to their inability to control the chemistry and temperature in the wash part ofthe cycle [33]. Since there are no commercially available or working prototypes for residential use, this design option is eliminated from further consideration. Ultrasonic washing The addition ofmechanical energy can reduce the need for hot water (or chemical energy) in the cleaning action ofclothes washers. One potential method ofdelivering the mechanical energy is through ultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove some ofthe dirt on the soiled clothes. Such washing machines have been produced by a Japanese firm andwere to be marketed in the U.S. One U.S. manufacturer ofclothes washers investigated the Japanese product and found that it did not successfully clean clothes. The U.S. firm stated that the Japanese company is an excellent manufacturer ofultrasonic transducers, but does not have experience with clothes washing. One ofthe problems with ultrasonic vibration isthat clothes are not uniformly exposed to the vibrations generated bythe transducers, which means that some areas remain soiled. Additionally, the wash solution and the submerged clothes appear to dissipate much ofthe energy without being cleaned. Although ultrasonic vibration may be technically feasible, a design producing adequate cleaning action does not appear to have been developed [34].

13 

# •

Electrolytic disassociation of water Thegoal ofelectrolytic dissociation ofwateris to reducehot waterusageby substitutingthe electrolyticproductionofbleaching agentsforthewaterheatingprocess. A prototype clothes washer with electrolytic dissociation ofwater has been succesSlfully tested [32]. Although commercial detergents perform better at high temperatures, the same: hypochlorite concentration obtained by addingbleaching agentstowatercanbeachieved at lowtemperatures, ifthe agents areproduced by electrolytic disassociationwithinthe machine.. Thebleaching action is duetothe chemical reaction ofthe oxygen**(derive~** from the chemical decomposition ofthe hypochlorite) with the insoluble organic compoundsthat constitute the soil in the clothes. Togetherthey make soluble compounds that are dissolved in thewater. Electrolytic dissociation was tested in a laboratOJ[Y electrochemical cell. Medium soiled clothesandwhitematerials wereused inthe test. Thewashing cycletest was conducted in two steps. Thefirst waswith electrolytic action, which was performedby adding 4 gmIliter ofsalt to the room temperaturewater. The second stagewas with a commercial detergent at a temperature of95

### OF to 113

### °F. The usual rinses, spinning, and drainage followed. Initial tests showed that energy use dropped from about 2.65 kWh/cycle for a typical washing machine to l.35 kWh/cycle for the new electrochemical method. Thecosts ofsuch a system are not available. Manufacturers do not feel that electrolytic dissociation is a workable approach. Primary concerns are negative effects ongarments resulting from the bleaching process and poorconsumer acceptance dueto theirinabilityto controlthechemistry and temperature in the wash part ofthe cycle [33]. Sincethere are no commercially available orworking prototypes for residentiai use, this design optionis eliminated from further consideration. 

### Ultrasonic washing The addition ofmechanical energy can reducethe need for hot water (or chemical energy) in the cleaning action ofclothes washers. One potential method ofdelivering the mechanical energy is throughultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove**s~me** ofthe dirt on the soiled clothes. Such washing machines have been produced by a Japanese firm and wereto be marketed in the U.S. One U.S. manufacturer ofclothes washers investigated the Japanese product and found that it did not successfully clean clothes. The U.S. firm stated that the Japanese company is an excellent manufacturer ofultrasonic transducers, but does not have experience with clothes washing. One oftheproblems withultrasonicvibrationis that dothes arenot uniformly exposed to the vibrations generated by the transducers, which means that some areas remain soiled. Additionally, the wash solution and the submerged clothes appearto dissipate much ofthe energy without being· cleaned. Although ultrasonic vibration may be technically feasible, a design producing adequate cleaning action does not appearto have been developed [34].

13

### Since there does not appear to be a commercially available product or a working prototype (that successfully cleans clothes), this design option is eliminated from further analysis. Bubble action Daewoo Electronics, Ltd. has developed an airbubble washing machine. Thismachine uses a low-profile bottom-hugging impeller typical in Asian-style vertical axis washers and combines it with a six-winged, rotating pulsator shaped to direct water in four directions. This pulsator also distributes airbubbles indifferent directions. Thebubbles are generated by a vibrating bellows which is drivenby an electromagnet. Bubbles are reported to increase the cleaning power ofthe washer in several ways: 1)byinducing a high-frequency pressure fluctuation near the clothes, 2) by increasing the dissolution ofdetergent, 3) by increasing the amount ofdissolved oxygen which increases the activity ofthe detergent, and 4) bylowering the viscosity ofthe wash water [35][36]. The Sharp Corporation also makes a bubble washer in which the bubble-generating device uses neuro-fuzzy logic controls. From a nozzle located at the bottom ofthe washer, airbubbles are generated by a computer-controlled pulsator and circulated upward in vertical and horizontal swirling motions. The controls adjust the amount ofwater use byusing a single-tub design that washes the same amount oflaundry as a typical dual-tub (inner and outer) configuration. Water and detergent use are only 70% of that used in conventional dual-tub designs. Although sold inJapan, this machine is not yet marketed in the United States [37]. Standardized and independent tests have yet to be conducted ontheperformance ofthe bubble-action system, therefore the energy saving potential and performance ofa bubble action design option is unknown. This design option was proposed because of reports that such a machine was being manufactured in Korea and Japan. However, since there do not appear to be any energy savings studies from this design option, this design option is eliminated from further analysis. Ozonatedlaundering Currently, three manufacturers make ozonated laundering systems for commercial/institutional washers. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, isinjected into the water. There is some debate as to how the process ofthe ozonated cleaning exactly works. Some claim the ozone reacts with soluble soils, making them insoluble, after which the mechanical action ofthe washing separates the soils from the fabric. One manufacturer proposed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces water tension, making thewater abetter solvent. Energy is saved with this system because the water is not heated for light'to moderately soiled laundry; in fact colder water retains a higher concentration of ozone for alonger time. Forheavily soiled laundry, temperatures of100-110°F are used. Also, since lesschemicals are used, the rinsetime is minimized thereby reducing the total wash time. Economical ozone production is critical to the potential energy savings. One manufacturer estimates savings of 25% on "utility expenses" with installation ofits system. The expected cost and energy consumption for a residential ozonated wash system are unknown [38].

14 Since theredoes not appeartobea cOmrriercially available product ora working prototype (that successfully cleans clothes), this. design optionis eliminated fromfurther analysis. 

### Bubbleaction DaewooElectronics, Ltd. has developed an airbubble washing machine. This machine uses a low-profile bottom-hugging impellertypical in Asian-style vertical axis washers and combines it with a six-winged, rotating pulsator shaped to direct water in four directions. This pulsator also distributes airbubblesin different directions. Thebubbles are generated by a vibrating bellowswhich is drivenby anelectromagnet. Bubbles arereportedto increasethe cleaning power ofthe washerin several ways: 1) byinducing a high-freq1:lency pressurefluctuation nearthe clothes, 2) by increasing the dissolution ofdetergent, 3)by increasing the amount ofdissolved oxygen which increases the activity ofthe detergent, and 4) byloweringthe viscosity ofthe wash water [35][36]. The Sharp Corporation also makes a bubble washer in which the bubble-generating device uses neuro-fuzzy logic controls. From a nozzle located at the bottom ofthewasher, airbubbles are generatedby a computer-controlledpulsatorand circulatedupward in vertical and horizontal swirling motions. The controls adjust the amount ofwaterusebyusing a single-tub design that washes the same amount oflaundryas a typical dual-tub (inner and outer) configuration. Water and detergent use are only 70% ofthatused in conventional dual-tub designs. Although sold in. Japan, this machine is not yet marketed in the United States [37]. Standardized and independent tests have yet to be conducted ontheperformanceofthebubble-action system, thereforethe energy saving potential and performance ofa bubble action design optionis unknown. This design option was proposed because of reports that such a machine was being manufactured in Korea and Japan. However, since there do not appear to be any energy savings studies from this design option, this**desig~** option is eliminated.from further analysis. 

### Ozonatedlaundering Currently, threemanufacturersmakeozonated laundering systems for commerciaVinstitutional washers. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, is injected into thewater. There is some debate as to how the process ofthe ozonated cleaning exactly works. Some claim the ozone reacts with soluble soils, makingthem insoluble, after which the mechanical action ofthe washing separates the soils from the fabric. One manufacturerproposed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces water tension, makingthewaterabetter solvent. Energy is saved withthis system because the water is not heated for IIght·to moderately soiled laundry; in fact colderwater retains a higher concentration of ozonefor alongertime. Forheavily soiled laundry, temperaturesof 100-11O°F are used. Also, since less chemicals areused, therinsetimeis minimized therebyreducingthetotal wash time. Economical ozone production is critical tothepotential energy savings. One manufacturer estimates savings of 25% on "utilityexpenses" with installation ofits system. The expected cost and energy consumption for a residential ozonated wash system are unknown [38].

14

### There does not appear to be any commercially available or working prototype residential clothes washer using this design option. Therefore, this design option is eliminated from further analysis. 4. CONCLUSIONS For previously stated reasons, the design options in Table 4 were eliminated from further consideration. 

### Table 4. Design Options Eliminated from FurtherAnalysis Improved Water Extraction forRMC's of35% & 30% Suds Saving Reduced Thermal Mass Electric Disassociation ofWater Ultrasonic Washing Bubble Action Ozonated Laundering


### Table 5 shows the design options remaining for further analysis. Table 5. Remaining Design Options ImprovedFill Control Tighter tub tolerance Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMV) Improved Water Extraction for RMC's of 50% &40% Horizontal axis design Horizontal axis design withrecirculation Automatic Fill Control Increased Motor Efficiency Direct Drive Motor Advanced Controls /Sensors Added Insulation

15 

# •

There does not appear to be any commercially available or working prototype residential clothes washer using this design option. Therefore, this design option is eliminated from further analysis. 4. CONCLUSIONS For previously stated reasons, the design options in Table 4 were eliminated from further consideration. Table 4. Design Options Eliminated from FurtherAp,alysis Improved WaterExtractionfor RMC's of35% & 30% Suds Saving Reduced ThermalMass Electric Disassociation ofWater Ultrasonic Washing BubbleAction OzonatedLaundering

Table 5 shows the design options remaining for fun:her analysis. Table 5. Remaining Design Options ImprovedFill Controi Tightertub tolerance Thermostatically controlledmixing valves (TCMV) Improved WaterExtractionfor RMC's of50% &40% Horizontal axis design Horizontal axis design with recirculation Automatic Fill Control Increased MotorEfficiency DirectDrive Motor Advanced Controls / Sensors Added Insulation
15

### REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1996a. Procedures,Interpretations andPolicies for Consideration of New orRevisedEnergy Conservation Standards for ConsumerProducts; FinalRule. Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C ofPart 430

-- July 15, 1996. 2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1994. Advance Notice ofProposedRulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 218, 10 CFR Part 430, Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, November 14, 1994. 3. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1991. Energy ConservationProgram for Consumer Products:FinalRule RegardingEnergy ConservationStandards for Three Types of ConsumerProducts.Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10 Part 430, Vol. 56, No. 93, May 14, 1991. Docket No. CE-RM-88-101. 4. Ibid. 5. U.S. DOE. 1994. Op cit. 6. U.S. DOE. 1996a. Op. cit. 7. U.S. DOE. 1996b. EnergyConservationProgram for ConsumerProducts:TestProcedure forClothes Washersand ReportingRequirementforClothes Washers, ClothesDryers,and Dishwasher.(61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Docket No. EERM-94-230A. 8. Science Applications Inc., 1977. EnergyEfficiency Program for Clothes Washers, Clothes DryersandDishwashers,SAI-77-839, La Jolla, CA. p.4-45. 9. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on theAdvance Noticeof ProposedRulemaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403. comment #27, May 8, 1995. 10. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Op cit. 11. AHAM. 1996. Comments on the SupplementalNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOE Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A, comment #7, June 6, 1996. 12. Ibid. 13. Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL). 1995. LaboratoryTestingofClothesWashers,p.3-8, December, 1995, EPRI Report No. TR-105098.
16 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1996a. 

### Procedures, InterpretationsandPolicies for Consitieration-of New orRevisedEnergy ConservationStandards for ConsumerProducts;

. FinalRule. Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C ofPart 430

--

July 15, 1996. 2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1994. 

### Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 218, 10 CFR Part 430, Docket No. EE-RM-94-403, November 14, 1994. 3. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1991. 

### Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products: Final Rule Regarding Energy ConsenJation Standardsfor Three Types of ConsumerProducts. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10 Part 430, Vol. 56, No. 93, May 14, 1991. DocketNo. CE-RM-88-10l: 

### 4. Ibid 5. U.S. DOE. 1994. 

### Op cit. 6. U.S. DOE. 1996a. 

### Op. cit. ·7. U.S. DOE. 1996b. 

### Energy ConservationProgramfor ConsumerProducts: TestProcedure for Clothes Washers andReportingRequirement for Clothes Washers, ClothesDryers, and Dishwasher. (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), lOCFR, Part 430, DocketNo. EERM-94-230A.

- 8. Science Applications Inc., 1977. 

### EnergyEfficiencyProgramfor Clothes Washers, Cloihes DryersandDishwashers, SAI-77-839, LaJolla, CA. p.4-45. 9. Association ofHome ApplianceManufacturers (AHAM). 1995. 

### Comments on theAdvance Notice of ProposedRulemaking. DOEDocket No. EERM-94-403, comment#27, May 8, 1995. 10. U.S. DOE. 1996b. 

### Op cit. 11. AHAM. 1996. 

### Comments on the SupplementalNotice of ProposedRulemaking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOEDocketNo. EE-RM-94-230A, comment #7, June 6, 1996. 12. 

### Ibid 13. ArthurD. Little, Inc: (ADL). 1995. 

### Laboratory Testingof Clothes Washers, p.3-8, December, 1995, EPRIReport No. TR-I05098.
1614. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Op. cit. 

### 15. U.S.DOE. 1996c. FederalRegister, April 24, 1996, Volume 61, Number 80, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. CW-004]. EnergyConservation Programfor ConsumerProducts:Grantingof theApplicationforInterim WaiverandPublishing ofthe Petition for Waiver ofGeneralElectricAppliances from theDOE Clothes Washer Test Procedure. 16. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). High Efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative, Qualifying Products as of7/9/96. 17. ADL. 1995. Op. cit. 18. B. Lebot, I. Turiel, G. Rosenquist. 1990. "Horizontal Axis Domestic Clothes Washers: An' Alternative Technology that Can Reduce Residential Energy and Water Use". Proceedings of theACEEE 1990Summer Study onEnergyEfficiency inBuildings,Volume 1,Building Equipment and Appliances, p.1.147-1.156. 19. A. Cahn. 1994. The LaunderingProcess,handout presented at the Workshop on Home Laundry Energy Standards Regulatory Issues, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1994. 20. Procter & Gamble, Comments ontheAdvanceNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #9, January 20, 1995. 21. AHAM. 1995. Op. cit. 22. Electrolux product literature.Newfor '93,Domotechnica. 23. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Op.cit. 24. Appliance Manufacturer, April 1995, p.27. 25. Appliance Manufacturer, February 1995, p.E-58 26. Appliance, "New Ways ofWashing", September 1992, Vol. 49, No. 9, p.75. 

### 27. Appliance, September 1995, p.51. 28. Maytag 1996. Comments on the SupplementalNotice ofProposed Rulemaking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOE Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A, comment #8, June 6, 1996. 29. Raytheon 1996. Comments on the SupplementalNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOE Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A, comment #9, June 6, 1996.
17 14. US. DOE. 1996b. 

### Gp. cit. 15. US.DOE. 1996c. FederalRegister, April 24, 1996, Volume 61, Number 80, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy [CaseNo. CW-004]. 

### Energy ConservationProgramfor ConsumerProducts: Grantingof theApplication forInterim WaiverandPublishingof the Petitionfor Waiver ofGeneralElectricAppliances from the DGE Clothes Washer Test Procedure. 16. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). High Efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative, Qualifying Products as of7/9/96. 17. ADL. 1995. 

### Gp. cit. 18. B. Lebot, I. Turiel, G. Rosenquist. 1990. "Horizontal Axis Domestic Clothes Washers: An' Alternative Technologythat CanReduceResidential.Energy and WaterUse". 

### Proceedings of theACEEE 1990

### SummerStudy onEnergyEfficiency inBuildings, Volume 1, Building Equipment**a~d** Appliances, p.l.147-1.156. 19. A. Cahn. 1994. 

### The LaunderingProcess, handout presented at the Workshop on Home Laundry Energy StandardsRegulatoryIssues, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1994. 20. Procter& Gamble, 

### Comments ontheAdvanceNotice of ProposedRulemaking. DOE Docket No. EERM-94-403, comment #9, JB:nuary 20, 1995. 21. AHAM. 1995. 

### Gp. cit 22. Electrolux product literature. 

### Newfor '93, 

### Domolechnica. 23. US. DOE. 1996b. 

### Gp. cit. 24. Appliance Manufacturer, April 1995, p.27. 25. Appliance Manufacturer, February 1995, p.E-58. 

### 26. Appliance, "NewWays ofWashing", September 1992, Vol. 49, No.9, p.75. 27. Appliance, September 1995, p.5l. 28. Maytag 1996. 

### Comments.on the Supplemental Notice of ProposedRulempking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOEDocketNo. EE-RM-94-230A, comment#8, June 6, 1996. 29. Raytheon 1996. 

### Comments on the SupplementalNotice of ProposedRulemaking, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test Procedure, DOEDocketNo. EE-RM-94-230A, comment#9, June 6, 1996.

17

### 30. S. Kristic, J. Pardee, "Direct" Comparison Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a Transmission-Less Motor-Drive System for Conventional Clothes Washers, Proceedingsof the 44thAnnualInternational Appliance TechnicalConference,p.101, May 1993. 31. U.S. DOE. 1990. Technical SupportDocument: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers,Clothes Washers,andClothesDryers,p.3-14, DOE/CE0299P, December 1990. 32. Ibid p.3-15. 33. Ibid.p.3-15. 34. Ibid.p.3-15. 35. ApplianceManufacturer,"Big Plans for Tiny Bubbles", p.32, December 1994. 36. Appliance, "Sorting Through Laundry", p.35, September 1994. 37. I. Turiel, et al., Evaluation of Advanced Technologies for ResidentialAppliances and Residential and Commercial Lighting, January 1995, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBL-35982. 38. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1996. OzoneLaundering:A Better WashProcess for Commercial Laundries, Technical BriefRP2890,March 1996.

18 30. S. Kristic, J. Pardee, "Direct" Comparison Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a Transmission-LessMotor-Drive Systemfor Conventional Clothes Washers, 

### Proceedings of the 44thAnnualInternationalAppliance Technical Conference, p.101, May 1993. 31. U.S. DOE. 1990. 

### Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standardsjor ConsumerProducts: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, andClothesDryers, p.3-14, DOE/CE0299P, December 1990. 

### 32. Ibid p.3-15. 

### 33. Ibid p.3-15. 

### 34. Ibid p.3-15. 

### 35. ApplianceManufacturer, "BigPlans for Tiny Bubbles", p.32, December 1994. 

### 36. Appliance, "Sorting ThroughLaundry", p.35, September 1994. 37. I. 

### Turiel, et al., 

### Evaluation of Advanced Technologiesfor Residential Appliances and Residential and Commercial Lighting January 1995, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBL-35982. 38. ElectricPowerResearch Institute (EPRI). 1996. 

### OzoneLaundering:A Better Wash Process for CommercialLaundries, TechnicalBrief RP2890, March 1996.

18

### DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

October 1996

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY Energy & Environment Division Technology and Market Assessment Group Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office ofCodes and Standards 

### DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

October 1996

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY Energy & Environment Division Technology and Market Assessment Group Berkeley, CA 94720

Prepared for 

### u.s, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office ofCodes and Standards

### TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

1. OV E RVIEW
...................................................... 1 2. TEST PROCEDURE

.............................. ........... . .... .. 2 

### 3. ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS

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

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

.............................. 4 3.3 Energy Use .......................... ...... .............. 5 3.4 Costing Data
................ ......... ........... 7 3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results

................................. 8 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN

................. 12 APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA

........ A-I APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA

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

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

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

........ ...... . B-2 APPENDIX C RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM

................. CAPPENDIX D DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION

.... D-l APPENDIX E CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION I.......
.................. . E-l APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY

... ... F

### LIST OF TABLES Table 1.. General Assumptions

......... ........... 7 Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data
....... 9 Table A. I Disaggregated Cost ofEfficiency Improvements for Standard Clothes Washers

............. ........... ............ .... A-2 Table B. 1 Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE Test Procedures

.... ......... ................. B-3 

### Table C. 1 Raw Data Provided byAHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis

... C-2 Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data
....... C-4 Table D. 1 Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content

..................... DLIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor

..... 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAFT REPORT ON THE PRElLIMINARY ENGINEERINGANALYSIS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

1. OVERVIEW
...................................................... 1 2. TEST PROCEDURE
................................................ 2 3 . ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS
................................ 4 3. 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis

.............................. 4 3.3 Energy Use.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. , .... 5 3.4 Costing Data.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 7 3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results

. '.'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ........ 8 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN.
. . . . . . . . . . .. 12 APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA
......... A-I APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO 

### AHAM DATA
....................... B-1 B.l Adjustments due to Statistical Variations

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

...... . . . . . . . . .. . ...... B-1 B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes.

. ................. B-2 APPENDIX C RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM
. C-1 APPENDIX D DRYEREFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION. '. 0-1 APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... E-1 APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY
. . . . . . . . . . F-l LIST OF TABLES Table 1
.. Table 2. Table A.l General Assumptions

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ........ . Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data. Oisaggregated Cost ofEfficiency Improvementsfor Standard Clothes Washers.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . Table B.l Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE· . 7 9 A-2 Test Procedures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3 Table C 1 Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis C-2 Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance FactorData
....... C-4 Table D.l Dryer Energy at 70% Initial Moisture Content
..................... D-l LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor 10

i

### Clothes Washer Preliminary Engineering Analysis
1. OVERVIEW The Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturer costs, and other characteristics ofthe appliance class being analyzed. For clothes washers, there are two classes: standard and compact. Since data were not available to analyze the compact class, only standard clothes washers were analyzed in this report.-- For this analysis, individual design options were combined and ordered in a manner that resulted in the lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. The cost/savings ratiois the increase in manufacturer cost for a design option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings. A significant amount ofinformation gathering and analysis was conducted before the new interpretive rule process approach was implemented, therefore, some preliminary results are presented here as a point for discussion. The methodologies used in the final engineering analysis report will be addressed after consultation with stakeholders. Uncertainty and variability ofdata must also be addressed before the engineering analysis is completed. Other input from stakeholders is also encouraged for the final engineering analysis report. Alternative approaches can be explored or present approaches can be modified and refined. Also open for discussion is what variables or uncertainties need to be analyzed. Baseline Units 

### A baseline unit is the starting point for analyzing design options for improving energy efficiency. In this repor.' the baseline unit represents a typical model with an energy efficiency no lower than the minimum required by the amended National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) (Energy Factor > 1.18 ft3

### /kWh). The baseline energy use is based on the shipmentweighted average ofmajor American manufacturers' models. DesignOptions Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were established inDraftReporton Desigtn OptionsforClothes Washers [1]. This report also discussed design options which were screened out from further analysis based on provisions detailed in the Department ofEnergy's Interpretive Rule [2]. Analysis ofeconomic criteria will be found in a future report. Maximum TechnologicallyFeasibleDesigns A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting ofa combination ofindividual design options was identified. This option, or combination ofoptions, results in the highest energy 

### ClothesWasherPreliminary Engineering 

### Analysis·

1. OVERVIEW The Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturer costs,and other characteristics ofthe appliance class being analyzed. For clothes washers, thereare two classes: standard and compact. Since data were not available to analyze the compact class, only standard clothes washers were analyzed in this report.· For this analysis, individual design options were combined and ordered in a manner that resulted in the lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. The cost/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer cost for a design option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings. A significant amount ofinformation gathering andanalysis was conducted before the new interpretive rule process approach was implemented, therefore, somepreliminary results are presented here as a point for discussion. The methodologies used in the final engineering analysis report will be addressed after consultation with stakeholders. Uncertainty and variability ofdata must also be addressed before the engineering analysis is completed. Other input from stakeholders is also encouraged for the final engineering analysis report. Alternative approaches can be explored or present approaches can be modified and refined. Also open for discussion is what variables or uncertainties need to be c.nalyzed. 

### Baseline Units A baseline unit is the starting point for analyzing design options for improving energy efficiency In this repon. the baseline unit represents a typical model with an energy efficiency no lower than the minimum required by the amended National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) (Energy Factor::> 1.18 ft3/kWh) The baseline energy use is based on the shipmentweighted average ofmajor American manufacturers' models. 

### Design Options Design options that are presently commercially available or that are in prototypes were established inDraftRepOrT Oil Design Options for Clothes Washers [I]. This report also discussed design options which were screened out from further analysis based on provisions detailed in the Department ofEnergy's Interpretive Rule [2]. Analysis ofeconomic criteria will be found in a future report. 

### Maximum Technologically FeasibleDesigns A maximum technologically feasible design option consisting ofa combination ofindividual design options was identified. This option, or combination ofoptions, results in the highest energy

### efficiency. The maximum technologically feasible efficiency level must be either commercially feasible or available as a working prototype. Efficiency Calculation The efficiency levels corresponding to various design options were determined from manufacturer data and from engineering calculations. Cost Estimates Estimates ofmanufacturer cost were received in response to a questionnaire sent out by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). Appendix A contains detailed incremental cost data disaggregated into labor, purchased parts and materials, shipping/packaging, and investment. The sum ofindividual design option costs were used for design options combined in this analysis (i.e., those not previously combined by AHAM or manufacturers). Cost-Efficiency Relationships The results ofthe Engineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which show the efficiency and manufacturer cost ofthe design options. Outputsfrom theEngineeringAnalysis For each combination ofdesign options considered in the analysis, the following are provided: * energy efficiency (expressed as a Modified Energy Factor' and unit energy consumption); * increased variable and fixed costs for manufacturers; * annual energy consumption per unit (based on DOE test procedures); * the relationship between cost and efficiency: and * change in water consumption. 2. TEST PROCEDURE Since this analysis is based on a future Department ofEnergy (DOE) test procedure, it is important to discuss proposed changes to the test procedure. TheDepartment has proposed two new

' The Modified Energy Factor is a measure ofenergy efficiency derived fiom the future DOE test procedure tor each product type. 

### 2 / efficiency. The maximum technologically feasible efficiency level must be either commercially feasible or available as a working prototype. 

### Efficiency Calculation The**~fficiency** levels corresponding to various design options were determined from manufacturerdata and from engineering calculations. 

### CostEstimates Estimates ofmanufacturer cost were received in response to a questionnaire sent out by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). Appendix A contains detailed incremental cost data disaggregated into labor, purchased parts and materials, shipping/packaging, and investment. The sum ofindividual design option costs were used for design options combined in this analysis (i.e., those not previously combined by AHAM or manufacturers). 

### Cost-Efficiency Relationships The results ofthe Engineering Analysis are summarized in cost-efficiency relationships which show the efficiency and manufacturer costofthe design options. 

### Outputsfrom the EngineeringAnalysis For each combination ofdesign options considered in the analysis, the following are provided'

• energy efficiency (expressed as a Modified Energy Factorl and unit energy**consumption)~**
• increased variable and fixed costs for manufacturers;



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

• the relationship between cost and efficiency: and

• change in water consumption. 

### 2. TEST PROCEDURE Since this analysis is based on a future Department ofEnergy (DOE) test procedure, it is important to discuss proposed changes to thetest procedure. The Department has proposed two new

I The Modified Energy Factor is a measure ofenergy efficiency derived from the future DOE test procedure for each product type. 2

### clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking; Appendices "J" and "J1" [3]. In thisreport, the two new versions ofthe test procedure "'' and "J1" will be referred to as the "proposed" and "future" test procedure, respectively. The proposed (Appendix J) test procedure will take effect shortly after being completed and published in the Federal Registeras a final rule. The "future" (Appendix J1) test procedure will take effect only when a new clothes washer standard is enacted. The Engineering Analysis presented in this report is based on the future (Appendix Jl) test procedure. The test procedure used in analyzing design options is important not only because of differences in the magnitude ofenergy savings predicted but also because it has the potential to change the ranking ofdesign options. For example, the energy savings due to a thermostatically controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent on the hot water temperature set point ofthe water heater. Existingtestprocedure The existing test procedure specifies 140°F inlet water and 416 clothes washer cycles per year [4]. The existing test procedure is carried out without a cloth test load for vertical axis clothes washers. Proposed testprocedure (Appendix J) TheAppendix J test procedure will not alter the existing energy factor ofany clothes washer that is required to meet the current efficiency standard, except for.clothes washers with temperature selections which are locked out ofthe normal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes washer use of392 cycles peryear, 2) clarification ofwash/rinse temperatures to avoid ambiguity, 3) specification of agitation and spin speed settings, 4) addition ofwater heating clothes washer capability, and 5) new provisions to account for an automatic fill control feature. In addition, the following informational quantities are defined: 1)total (both hot and cold) water consumption, 2) remaining moisture content (RMC) in the test load after the final spin cycle, and 3) a calculated modified energy factor (MEF). The MEF will include the energy needed to dry clothes in a dryer after a final washer spin cycle

. Determining the MEF will not be mandatory. Futuretestprocedure (AppendixJ1) This DOE clothes washer test procedure has been proposed in order to more accurately reflect actual energy usage and adapt to the continuing changes in clothes washer design. This test procedure will make some ofthe informational changes in the Appendix J test procedure mandatory [6]. Among the changes in the test procedure will be 1) new temperature use factors (TUFs), 2) lowering ofthe inlet hot water temperature from the existing 140°F to 135 °F, 3) a water temperature rise change from 90 °F to 75 °F and 4) provisions to account for adaptive control and automatic fill control. In addition, clothes washer test loads will depend on washer capacity, remaining moisture content after a final spin cycle will be taken into account, and the MEF will replace the current energy 3 clothes washer test procedures in a Supplemental Notice ofProposed Rulemaking; Appendices 'T' and "J}" [3]. Inthis report, the two new versions ofthe test procedure 'T' and "]1" will be referred to as the "proposed" and "future" test procedure, respectively. The proposed (Appendix J) test procedure will take effect shortly after being completed and published in the

### FederalRegister as a final rule. The "future" (Appendix 11)test procedurewill take effect only when a new clothes**wa~her** standard is enacted. The Engineering Analysis presented in this report is based on the future (Appendix ]1) test procedure. The test procedure used in analyzing design options is important not only because of differences in the magnitude ofenergy savings predicted but also because it .has the potential to change the ranking ofdesign options. For example, the energy savings due to a thermostatically controlled mixing valve (TCMV) are dependent onthe hot watertemperature set point ofthe water heater.

. 

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

### Proposedtestprocedure (Appendix J) The Appendix J test procedure will not alter the existing energy factor ofany clothes washer that is required to meet the current efficiency standard, except forclothes washers with temperature selections which are locked out ofthe nonnal cycles [5]. Test procedure changes include 1) a clothes washer use of392 cycles peryear, 2) clarification ofwashlrinse temperatures to avoid ambiguity, 3) specification of agitation and spin speed settings, 4) addition of water heating clothes washer capability, and 5) new provisions to account for an automatic fill controi feature In addition, the following informational quantities are defined. 1) total (both hot and cold) water consumption, 2) remaining moisture content (RMC) in the test load after the final spin cycle, and 3) a calculated modified energy factor (MEF). The MEF will include the energy needed to dry clothes in a dryer after a final washer spin cycle. Determining theMEF will not be mandatory. 

### Future testprocedure (Appendix JJ) This DOE clothes washer test procedure has been proposed in order to more accurately reflect actual energy usage and adapt to the continuing changes in clothes washer design. This test procedurewill make some ofthe informational changes in the Appendix J test procedure mandatory [6]. Among the changes in the test procedure will be 1) new temperature use factors(TUFs), 2) lowering ofthe inlet hot watertemperature from the existing 140°Fto 135OF, 3) a watertemperature rise change from 90 OF to 75 OF and 4) provisions to account for adaptive control and automatic fili control. In addition, clothes washertest loads will depend on washer capacity, remaining moisture content after afinal spin cycle will betaken into account, and the MEF will replace the current energy
3

### factor (EF) for standard compliance. (Reporting ofthe energy factor (EF) will be kept for voluntary programs.) The above changes should result in a more accurate prediction ofactual clothes washer and clothes dryer energy use. 3. ENERGY-USE AND COST ANALYSIS 3.1 Introduction A cost and efficiency questionnaire sent toAHAM was responded to byfive AHAM member manufacturers, however not every manufacturer provided energy-use and cost data for each design option considered. AHAM submitted energy usage data based on both the existing DOE test procedure and a proposed2 

### AHAM test procedure. Differences between the proposed AHAM and future DOEtest procedures are discussed in Appendix B. AfterLBNL performed an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested on combinations ofdesign options, particularly fordesign options that could be used on both vertical and horizontal axis washers. Additional data were desired because inherent design differences between vertical and horizontal axis washers could result in different incremental costs and energy savings for a given design option. Certain synergies in cost and efficiencies could also result from combining some design options. The analysis performed was divided into two basic stages; Phase I and Phase II. Phase I is the analysis ofthe responses from the initial questionnaire and Phase II includes responses from additional data requests (e.g., combined design options and further disaggregated design options). Data from both Phase I and Phase II were used in the final analysis. Where possible, data submitted from Phase II were used. Data from Phase I were used when needed to analyze design options not covered in the Phase II data submittal. The raw data supplied by AHAM are provided in Appendix C: 3.2 Variability and Uncertainty Analysis Because oflarge differences (in some instances) in cost and energy use data provided by manufacturers it isimportant to analyze the effect ofvariability and uncertainty in the data used in the engineering analysis. Variability refers to differences in input values, for example, costs for a design option. Even ifin some cases the manufacturers know how much a design option would cost them to implement. these costs may be different among manufacturers. Similarly for fuel costs, although current costs for fuel areknown, fuel prices vary among electric or gas utilities. Uncertainty is a measure ofhow a datavalue mayvary ifthe exact value is unknown. For example, although all manufacturers might agree on the probable cost ofa design option, the exact cost may be unknown. Parameters with

21n this report proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test procedure which was usedby manufacturers to submit data. 4 factor (EF)for standard compliance. (Reporting ofthe energy factor (EF) will be keptfor voluntary programs.) IThe above changes should result in a more accurate prediction ofactual clothes washer' and clothes dryer energy use. .' 

### 3. ENERGY-USE AND COSTANALYSIS

, . , . 

### '3.1 Introduction 

# A cost and efficiency questionnaire senttoAHAM wasresponded to by five'AHAM member manufacturers, however not every manufacturer.provided'energy-use and cost data for each,design option.considered. AHAM submitted energy usage data based on both the existing DOE test procedure and a proposed2 AHAM test procedure. Differences between the proposed AHAM and future DOE test procedures'are discussed in Appendix 

### B:

. AfterLBNLperformed·an initial engineering analysis, additional information was requested oncombinations ofdesign options, particularlyfor design options that could beused on both verticiil and horizontal axiswashers. Additional data were desired because inherent design differences ,between vertical and horizontal axis washers could result in different incremental costs and energy savings for a given design option. Certain synergies in costand,efficiencies,could also result from 'combiningsoQ'le design options.' The analysis performed was divided intotwo basic stages;'Phase I ,and Phase II. Phase I is the analysis ofthe**re~ponses** from the initial questionnaire and Phase II includes responses from additional**~ata** requests (e.g., cOl:nbined design options and further disaggregated design options); Data from both Phase I and Phase II were used in the final analysis. Where possible, data submitted from Phase II wereused. Data from Phase I were used when needed· to analyze design options not covered in the Phase II data submittal.' The raw data supplied by AHAM are provided in Appendix C; 

### 3.2 Variability and UncertaintyAnalysis B.ecause oflarge differences (in some instances)in cost and energy use data provided by manufacturers 

### it is important to analyze the effect ofvariability and uncertaintyin the data usedin the

. , engineering analysis

.. Variability refers to differences in input values, for example, costs for a design optioft. Even ifin some casesthe manufacturers know how much a design option would cost them to implement, these costs may be different among manufacturers. Similarly for fuel costs,aIthough current costs

,for fuel are known, fuel prices vary among electric orgas utilities.' Uncertainty;is a measure ofhow

a datavaluemayvary if the exact value is unknown. Forexample,although all manufacturersplight agree'on the probable cost ofa design optiOri, the exaCt cost may be unknown. Parameters with,

2In this repoI1 "proposed AHAM test**pro~edure"** refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data, 4 "

### variability and uncertainty applicable to the engineering analysis include manufacturer cost, fuel price, usage in cycles per year, predicted energy savings, and water price. To avoid releasing confidential information, AHAM submitted manufacturing costs and energy usage data as shipment weighted averages. Along with the actual values, information on the standard deviation ofthe datawas also provided (see Appendix C). How these data should be used and whether or not an alternative metric (such as a range ofsubmitted values) can be provided is open for discussion. Differences inhow fixed and variable costs were submitted by AHAM may also be discussed (see Appendix A). Datawere also provided on confidence factors for: cost and investment data, mass production success, and marketing success. Ofthese, cost and investment data are directly applicable to the engineering analysis. Stakeholder input is requested in how to explictly utilize these confidence factors in the analyses. One approach to account for variability and uncertainty would be to statistically determine which input variables have a significant impact on the output ofthe engineering analysis. This approach could similarly be used to measure the effect ofinput paramenter variability on the metrics used in determining what the appliance standard should be, ifone is promulgated. This statistical approach could also beused to determine the frequency ofoccurrence oflife-cycle cost reduction or ofpayback being greater than a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been used on other products to determine the affect ofvariability and uncertainty on consumer impacts (i.e., payback and life-cycle cost). However, these metrics are currently not the subject ofthe engineering analysis. In previous rulemakings, sensitivity analyses have been performed by assuming a high and low value for various data inputs (e.g., electricity price). Sensitivity analyses may be discussed in the future when doing consumer and national impact analyses. 3.3 Energy-Use Adjustments had tobe made to the data submitted by AHAM because 1)not all manufacturers provided data for all design options and 2) differences in the proposed AHAM and future (Appendix Jl) DOE test procedures. Test procedure changes included adjustments in: 1) inlet hot water temperature, 2) TUFs, and 3) dryer usage factor (DUFs). Appendix B details the adjustments made to the AHAM data. Cost/savings ratios were calculated for all individual design options (referenced to the baseline). As depicted in Eq. 1,the cost/savings ratio is the increase in manufacturer cost for a design option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings.

5 variability and uncertainty applicable to the engineering analysis include manufacturer cost, fuel price, usage in cycles per year, predicted energy savings, and water price. To avoid releasing confidential infon:nation, AHAM submitted manufacturing costs and energy usage dataas shipment weighted averages. Along with the actual values, information on the standard deviation ofthe data/was also provided (see Appendix C). Howthese data should be used and whether ornot an alternativemetric (such as a range ofsubmitted values) can be provided is open for discussion. Differences in howfixed and variable costs were submitted by AHAM may also be discussed (see Appendix A). Datawere also provided on confidence factors for: cost and investment data, mass production success, and marketing success. Ofthese, cost and investment data are directly applicable to the engineering analysis. Stakeholder input is requested in how to explictly utilize these confidence factors in the analyses. One approach toaccount for variability and uncertainty would be to statistically determine which input variables have a significant impact on the output ofthe engineering analysis. This approach could similarly be used to measure the effect ofinput paramehter variability on the metrics used in determining what the appliance standard should be, ifone is promulgated. This statistical approach could also beused to detennitle the frequency ofoccurrence oflife-cycle cost reduction or ofpayback being greaterthan a specific value. Methods such as the one mentioned above have been used on other products to determine the affect ofvariability and uncertainty on consumer impacts (i.e., payback and life-cy<;le cost). However, these metrics are currently not the subject ofthe engineering analysis. Inprevious rulemakings, sensitivity analyses have been performed by assuming a high and lowvalue for various data inputs (e.g., electricity price). Sensitivity analyses may be discussed in the future when doing consumer and national impact analyses 3.3 Energy-Use Adjustmentshad to be made tothe data submitted by AHAM because 1) not all manufacturers provided data for all design options and 2) differences in the proposed AHAM and future (Appendix ]I) DOE test procedures. Test procedure changes included adjustments in: 1) inlet hot water temperature, 2) TUFs, and 3) dryer usage factor (DUFs). Appendix Bdetailsthe adjustments made to the AHAM data. ' Cost/savings ratios were calculated for all individual design options (referenced to the baseline). As depicted in Eq. 1, the cost/savings ratiois the increase in manufacturer cost for a design option divided by the reduction in operating costs due to fuel and water savings.

5Cost/Savings Ratio = 

### ACOStmfg ACost ( operating



### where ACostmf = Increase in manufacturer cost ACostowrag = Reduction in annual operating cost


### Those design options with very high cost/savings ratios were identified and not combined with other design options in ordertoreduce the total number ofcombinations. Thosenot combined were: 1)added insulation, 2) increased motor efficiency, 3) direct drive motor, and 4) advanced controls. Individual design options were also combined where possible to determine ifgreater possible energy savings were feasible. However, in some instances design options were not considered compatible with each other. For example, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with lower RMC options or horizontal axis designs because ofgreater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds (which is one method ofachieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control were considered two distinct methods ofachieving the same goal and were, therefore, not combined with each other. Cost/savings ratios were calculated forvarious combinations ofgas and electric water heaters and clothes dryers. Generally, design options were ranked and combined by lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Operating costs used in determining the savings portion ofthe cost/savings ratio were based on a weighted average ofboth gas and electric water heaters and dryers. The weighted average operating costs were derived by first calculating the cost in dollars per year required for heating water and drying clothes for each fuel type separately. Then average dollars per year were calculated for pairings of gas and electric water heaters, with similar averages calculated for combinations ofgas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars per year for water heating and clothes drying is then the sum ofthe water heater average and the clothes dryer average. In some instances, other considerations took precedence when ranking design options. An example involves the horizontal axis and lower RMC designs where the RMC design option should precede the horizontal axis design option because it has a lower cost/savings ratio. However, since a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost and performance of adding on a RMC feature. horizontal axis was placed ahead ofit. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM (some were submitted precombined in Phase II), ifthey had a lower cost/savings ratio than one of its single design option components, then the single (uncombined) design option was not used. For some cases, it was not technically correct to simply add individual energy or water savings to determine the energy and water saved due to combined options. The following procedure was used indetermining hot water energy for the improved fill control, automatic fill control (auto-fill), and TCMV design options. First, the energy for the individual design option was determined. Next, 6 Cost/Savings Ratio 

## = {)'Cost ,r; mJg (),Costoperatlng

where LlCostmfr LlCostoperating Increase in manufacturer cost Reduction in annual operating cost (1)

Those design optionswith veryhigh cost/savingsratios were identified and not combined with otherdesign options in orderto reducethe total number ofcombinations. Thosenot combined were: 1) added insulation, 2) increased motor efficiency, 3) direct drive motor, and 4) advanced controls. Individualdesign options were also combined where possible to determine ifgreater possible energy savings were feasible. However, in some instances design options were not considered compatible with each other. For example, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with lower RMC options or horizontal axis designs because ofgreater possible tub deflection at higher spin speeds (which is one method ofachieving lower RMCs). Improved fill control and automatic fill control were considered two distinct methods ofachieving the same goal and were, therefore, not combined with each other. Cost/savings ratios were calculated torvarious combinations ofgas and electric water heaters

- and clothes dryers. Generally, design options were ranked and**combi~ed** by lowest cumulative

cost/savings ratio. Operating costs used in. determining the savings portion ofthe cost/savings ratio were based on a weighted average ofboth gas and electric water heaters and dryers. The weighted average operating costs were derived by first calculating the cost in dollars per year required for heating water and drying clothes for each fuel type separately. Then average dollars per year were calculated for pairings of gas and electric water heaters, with similar averages calculated for combina!ions ofgas and electric dryers. An average cost in dollars per year for water heating and clothes drying is then the sum ofthe water heater average and the clothes dryer average. In some instances, other considerations took precedence when ranking design options. An example involves the horizontal axis andlower RMC designs where the RMC design option should precede the horizontal axis design option because it has a lower cost/savings ratio. However, since a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost and performance of adding on a RMC feature, horizontal axis was placed ahead ofit. With regard to combined design options submitted by AHAM (some were submitted precombined in Phase-II), ifthey had a lower cost/savingsratio than one of its single design option components, then the single (uncombined) design option was not used.

. For some cases, it was not technically correctto simply add individual energy orwater savings to determine the energy and water saved due to combined options. The following procedure was used in determining hot water energy for the improved fill cOt;ltrol, automatic fill control (auto-fill), and TCMV design options. First, the enerbYJ' for the individual design option was determined. Next,
6

### the ratio ofthe individual design option'senergy use to the baseline's energy use was calculated. This ratio was then used to multiply the energy use ofthe immediately preceding design option to arrive at the lower energy use for the combined design option. Similarly the above method was used to determine the reduced water use for improved fill control and auto-fill control design options. GeneralAssumptions Table 1shows the assumptions made in order to carry out the energy-use and energy cost calculations. Table 1. General Assumptions

Parameter Value Source Baseline Clothes Container Volur.e 2.9 cubic feet AHAM [7] Cycles per Year 392 Future DOE test procedure [8] Electricity Price 0.083594 $/kWh AEO.1996 [9] Natural Gas Price 6.075 $/MBtu AEO 1996 [10] Electricity Price Multiplier 0.90 LBNL Natural Gas Price Multiplier 1.01 LBNL Water and Sewage Cost 2.84 $/kgal. Seattle Water 11] Water Heater Efficiency, Electric:-. 100% Existing DOE Test Procedure 112] Water Heater Efficiency, Gas 75% Existing DOE Test Procedure [13] Fraction Electric Water Heaters 0.45 AHAM [ 14 Fraction Gas Water Heaters 0.55 AHAM [15] Fraction Electric Clothes Drers 0.75 AHAM [16] Fraction Gas Clothes Dryers 0.25 AHAM [171 Initial Remaining Moisture Conte.: RMC) 62% AHAM [18] Dryer Usage Factor (DUF) 0.84 Future DOE Test Procedure [19] Drying Efficiency of Clothes D1re: 0.5 kWh/lb. Future DOE Test Procedure [20] Gas Dryer Correction Factor (GCF 1.12 See Appendix D Percentage ofTime RMC Option L-sed 75% See Appendix E 

### It was assumed for this analysis that the clothes load was not a function ofclothes container volume. Appendix F discusses this assumption. 3.4 Costing Data All incremental manufacturer cost data are based on AHAM-supplied data. Disaggregated costs are shown in Appendices A and C.

7 theratio ofthe individual design option'senergyuse to thebaseline's energy use was calculated. This ratio was then used to multiply the energy use oftheimmediately preceding design option to arrive' at the lower energy use for the combined design option. Similarly the above method was used to determine the reduced water use for improved fill control and auto-fill control design options. 

### GeneralAssumptions Table 1 shows the assumptions made in orderto carry out the energy-use and energy cost calculations. 

### Table 1. 

### General Assumptions

Parameter Baseline Clothes Container Volu!.'.;: Cycles per Year Electricity Price Natural Gas Price Electricity Price Multiplier Natural Gas Price Multiplier Water and Sewage Cost Water Heatei' EfTiciency.**Electncl:~** Water Healer EtTiclency, Gas FractIOn Electric Water Heaters

.Fraction Gas Water Heaters Fraction Electric Clothes Dryers Fraction Gas Clothes Dryers Imtial Remaming Moisture Conter.:RMC) Dryer Usage Factor (DUF) Drying EfTiclency ofClotbesDry,,: Gas Drye,' Correction Factor (GCF Percentage ofTime RMC Option \..' sed Value 2.9 cubic feet 392 0.083594 $/kWb

6.075 $IMBtu 0.90 101 2.84 $/kgal. 100% 75% 0.45 0.55 0.75 0.25 62% 0.84 0.5 kWbllb. 112 75% Source AHAM [7] Future DOE test procedure [8] AEO .1996 [9] AEO 1996 [10] LBNL LBNL Seattle Water [11 J Existing DOE Test Procedure [12] Existing DOE Test Procedure [13] AHAM [14] AHAM [IS] AHAM [16] AHAM [17J APu\M [18] Future DOE Test Procedure (19J Future DOE Test Procedure [20] See Appendix D See Appendix E It wasassumed for this analysisthat the clothes load was not a function ofclothes container volume Appendix F discusses this assumption. 

### 3.4 Costing Data AIl incremental manufacturer cost data are based on AHAM-supplied data. Disaggregated costs are shown in Appendices A and C.
.

7

### 3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results The energy use and cost ofdesign options are shown in Table 2. The analysis was organized to allow maximum flexibility in selecting alternative efficiency levels for further study. Typically, an engineering analysis is based on arranging combinations of design options by lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Although this was the basic approach used, where this would limit choices ofdesign options, additional design paths were created. For example, horizontal axis with recirculation was branched offofthe basic horizontal axis path (itselfa branch) to enable analysis ofthe different RMC options with horizontal axis without recirculation. Table 2 separates the design options into five categories (a,b,c,d,e). They are: * Category a: Vertical axis with RMC design options; * Category b: Horizontal axis; * Category c: Horizontal axis with recirculation; * Category d: Vertical axis with tighter tub tolerance. This was separated from "category a" on the assumption that tighter tub tolerance is not compatible with lower RMC achieved by increasing the spin speed; and * Category e: Options not analyzed in combination with other design options.
The cost/efficiency relationship ofthe design options in Table 2 is shown graphically in Figure 1.

8 3.5 Energy-Use and Cost Results The energy use and cost ofdesign options are shown in Table 2. The analysis was organized to allow maximum flexibility in selecting alternative efficiency levels for further study. Typically, an engineering analysis is based on arranging combinations of design optionsby lowest cumulative cost/savings ratio. Although this was the basic approach used, where this would limit choices ofdesign options, additional design paths were created. For example, horizontal axis with recirculation was branched offofthe basic horizontal axis path (itselfa branch) to enable analysis ofthe different RMC options with horizontal axis without recirculation. Table 2 separates the design options into five categories (a,b,c,d,e). They are:
• Category a: Vertical axis with RMC design options; • Category b: Horizontal axis; • Category c: Horizontal axis with recirculation; • Categoryd: Vertical axis with tightertub tolerance. This was separated from "category a" on the assumption that tighter tub tolerance is not compatible with lower RMG achieved by increasing the spin speed; and • Category e: Options not analyzed in combination witn other design options.

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

, .

8

### Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water-Use Data Incr. Total Energy-Use Water Use Annual Annul Anal Cost/ Mfr. NMfr. IIo Total Total w/ I'ercenll Total Energy Water Operating Savings Cost Cost' Water Mahl.' Washer D)rver' I)Drer Improv.' MIEF s allons WCFI'' Consumption' Consumption' Expense' Ratio' No. Design Option 1994$ 1994$S klh/cwc kWI'hc'c kWl'h,'cvc k7ll'lcc klf'trX'cv % ftkf'f1h sgal/cvc .l/ft' klWh/r eallons/vr 1994S vears

0) laseline (vertical axis)

- 225 1.554 0.220 771 153.1 3.306 0.885 38.92 13.3 1296 15257 117 la 0 150%oRMC 9.60 235 1554 0.226 1 780 1.295 3.074 7.0 0.952 38.92 13.3 1205 15257 112 1.7 2a la Auto Fill 4 TCMV 39.78 275 1.339 0.226 1.565 1.295 2.860 13.5 1.024 35.23 12.0 1121 13810 103 3.6 3a la 4Improved Fill 11.58 246 1.436 0.226 1.662 1.295 2.957 10.6 (.990 36.77 12.6 1159 14415 107 2.1 4 a la4 0%RMC 8.52 243 1.554 0.234 1.788 1.097 2.884 12.8 1.015 38.92 13.3 1131 15257 107 1.8 5a 4a +Auto Fill

-TCMV 40.21 284 ' 1.339 0.232 1.571 1.097 2.667 19.3 1.097 35.23 12.0 1046 13810 99 3.1 6a 4a+ .mprovedFill

... 11.58 255 1.436 0.232 1.668 1.097 2.765 16.4 1.059 36.77 12.6 1084 14415 102 2.0 lb Horizontal Axis 1 101.57 327 0.461 0.193 0.654 1.533 2.187 33.9 1.265 25.73 9.3 857 10086 i 81 2.8 2b 11) 4 Auto Fill 34.15 361 0.423 0.193 0.616 1.533 2.149 35.0 1.287 25.00 9.0 842 9800 79 3.6 3b lb +50% RMC 8.66 336 0.461 0.204 .0.665 1.295 1.960 40.7 1.411 25.73 9.3 768 10086 75 2.6 4b 3b+TCMV

. 8.16 344 0450 0.204 0.654 1.295 1.949 41.1 1.419 25.73 9.3 764 10086 75 2.8 51) 4b+ Auto Fill 31.62 375 0.397 0.204 0.601 1.295 1.896 42.7 1.459 25.01 9.0 743 9804 73 3.4 6b 3b 40%RMC 7.49- 343 0.461 0.209 0.670 1.097 1.767 46.6 1.566' 25.73 9.3 693 10086 70 2.5 7b 6b t TCMV 8.16 351 0.450 0.209 0.659 1.097 1.756 46.9 1.575 25.73 9.3 688 10086 70 2.7 8b 7b +Auto Fill

_ 32.05 383 0.397 0.209 0.606 1.097 1.703 48.5 1.624 25.01 9.0 668 9804 68 3.2 Ic Horizontal Axis 101.57 327 0.461 0.193 0.654 1.533 2.187 33 9 1.265 25.73 93 857 10086 81 2.8 2c lc +Horz. Axis w/recirc. 3.28 330 0.371 0 202 0.573 1.533 2.106 36.3 1299 21.78 8.0 825 8539 75 2.5 3c 2c

- 50% RMC 8.66 339 0 371 0.213 0.584 1.295 1.879 43.2 1.456 21.78 8.0 736 8539 69 2.4 4c 3c t 40/oRMC 7.49 346

. 0.371 0.218 0.589 1.097 1.685 49.0 1.623 21.78 8.0 661 8539 65 2.3 Id 0 + TighterTub 7.09 232 1.461 0.220 1.681 1.533 3214 28 0911 36.05 12.3 1260 14131 112 1.4 2d Id4 Improved Fill 11.58 244 ' 1.350 0.220 1.570 1.533 3.103 6.1 0.943 34.07 11.6 1216 13354 108 2.0 3d 2d i TCMV 8.16 252 1.318 0.220 1.538 1.533. 3.071 7.1 0.953 34.07 11.6 1204 13354 107 2.7 4d Id t TCMV 8.16 241 1.426 0.220 1.646 1.533 3.179 3.9 0.921 36.05 12.3 1246 14131 112 2.7 5d 4d t Auto Fill 31.62 272 1.259 0.220 1.479 1.533 3.012 8.9 0.972 32.63 11.1 1181 12791 104 3.7 6d ld+ Auto Fill .34.15 267 1.293 0.220 1.513 1.533 3.046 7.9 0.961 32.63 11.1 1194 12791 105 3.4 le 0 +Incr MotorEfficiency 9.51 235 1.554 0.200 1.754 1.533 3.286 0.6 0.891 38.92 13.3 1288 15257 117 16.1 2e 0 +Direct Drive Motor 70.88 296 1 554 0.086 1.64(1 1.533 3.172 4.1 0.923 38.92 13.3 1244 15257 113 17.9 3e 0 +Advanced Controls 60.75 286 1541 0.220 1.761 1.533 3.294 0.4 0.889 38.92 13.3 1291 15257 117 254.0 4e 0 +Added Insulation 48.77 274 1.554 0.220 1.774 1.533 3.306 0.0 0.885 38.92 13.3 1296 15257 117 N/A Dollar values are shown inrounded dollars; actual values as provided by AH-AM are used in all calculations. Machine Energy tUse. Dryer Energy Use (D,) based on 62% initial moisture content I)1 IF(the ratio ofdryer cyclcs to clothes washer cvcles per vear) 0.84 (See Appendix E). Percent Improvemlent over tle baseline total with dryer energy use. Clothes Container Volume: Vertical Axis Designs =2.927 t'. Ilorizontal Axis Designs - 2.766 i. Ilorz. with Rccirculation Designs 2.736 fl'; same clothes load capacity is assumed for all design options for purposes ofcalculating energy use.. W

CF

- Water Consumption Factor. AnnualIEnergy Consumption is equal to the total (with dryer) energy per cycle multiplied 1v .192cycles /vr Annual Water Consumption is equal to the total gallons per cycle multiplied b! 392 cycles /yr Cumulative annual operating cost (based on combined electric. gas water heaters and drvers). 0 Cost/Savings Ratio

- (Change inmanufacturer costrelative to baselinc)

- (Change in alnnuall energy &waltr c.,sl rclalivc o baseline): (based oncombined electric/ga .s ater eat and drers). 9 Table 2. Standard Clothes Washer: Cost, Energy-Use, and Water:Use Data Incr. Mfr. Cost 1994$ Total Mf,·. Cos" 199-1$ 

### II", Wa'cr- .**Enc'·~~'·Use** To'al To.alwi I'",..-"nl No. o Ia 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a Ib 2h 3h 4b 5h 6b 7b 8b Ic 2c 3c 4c ld 2d 3d 4d Sd Design Option Ilasdirw (verticalaxis) 0'1 500 ;, RMC Ia , Auto Fill" TCMV I a " Improved FiII la + 40%**I~MC** 4a + Auto Fill +TCMV**~a+** ImprovedFill Horizontal A'(is Ih \ Auto Fill Ih + 50%RMC 3b +TCMV 4b + Auto Fill 3b t 40%RMC 6b f TCMV 7b + Auto Fill Horizontal Axis 1c t Horz. Axis w/recirc. 2c'\ 50% RMC 3c t 40%RMC o+TighterTub I d + Improved Fill 2dl TCMV Id + TCMV 4d \ Alrto Fill 9.60 39.78 11.58 8.52 40.21 11.58 101.57 34.15

8.66 8.16 31.62 7.49 8.16 32.05 101.57

3.28 8.66 7.49 7.09 11.58 8.16 8.16 31.62 225 215 275 .klrh1c\'c**1'i5~** I 554 I.D9 246 1.436 243 1.554 284 I 1.339 255 327 361 1.436 0.461 0.423 336 0.461 344 0.450 375 OJ97 343 0.461 351 0.450 383 0.397 327 0.461 330 (U7I 339 0371 346 0.]71 232 1.461 244 ' usa 252 1318 241 1.426 272 1.259 Mal'll.' \Yashu kWh-GTC kHn/c\'c

, 0.220 • I 77·1 0.226 1 7XO 0.226 1.5(,) 0.226 0.234 0.232 0.232 0.193 0.193 0.204 0.204 0.204 0.209 0.209 0.209 0193 0202 0.213 0.7.[ X 0.220 0.220 0.220 0220 0.220 1.662 1.788 1.57 1 1.668 0.654 0.61(; 0.665 0.654 0.601 0.670 0.65'} '0606 0.65·1 0.573 0.584 (U89 1.68] 1.570 1.538 1.646 1.479 D

.. y....' DI)'('" kWh'erc kil'n!GTc

I. '1**~** 3.306 1.295 1.074 1.295 2.860 1.295 2.957 1.097 2.884 1.097 2.667 1.097 1.533 1.533 1.295 1.295 1.295 1.097 1.097 1.097 1.513 1513 1.295 1.097 1.'iT1 1.5:13 I5D 1.533 1.533 2.765 2.187 2.149 1.960 1.949 1.8% 1.767 1.756 1.703 2.)87 2.)06 1.879 1.685 3.214 3.)03 3.071 3.)79 3.012 6d Id + Auto Fill 34.15 267 1.293 0.220 15J3 1533**~.046** Ie 0 + Iner Motor Efficiency 9.51 235 1.554 0.200 ).754 1.533 3.286 2c 0 + Direct Drive Motor 70.88 296 I 554 0.086 1.640 1.533 3. I72 3e 0 t Advanced Controls 60.75 286 I 541 0.220 1.761 1.533 3.294 4e 0 + Added Insulation 48.77 274 I.S54 0.220 1.774 1.533 3.306 I Dollar values are ShO\\11 in rounded dollars; actual values as provided by AJiAM are**us<~d** in all calculations. 1 Machine Energy Usc. Imp""".• % 70 1'-5 10.6 12.8 19.3 16.4 33.9 35.0 40.7 4L1 42.7 46.6 46.9 4R.5 .13.9 :1(,.3 4:\.2**~9.0** ]X 6.1 7.1 3.9 8.9 7.9 0.6 4.1 0.4 0.0 I\/EF' (i',kWh 0.885 0.952 1.024 0.990 1015 1.097 1.059 1.265 1.287 1.411 1.419 1.459 1566 1.575 1.624 1.265 1299 1.456 1.623 0'>11 0.943 0.953 0.921 0.972 0.961 0.891 0.923 0.889 0.885 Water US(' To.al Gallons gallc\'c 38.92 .18.92 35.23 36.77 38.92 35.23 36.77 25.73 25.00 25.73 25.73 25.01 25.73 25.73 25.01 25.73 21.7R 21.78 21.7R 36.05 34.07 34.07 36.05 32.63 32.63 38.92 38.92 38.92 38.92 WCF' .gllf.'(i'

LLl LI.l 12.0 12.6 13.3 12.0 12.6 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.0 9.3 8.0 8.0 8.0 123 11.6 11.6 12.3 IJ.J IJ.J 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.3
) Dryer Energy Use (D,)based on 62%initial moisture content DIll' (the ratio ofdryer cycks to cIotlh:s waslll:r cvdes per war)**~** 0.84 (Sec Appcndix E). J Percent Improvcrllcnt ovcrthe baseline total with dryer cncrgy Usc.

. Annual**Energ~'** Annual \VlIter Annual Cost! Operating Savings Consump.lon' ! ConslUnption' Expense' 1994$ Ratio" vears kWhlvr gal/ons/vr

)296 15257 117 112 103 1205 1121 1159 1131 1046 15257 13810 14415 15257 13810 107 107 99 1.7 3.6 2.1 1.8 3.1 1084
.. __ ...... 1-,14_15

__ . ___ 10_2

___...__ 2_.Q_
.. . 857 842**7~8** 764 743 693 688 668 857 825 736 661 1260 1216 1204 1246 1181 1194 1288 1244 1291 1296 10086 9800 81 79 2.8 3.6 10086 75 2.6 10086 75 2.8 9804 73 3.4 10086 70 2.5 10086 70 2.7 9804 68 3.2

.._------ - ------_..._- - .. "-

10086 81 2.8 8539 75 2.5 8539 69 2.4 8539 65 2.3 14131 112 1.4 13354 108 2.0 13354 107 2.7 14131 112 2.7 12791 104 3.7 12791

__ , __.!Q1._ 15257 15257 15257 15257 117 113 117 117 3.4 16.1 17.9 254.0 N/A

5Clothes Container Volume: Vertical Axis Designs = 2.927 fl', Horizontal**Axi~,** Designs' 2.766 W, 11017. with Recirculation Dcsigns**~** 2.73611'-, same clothes load capacity is assumed for all design options for purposes ofcalculatingenergy use.. 6 \VCF

- Water Consumption Factor.

Annual Energy Consumption is equal to the total (with dryer) l'nerg) per cycle Illultiplied hv .1<)2 cycles / \T S Annual Water Consumption is equal to the total gallons per cYCle Illultiplied In 392 cycles / yr oCumulativeannual operating cost (based on combined electric.gas wafer hcakrs and drwrs). 10 Cost/Savings Ratio' (Change in manufacturer cost relative to I""dine) " (Chang<: 111 annual energy & wakr <",,' r:dalrw III haseline): (hased on comhineci**~Iedric/gas** water heaters and dryers). 9

### Headings used in Table 2 are described below. Incremental ManufacturerCost. This isthe cost that would be incurred ifthe design option were required to meet a minimum efficiency standard and wouldtherefore bemass-produced approximately at the same level as current production levels. For this reason some prices for models, such as horizontal axis washers, would be substantially lower than those currently on the market due to economies ofscale. These values are based on data provided byAHAM. TotalManufacturerCost. Thiscost is determined by adding a design option incremental cost to the total manufacturer cost ofthe previous design option. Hot WaterEnergy Use. This is the energy content ofthe hot water supplied by the water heater external to the washing machine. MachineEnergy Use. This is the electrical energy input to the washer during a washer test cycle. Total WasherEnergy Use. This is the sum ofthe hot water and machine energy use. DryerEnergy Use. This is the amount ofenergy needed to complete the drying ofthe test load in a clothes dryer after the final spin cycle. TotalEnergy UsewithDlyer. This is the sum ofhot water energy, machine energy, and dryer energy use. Percent Improvement. This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy) over the baseline case. ModifiedEnergyFactor(MFF). This is the ratio ofwasher volume in cubic feet to total energy where the total energy includes the dryer (moisture removal) energy. MEF differs from EF inthat the energy needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. MEF is given in units of cubic feet per kWh per cycle The following equation demonstrates how MEF is calculated.
~MEF -r= 

### Clothes ContainerVolWume MEF-= Hot Water Energy + Mechanical ergyrgy + DyerEnergy () Total Gallons. This is the total amount ofwater used per cycle, both hot and cold. WaterConsumptionFactor(WCF). This is the total gallons ofwater used in a test cycle divided by the clothes container volume in cubic feet.

10 " Headings used in Table 2 are described below. IncrementalManufacturer Cost. This is the cost tnat would be incurred ifthe design option were required tomeet a minimum efficiency standard and**w~>uld**thereforebemass-producedapproximately at the same level as current production levels. For this reason someprices formodels,such as horizontal axis washers, would be slibstantiallylower than those**curr~ntIy** on the market due to
.

. economies ofscale. Thesev(ilues are based ondataprovided by

## AHAM. TotalManufacturer Cost. Thiscost is determined by adding a design option incremental cost to the " total manufacturer cost ofthe prevIOus

### ~esign option.

.

, '. ',' Hot Water Energy Use. This is the energy**con~ent** ofthe hot water supplied by the water·heater external to the washing machine.

. Machine Energy Use. This isthe electrical energy input tothe'washer during a washer test cycle. Total WasherEnergy Use. This is the sum ofthe hot water and machine energyuse. " DryerEnergy Use
. .This is the

### a~ountofenergy neededto complete the drying ofthetest load in a clothes dryer after the final spin cycle. TotalEnergy Use**~tJilhDlyer.** 'This is the sum ofhot waterenergy, machine energy, and dryer energy use. PercentImprolJ emel11. This is the percent reduction in washer energy use (including dryer energy) over the baseline case. ModifiedEnergyFaCIOI'**(M~r).** This

### isthe ratio ofwasher volume in cubic feet to total energy where the total energy includes the dryer (moisture removal) energy. MEF differs fromEF in that the energy needed to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to thetotal energyuse. MEF is given in units' of cubic feet per kWh per cycle. The following equation demonstrates how MEFis calculated.

.... MEF"

## = . Clothes Contafner Volume.

. Hot Water Energy + ,Mechanical Energy + DJyerEnergy (2)
Total Galions. This is the total amount ofwaterused per cycle, both hot and cold. Water ConsumptionFactor (WCF). This is the total gallons ofwaterused in a test cycle divided by the clothes containervolume in cubicfeet.

. .

10

"; ,"

### AnnualEnergyConsumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year. Annual Water Consumption. This is the total water consumption in gallons (both hot and cold) in an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles per year. AnnualOperatingExpense. This is cost in fuel and waterto run a washing machine for one year plus the cost to dry the clothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars. Cost/SavingsRatio. This ratio describes the increase in manufacturer cost for one or more design options relative to the savings in annual operating expense.

S400
S380 1 5b ,2b

, 4b

- o

N l Ib

- ' 3b S320

-

id L S26

-

2

S40

-

S220

-

S200 -_ _:______ __ __ (L8 09 1.0 1.1 1.2 13 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Modified Energy Factor (cubic feet / kWh)
Figure 1. Manufacturer Cost vs. Modified Energy Factor

11 \~~~~~~6 AnnualEnergy Consumption. This is total washer and dryer energy usage in kWh for an entire year based on 392 clothes washer cycles peryear. Annual Water Consumption. This is thetotal water consumption in gallons (both hot and cold) in an entire yearbased on 392 clothes washer cycles peryear. AnnualOperatingExpense. This is cost in fuel and waterto run awashing machine for one year plus the cost to dry the clothes as well. The dollar amount is reported in 1994 dollars. Cost/SavingsRatio. This ratio describes the increase in manufacturer cost for one or more design options relative to the savings in annual operating expense.

$-1001 i

S3ffi i I 2b 0 5bp

7b Cl'

-- 5320

-



# =**.~** :; S260 c

$110

- o
$200 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 \.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 'fodifiedEnergyFactor(cubic feet /kWh)
Figure 1. :\lanufacturerCost vs. Modified Energy Factor

11

### 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE DESIGN Themaximum technological feasible designbased on energy use per cycle is a horizontal axis washer with recirculation and a RMC of 40%. This design would reduce total laundry energy consumption (forboth washing and drying) by49.0% and washing energy alone by 66.8%. The MEF forthis design is 1.62.

12 4. MAXIMUM TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASmLE DESIGN The maximumtechnological feasible design based on energyuse per cycle is a horizontal axis washer with recirculation and a RMC of40%. This design would reduce total laundry energy consumption (forboth washing and drying) by49.0% and washing energy alone by 66.8%. The MEF for this design is 1.62.
.

12

### REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1996a. DraftReport onDesign Options for Clothes Washers,October 1996. 2. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Procedures, Interpretations andPolicies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy ConservationStandards for Consumer Products;FinalRule. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C ofPart 430 -- July 15, 1996. 3. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Energy Conservation Program for ConsumerProducts:TestProcedure for Clothes Washers tldReportingRequirement for Clothes Washers, ClothesDryers,and Dishwashers.(61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Appendices J & J1, Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A. 4. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1994. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix J to Subpart B or Pan 430 -- Uniform TestMethodforMeasuringthe Energy Consumption of Automatic andSemi-automatic Clothes Washers, January 1, 1994. 5. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1995. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430, Vol. 60, No. 56, p. 15335, Proposed Rules. -March23, 1995. 6. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit. 7. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995a. Comments on the Advance 

### Notice of Proposed Rlulenaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403. comment #27, May 8. 1995. 8. U.S. DOE. 1996c. (Op.cit. 9. U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration 1996. AnnualEnergy Outlook 1996with Projectionsto 2015 Washington, D.C., DOE/EIA-0383(96), January. 10. Ibid. 11. Seattle Water, Commentlson theAahdanceNoticeofProposed Rulemaking, DOE Docket No EE RM-94-403, comment #29, May 8, 1995 12. U.S. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1994. Op. cit. 

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

### 15. Ibid.

13 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE). 1996a. 

### DraftReport on Design Optionsfor Clothes Washers, October 1996. 2. U.S. DOE. 1996b. 

### Procedures, Interpretations andPolicies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standardsfor Consumer Products; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 61, No. l36, Appendix A to Subpart C ofPart 430

-- July 15,1996. 3. US. DOE. 1996c. 

### Energy Conservation Programfor ConsumerProducts: Test Procedure for Clothes WashersandReportingRequirementfor Clothes Washers, Clothes Dlyers, and Dishwashers. (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Appendices J & 11, Docket No EE-RM-94-230A 4. US. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1994. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Appendix J to Subpart B orPan 430

-- 

### Uniform TestMethod forMeasuring the Energy Consumption of AutomaticandSt?mi-automatic Clothes WasIJers, January 1, 1994. 5. US. Office ofthe Federal Register. 1995. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430, Vol. 60, No. 56, p. 15335, 

### ProposedRules, March 23, 1995. 6. U.S. DOE. 1996c. ()p. cit. 7. Association ofHome .--\ppliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995a. 

### Comments on/heAdvance Notice of ProposedRulemaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #27, May 8, 1995. 8 U.S DOE. 1996c. OD. 

### cit. 9. U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration 1996. 

### AnnualEnergy OUllook 1996 

### )t'ith Projections 10 

### 2015 Washington, D.C, DOEIEIA-0383(96), January 10. IbId. 11. SeattleWater, 

### Commt!J1ls 011 

### theAdvanceNotice qf 

### ProposedRulemaking. DOE Docket No EE RM-94-403, cornment #29, May 8, 1995 12. US. Office ofthe Fedefal Register. 1994. 

### Op. ciI. 13 Ibid. 14. AHAM. 1995a. 

### Op. cil. 15. Ibid.

13

### 16. AHAM. 1995b. CommentsontheAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995. 17. Ibid. 18. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit. 19. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Op. cit. 20. Ibid.

14 '*~ 

### ~ ~
. . ! * ' - * * „ - * ! 1 ^
. . : ' ' '

. , . 

### 16. '.AHAM. 1995b

..Comments on theAdvanceNoticeo!ProposedRulemaking. DOEDocket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 

### 1995. 17. Ibid 18. AHAM. 1995a. Op. cit
.

.19. 'U.S. DOE. 1996c; Op. cit. 20. Ibid

14

### APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA
Table A.1shows the manufacturer costs for standard clothes washers by design option. The cost data provided by AHAM are disaggregated into variable and fixed costs. The AHAM variable cost data were supplied as perunit costs and were disaggregated into the following three categories: material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, not supplied on a.per unit basis', were disaggregated intothe following three categories: tooling, capital costs, and other. AHAM also provided a total perunit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option. The columns labeled "Total Variable" and "Total Fixed" inTable A.1were derived by LBNL and represent the perunit cost for each design option. The total per unit fixed cost was determined by subtracting the total per unit variable cost from the total incremental manufacturer cost.

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

### A-1 

### APPENDIX A. DISAGGREGATED MANUFACTURER COST DATA

Table Al shows the manufacturercosts for standard clothes washers by design option. The cost data provided by AHAM are disaggregated into variable and fixed costs. The AHAM variable cost data were supplied as perunit costs and were disaggregated into the following three categories: material/parts, labor, and shipping. The AHAM fixed cost data, not supplied on a per unit basisl, were disaggregated into thefollowing three categories: tooling, capital costs, and other. AHAM also provided a total per unit incremental manufacturer cost for each design option. The columns labeled "Total Variable" and "Total Fixed" in Table Al were derived by LBNL and represent the perunit cost for. each design option. The total per unit fixed cost was determined by subtracting the total perunit variable cost from the total incremental manufacturercost.

IThis was due to AHAM's need to keep the data confidential and also from complications arising from how the data \\·as collected. A-I

### Table A.1 Disaggregated Cost ofEfficiency Improvements for Standard Clothes Washers Design Design Option Variable Costs Fixed Costs ' Incremn. Total

No. Costs per Unit

_ Costs (in Thousands) Per Unit per Unit Mfg. Material/Parts Labor Shipping Total Tooling Capital Other Total Mfg. Cost Variable Costs ' Fixed ' Costs 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994S 1994S 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994S 0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) 225 la RMC = 50% 4.50 0.31 0.00 4.81 35843 14950 2474 4.79 9.60 235 2a la +Auto Fil, TCMV 34.93 1L49 0.00 36.42 69009 .27745 14581 3.36 39.78 275 3a a +Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 0 124 0.05 11.58 246 4a la, RMC=40% 7.82. 0.01 0.00 7.83 41437 17618 '3658 0.69 8.52 243 5a 4a

- Auto Fill, TCMV 35.28 1.49 0.00 36.77 75170 30744 15824 3.44 40.21 284 6a 4a

- Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 0 124 005 11.58 25- lb Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 056 7678 86852 125690 15717 2479 10157 32 2b lb* AutoFill 3012 1.24 0.00 31 36 97957 143847 17038 279 34 15 361 3b lb- 50% RMC 7.70 0.!7 06 7.93 97089 143588 16626 0.73 866 336 4b 3b -TC4MV 7.70 0.33 0.00 803 0.13 816 344 5b 4b- Auto Fill 27.23 085 0 00 28.08 3.54 31.62 375 6b 3b 40% RMC 6.90 0.00 0.00 6 90 103056 146564 19619 0.59 7.49 343 7b 6b- TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 8.03 0.13 816 351 8b 7b

- Auto Fill 2758 1.15 000 28 73 3.32 32 05 383 Ic Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 056 i 7678 86852 125690 15717 24.79 101.57 327 2c Ic- Horz Axis w'recirc 328 0o.0 I 0.00 32 95728 134844 21727 000 32S 330 3c 2c

- 50(, RMC 7.70 0.17 0.06 793 97089 14358S 16626 0.7. 866 339 4c 3c

- 40% RM.C 6.90 000 0.00 6.90 103056 146564 19619 0.59 7.49 346 Id 0- Tighter Tub Tolerance 4.61 0.22 000 4 83 15239 17137 836 2 2 7 -9 232 2d id

- Improved Fill Control 10.9S 055 000 : 53 139 0 i24 00 It 5 24a 3d '2d- TCXi!V 77 03 03 0 S0 i Si ;5 4d id

- TCMV

. 7.70 033 | 00 503 013 8 i(- 24 5d 4d-AutoFili .27.23 116 000 2839 8 323 316- 272 6a 1id- Auto Fill _3012 1!.2 0. O 1O.36 29719| 11769 6061 2 79 34i 267 le 0-Increase Motor Efficiency 8.78 007 j 0.00 8. 3043 2678 1373 066 o9. 2 2e 0-Direct Drive Motor 68.87 0.74 0 0.0 i 9.61 617 8528 4353 i27 70 8S 296 3e 10-Advanced Controls 5498 1 .24 000 ' 522 45668 15131 16068 453 60 7 286 4e |0-Added insulation 43.22 0[9. :900 -4.12 58226 45 8662 465 4877 274 Assumes a five-year regulatolr life. Includes production machinery, plant upgrade, and/or expansion Includes R&D, product certification, and administrative overhead Fixed costs = total costs

- variable costs.



### A-2 Table A.I Disaggregated Cost ofEfficiencyImprovements for Standard Clothes Washers
Design

No.

0 la 2a 3a 4a Sa 6a lb 2b 3b 4b 5b 6b 7b 8b 1 c 2c 3c 4( Id 2d 30 4d 50
6c 1t 2e 3e 4(- Design 0 plion Variable Costs Fixed Costs I Costs per Unit Costs (in Thousands) MateriallParts Labor Shipping Total Tooling Variable 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ 1994$ Baseline (Vert. Axis) RMC = 50% 4.50 0.31 0.00 4.81 35843 la '+- Auto Fiil, TCMV 34.93 lA9 0.00 36.42 69009 1 a + Improved Fill Control 10.98 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 18'" RMC =40% 7.82
. 0.01 0.00 7,83 41437 4a + Auto Fill, TCMV 35.28 1.49 0.00 36.1'7 75170 4a + Improved Fill Control 10.98
. 0.55 0.00 11.53 139 Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 0.56 7678 86852 Ib

... Auto Fill 30.12 /.24 0.00 

### I 31 3"6 97957 Ib + 50% RMC 7.70 0.17 0.06 

### I 7.93 97089 3b -TCMV 7.70 {)33 0.00 I 803 4b- Auto Fill 27.23 085 000 

### I 28.08 1 I 3b'" 40% RMC 6.90 0.00 0.00 690 103056 6b + TCMV 7.70 0.33 0.00 803 7b'" Auto Fill 2758 1.15 0.00 28 73 Horizontal Axis Design 67.98 8.24 I 056 I 76.78 86852 lc**~** Horz AXIS \\.'/recirc. 3 28 () 0(, I O.no I )**~8 957~8**  2e + SO' 0 Rl\·fC 7.70 O. !7 I 0.06 

### I 793 97089 3e

-**40~o** RMC 6.90 O.(Hj 0.00 6.90 103056 0- Tighter Tub Tolerance 4.61 n ,- \**.-~** 0.00 .j 83 15239 1d
- Impro"cd Fill Control 10.% 0« 000**~** 1 53 j 39**l~d**- TC\<\' 770 :').3 : (1")(;**~.(Jj** 

# I lid

- TCd\'. 7.70 C.33 OOG S.03 I"d + Auto Fill**~7.:!:;** 

# I 1 16 000 28.39 

### ! id

- .'-uto Fill 3012 

## I**!.:~** 0.00 i :.) .36 29719 

### I**~J-1ncrease** Motor Eflielenc," 8.78 

# I0.07 0.0(, 

### : ;;**8~** 30
...1.3

II)-Direct DrIve t>.1otor 68.87 0.74 0.00 :59.6J S6I7 I:J-.".d\'anced Control, 549S ' " U00 

## i 56.22 45668 1.

__ O-Added Insulation 43.2: I :) 9(; (100**~.!2** 58226

,**A~sume,;** a five-year regulatory life.

, Includes production machinery, plant upgrade, and/or expansion )Includes R&D, product certification, and administrative overhead. "Fixed costs =total costs
- variable cosis. Capital Other' Costs , 1994$ 1994$ 14950 2474 27745 14581

0 124 17618 . 3658 30744 15824

0 124 125690 15717 143847 17038 143588 16626

146564 19619

125690 15717 134844 21727**14358~** 16626 146564 19619 17137 836

(i i24 1 I

# I 11769 6061 

## I 2678 1373 852S ,,353 I J51 31 1606S I 4' 8662 Increm. Per Unit per Unit

Total Mfg. Fixed' Costs 1994$ 1994$ 4.79 9.60 3.36 39.78 0.05 11.58 0.69 8.52 3.44 40.21 0.05 11.58 2479 101.57 :: 79 34 1< 073 8.66 0.13 8.16 3.54 31.62 0.59 749 0.13 8.16 3.32 32.05 24.79 101.57 (100 3**~~** 0.7'0 86,; 0.S9 7.49**:.:;~** 7 (10 f) 05 1 1 5, () i**~~ ~**  ! t: 0.13 S 1(- 3.23 31.6:

:< 79 34. i 5 

### I 0.66 9.51

i.27 70**~S** 

### I 453 607' 1 4.65 ,,877 Total Mfg. Cost 1994$ 225 235 275 246
243 284 255**3~i'** 361 336 344 375 343 351 383 327 330 33c 346 23: 

### I 2.:lJ. 

# I**~~~**

2

.... 1 

## I 27'":. I 267

235 290 2R6 274

### APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA
Several adjustments were made to the data submitted byAHAM. These adjustments were made forthe following reasons: 1)statistical variations, 2) normalizing, and 3)differences between the proposed' AHAM and future DOE (Appendix Jl) test procedures. B.1 Adjustments due to Statistical Variations 

### The first step in the analysis was to review the AHAM data. In some cases not all manufacturers responded to a particular design option. Because manufacturers provided different energy and water use estimates, an energy or water use change due to a design option modification can arise simply because a different number ofresponses are being used to calculate the shipment- weighted average. This situation arose inthe analysis ofseveral design options and, as aresult, the energy or water use had to be adjusted. The hot water energy and total water use for allvertical axis RMC design options were set equal tothebaseline values. Hotwater and total water use for horizontal axis designs with 50% and 40% RMC were set equal to that reported for the stand-alone horizontal axis design option. Total water use forthe added insulation and direct drive motor design optionswere set equal to the baseline value The mechanical energy for the added insulation design option was also set equal to the baseline value. The clothes container volume (wash basket capacity) also varied due to statistical reasons. Where the clothes container volume differed, values were equalized and the MEF was recalculated. For the engineering analysis, clothes container volume was allowed to vary based on 1) axis orientation (vertical or horizontal) and 2)whether arecirculation design was incorporated Thus. only three clothes container volumes were analyzed; one for vertical axis designs, another for horizontal axis designs. and onefor horizontal axis with recirculation designs. Although the volume was adjusted as described above for the MEF calculation, itwas assumed that all design options washed the same amount ofclothes for purposes ofcalculating the clothes dryer energy required to drythe clothes. The issue ofclothes load isdiscussed further inAppendix F B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization In AHAM's Phase II data submittal, not all manufacturers provided data for every design option. However, a separate baseline (except for cost data) was provided for each "Phase II" design option. The energy use data for this separate baseline were based only on those responses from manufacturers who provided data for that design option. These "separate" baseline data were used to normalize the "Phase II" design option datato the five-respondent baseline used throughout the

In this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data 

### B-1 

### APPENDIX B. ADJUSTMENTS TO AHAM DATA

Several adjustments were made to**th~** data submitted by AHAM. These adjustments were madefor the following reasons: 1) statistical variations, 2) normalizing, and 3) differences between the proposed! AHAM and future 

### DOE (Appendix 

### II) test procedures. B.I Adjustments due to Statistical Variations The first step in the analysis was to review the AHAM data. In some cases not all manufacturers responded to a particular design option. Because manufacturers provided different energy and water use estimates, an energy orwateruse change due to a design option modification can arise simply because a different number ofresponses are being used to calculate the shipmentweighted average. This situation arose in the analysis ofseveral design options and, as a result, the energy orwateruse had to be adjusted. The hot water energy and total water use for all vertical axis RMC design options were set equal tothebaseline values. Hot water and total water use for·horizontal axis designs with 50% and 40% RMC were set equal to that reported for the stand-alone horizontal axis design option. Total water use for the added msulation and direct drive motor design options were set equal to the baseline value The mechanic2.1 energy for the added insulation design option was also set equal to the baseline value. The clothes container volume (wash basket capacity) also varied due to statistical reasons Where the clothes container volume differed, values were equalized and the MEF was recalculated. For the engineering analysis, clothes container volume was allowed to vary based on 1) axis orientation (vertical or horizontal) and 2) whether a recirculation design was incorporated Thus. only three clothes container volumes were analyzed; one for vertical axis designs, another for horizontal axis designs, and one for horizontal axis with recirculation designs. Although the volume was adjusted as described above for the MEF calculation, it was assumed that all design options washed the same amount ofclothes for purposes ofcalculating the clothes dryer energy required to dry the clothes. The issue ofclothes load is discussed further in Appendix F B.2 Adjustments due to Normalization In AHAM's Phase II data submittal, not all manufacturers provided data for every design opti.on. However, a separatebaseline.(except for cost ?ata) was provided for each "Phase II"Besign optIOn. The energy use data for thiS separate baselme were based only on those responseS-from manufacturers who pro\ided data for that design option. These "separate" baseline data were used to normalize the "Phase II" design option data to the five-respondent baseline used throughout the

lIn this report "pro;,osed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version ofthe AHAM test procedure which \:'as used by manufacturers**;~,** submit data. B-1

### analysis. The following "Phase II" design option data were normalized: 1)hot water energy use, 2) clothes container capacity, and 3)total water use. The basic normalization equation is shown below:

Value * ( Baseline (B) unadjusted
where Valueadsed = Design option hot water energy use, water use, or clothes 

### container capacity normalized to 5-respondent baseline. 'aluleunadsted = Original, Phase II, AHAM design option hot water energy use, 

### wateruse, or clothes container capacity (unadjusted for number ofrespondants).. Baselines.responden, = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container 

### capacity based on data supplied by all five manufacturers, i.e., the data for the five-respondent baseline. Baselineuna,,,,, = Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container 

### capacity based on data supplied by the number of manufacturers providing data for Value,,,adsed.


### B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes All ofthe data submitted by AHAM that was used in the analysis was based on a proposed AHAM test procedure. Thus, adjustments had tobe made to the AHAM data so that they were in accordance with the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1). This included adjusting the hot water energy use to reflect changes in both inlet water temperature assumptions and temperature use factors (TUFs). It also included changing the dryer usage factor (DUF) from 0.83 to 0.84. The hot water energy use adjustments are detailed below. The future DOE test procedure assumes avalue of 135°F for the hot water inlet temperature. The proposed AHAM's test procedure used a value of 130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use ofall the AHAM design option data was corrected by using the following equation.

B-2 analysis. The following "Phase II" design option data were normalized: 1) hot waterenergy use, 2) clothes containercapacity, and 3)total wateruse. Thebasic normalization equation is shown below:

Valueadjusted

where Valueadjusted
ValUeunad)lIsted

BaseIille5-respondent

Baseline,madillSled Baseline5-respondent 

### = Valueunadjusted . ( ) Baselineunadjusted (B.1)
Design option hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container capacity normalized to 5-respondent baseline. Original, Phase II, AHAM design option hot wafer energy use, wateruse, orclothes container capacity (unadjusted for number ofrespondants)

.. Baseline hot water,energy use, water use, or clothes container capacity based on data supplied by all five manufacturers, i.e., the data for the five-respondent baseline. Baseline hot water energy use, water use, or clothes container capacitybased'ondata supplied by the number of manufacturers provIding data for Value,mad/llSled'
B.3 Adjustments due to Test Procedure Changes All ofthe data submitted by AHAM that was used in the analysis was based on a proposed AHAM test procedure. Thus, adjustments had to be made to the AHAM data so that they were in accordance with the future DOEtest procedure (Appendix 11). This included adjusting the hot water energy use to retlect changes in both inlet watertemperature assumptions and temperature use factors (TUFs) It also included changing the dryer usage factor (DUF) from 0.83 to 0.84 The hot water energy use adjustments are detailed below thefuture DOE test procedure assumes avalue of 135of for the hot water inlet temperature. The proposed AHAM'stest procedureused a value of 130°F. Thus, the hot water energy use ofall the AHAM design option data was corrected by using the following equation.

B-2Wadjuted uHWadjusted ( A ) (B.2) AHAM
where HWated = Adjusted hot water energy use 

### HWunadsted = 

### Hotwater energy use unadjusted for changes in test procedure

TDoE = Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water inlet according to proposed DOE test procedure = 135F

- 60F = 75°F 

### J TAMH = 

### Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water inlet according to proposed AHAM test procedure 130F

- 60°F = 70°F 

### The above adjustment not only affects total energy consumption but also the cost-effectiveness of certain design options. Forexample, in the case ofTCMV. a higher assumed inlet water temperature results in greater energy savings. The hot water energy use for the AHAM design option data were also multiplied by a correction factor that accounted for changes in assumptions regarding TUFs. The following table details the differences in the TUFs between the proposed AHAM and the future DOE test procedures.
Tablle B.1 Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and FutureDOE Test Procedures Temperature Use Factors Wash/Rinse Selection Proposed AHAM' Test Procedure Future DOE Test Procedure Hot/Cold 14% 14% Warm/Cold 50% 49% Cold/Cold 36% 37% Warm Rinse 21-33% 27% As noted on page B- 1,in this report "proposed AHAM test procedure" refers to an early version of the AHAM test procedure which was used by manufacturers to submit data


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

B-3 where HWadjusted HWunadjusted 

### ..1TooE
..1TAHAM .6T DOE HWad;usled 

## = HWunadjusled • ( ) 

### .6T AHAM (B.2)

= =

= = Adjusted hot water energy use Hot water energyuse unadjusted for changes in test procedure Temperature difference between hot water inlet and cold water inlet according to proposed DOE test procedure 135of

- 60°F

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

- 60°F = 70°F The above adjustment not only affects total energy consumption but also the cost-effectiveness of certain design options. Forexample, in the case ofTCMV a higher assumed inlet watertemperature results in greater energy savings. The hot water energy use for the AHAM design option data were also multiplied by a corr,ection factor that accounted for changes in assumptions regarding TUFs. The following table details the differences in the TUFs between the proposed AHAM and the future DOE test procedures.
Tablle B.l Temperature Use Factors for Proposed AHAM and Future DOE Test Procedures Temperature Use Factors Wash/Rinse Selection Hot/Cold Warm/Co]? Cold/Cold Proposed AHAMl Test Procedure 14% 50% 36% Future DOE Test Procedure 14% 49% 37% Warm Rinse 21-33% 27% I As noted on page B-1, in this repon "proposed AHAM test procedure'" refers to an earl\' versIOn ofthe AHAM test

proeedure which was used hy manufacturers to submIt data
Based onthe TUFs in the future DOEtest procedure, a correction factor of0.987 was derived and used to adjust the AHAM hot water energy use data. The derivation ofthis correction factor is outlined below:

B-3

### First, the following assumptions were made: 1) Clothes washer is a three-selection machine, i.e., wash/rinse temperature selections are hot/cold, warm/cold, and cold/cold. 2) Baseline hot water energy use is 1.574 kWh/cycle (note that this value has already been corrected for the future DOE test procedure's hot water inlet temperature). The following equation for the total per-cycle hot water energy consumption is then taken from the proposed AHAM test procedure [1].
E = Vh 4 *AT K (B.3)



### where E = Baseline hot water energy use (kWh/cycle)
V,AHV = Baseline hot water use based on proposed AHAM test 

### procedure (gallons) AT = Temperature rise (135°F

- 60°F) = 75°F K = Water specific heat (kWh/gal° F) = 0.00240 Substituting the appropriate values in Eq. B.3 forE, AT, and K, one can solve for IV T

### ,,H4.

E. 1.574 kWhIcyc Vh 'A\- 8.74 

### gallons (B.4)

h H w

.. 

### 7 AT K 75°F ' 0.0024 kWh/gal-° (B4)

The average amount ofhot water used is equal tothe amount used for both the hot and warm wash cycles multiplied by their respective TUFs. This is represented by the following equation.

[' (ho TUFho) + (HH T(UFar,,,) (B.5)


### where H^, = Hot water use for hot wash cycle (gallons) TUF^i, = Temperature Use Factor for hot wash cycle Harm = Hot water use for warm wash cycle (gallons) TUFr,, '= Temperature Use Factor for warm wash cycle

B-4 First, the following assumptions**~ere** made: I} Clothes washer is a three-selection machine, i.e., wash/rinse temperature selections are

.hot/cold, warm/cold, and cold/cold. 2} Baseline hot waterenergyuse is 1.574 kWh/cycle (notethat this value has already been corrected for the future DOE test procedure's hot waterinlet temperature). The following equation for thetotal per-cycle hot water energy consumption is then taken from the proposed AHAMtest procedure [1].
E = VhAHAM • !1T
. K (B.3)

where 

### E Baseline hot water energy use (kWh/cycle) V"AH.4M Baseline hot water use based on proposed AHAM test procedure (gallons) LlT K Temperature rise (135°F

- 60°F) 

### = 75°F Water specific heat (kWh/gaIO F) 

### = 0.00240 Substituting the appropriate values in Eq. B.3 for E, LlT, and K, one can solve for**r'''_~H.4M'**

= ___ 1_.5_7_4_k_Wh_/c,,-Yc___ = 8.74 gallo11S 75°F' 0.0024 kWh/gal' of, (B.4)

The average amount ofhot water used is equal to the amount used for both the hot and warm wash cycles multiplied by their respective TUFs. This is represented by the following equation.

where Hho/**TU}~/** Hot wateruse for hot wash cycle (gallons) Temperature Use Factor for hot wash cycle Bot waterlise for warm wash cycle (gallons) Temperature Use Factorfor warm wash cycle

B-4 (B.5)

### The warm wash temperature is assumed to be the average of the cold and hot water inlet temperatures (i.e., a 50/50 mix ofhot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount ofhot water used for the warm water wash is equal to halfofthat used for the hot water wash. This can be expressed with the following equation. Hhot warm (B.6)


### Substituting Eq. B.6 for H,r, in Eq. B.5 we get the following equation:

:.^ (Hho, * 

### TUFo,) + (h 

### * TUFVO,,) (B.7)
Substituting both the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs and the baseline hot water use inEq. B.7, we can solve for H,. ,Hho -, VHf

_ 

### 8.74 

### ga = 22.42 gallons ho + 

### Th ., 0.14 UF" 0 (B.8) 

### r -Fho, 

### + 0.14 2 2


### Since Hw,,r.. is one-half ofH,,, H,,,,,,is equal to 11.21 gallons. Since the amount ofwater used in a hot wash cycle and a warm wash cycle is independent ofthe TUFs, the future DOE test procedure TUFs can be substituted into Eq. B.5 to determine the total hot water energy use based on the future DOE test procedure. 

### IhDOE = 

### (22.42 gal 0.14) + (11.21 

### gal · 0.49) = 

### 8.63 gallons 

### (B.9) The correction factor (0.987) is simply the ratio ofthe total hot water use as determined with the future DOE test procedure TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided by the total hot water use as determined with the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons).

B-5 Th(: warm wash temperature is assumed to be the average of the cold and hot water inlet temperatures (i.e., a 50/S0 mix ofhot and cold water supplies). Thus, the amount ofhot water used forthewarmwaterwash is equal to halfofthat used for the hot waterwash. This can be expressed with the following equation

.. (B.6)

SubstitutingEq. B.6 for H"urm in Eq. B.S we get the following equation:
(B.7)

Substituting both the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs and the baseline hot water use in Eq. B.

### T. we can solve for

### H;,.:.
V hAHAM 

### TUF 

# n Fha( +
__ "_"01_·/11 2 874 gal 0.14 T· 0.50 2

Since H\rarlll is one-halfofHhol' HWCJrlI1 is equal to 11.21 gallons. = 22.42gallolls (B.8)

Since the amount ofwater used in a hot wash cycle and a warm wash cycle is independent ofthe TUJ;s, the future DOEtest procedure TUFscan be substituted into Eq. B.S to determine the total hot water energy use based on the future DOE test procedure.
V

hDOE = (22.42 gal· 0.14) T (11.21 gal' 0.49) = 8.63 gallolls (B.9)
The correction factor (0.987) is simply the ratio ofthe total hot water use as determined with the future DOEtest procedure TUFs (8.63 gallons) divided by the total hot water use as determined with the proposed AHAM test procedure TUFs (8.74 gallons).

B-S

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



### B-6 REFERENCES 1. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. 

### Comments on theAdvance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking. (section 4.1.1.1) DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #36, July 5, 1995.

B-6

### APPENDIX C. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM
Table C. 1shows cost, energy, and water use data submitted by AHAM; these data were used in the Engineering Analysis.

C-1 

### APPE:\DIX

# c. RAW DATA PROVIDED BY AHAM

Table C.l shows. cost, energy, and wateruse data submitted by AHAM; these data were used in theEngineering Analysis.

C-l

### TABLE C.I Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used inthe Engineering Analysis Cost Data Washer Energy Use Data -Proposed TestProcedure WaterUse Data Cost per Unit" Investment Data'" Total Ilot Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons Mtl/Part Labor" Shipping oolig Capital' Other per Unit'.Water' Machine'' Total' Container Factoi Sourcek Energy' Gallons percu.ft. Design Option

- 1000's 1000 1000's 'y 0kW h/cy c / kW/cvc 'cu.fl. fft/kWh kWh/cvc ' all/cc eal/cu.ft. Baseline Comp m

- - - - 5 55 55 5 55 55 SWA"

- - 1.469 0.220 1.689 2.927 1.733 C,C,C,T,C 0.000 39.921 13.372 STD

- - - - 0.3350 0.038 0.379 0.173 0.000 3.338 2.037 New BaselineP 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 Improved Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. Fill Control SWA. $10.98 $0.55 $0.00 $139.31 $0,00 $123.55 $11.58 1.409 0.221 1.631

- 2.960 1.816 C,C,C,E 0.000 36.189 12.261 STD. 

### ;10.931 3.943 0.000 139.164 0.000 199.264 14.668 0.278 0.044 0.320 0.095 0.000 1.284 0.727 Config/Tolerance Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ofInner &Outer SWA : $4.61 $0.22 -$0.00 $15,239.0 $17,137.10 $836.20 $7.09 1.382 0.220 1.602

- 2.927 1.827 C,C,C,TE 0.000 36.049 12.378 .Tubs-reduce water STD 4.008 0.239 0.000 11032.202 14463.192 339.621. 4.567 0.435 0.038 0.463 0.173 0.000 4.079 1.651 Added Comp 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Insulation SWA $43.44 $0.90' $0.00 $68,226.0 $44.59 $8,662 04 $48.77 1.599 0.236 1.835 2.941 1.603 C,E 0.000 39.883 13.634 STD .31.537 0.495, 0.000 56568.540 214.253 3428.308' 35.377 0.580 0.021 0.601 0.283 0.000 4.243 3.048 IncreasedMotor Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Efficiency SWA $8.78 $0.07 $0.00' $3.042.74 $2,678.43 $1,37333 ;$951 1.468 0.200 1.668 2.927 1.754 C,C,C,C,E. 0.000 38.921 13.372 STD 9.641 0.230 0.000 2141 152 2230.583 2265 312
. 1.88 .0.353 00035 0.379 0.173 0.000 · 3.338 2.037 'Thermostatically Comp 5 -5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Controlled SWA $7.70 $0.33 $0.00 $75.09 $1.72 $36:3.26 $8.16 1.426 0.220 1.645 2.927 1.780 C,C,C,C,C 0.000 

### 1 38.921 13.372 Mixing Valves STD 6.570 0.454. 0.000 161.222 4.472 1133.239 7.119 0.352 0.038 0.383 0.173 0.000 3.338 2.037 Improved Water Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 Extraction SWA $4.50 $0.31 $0.00 .$35,843.0 $14,95039 $2.473.88 $960 1.469 0.226 1.694 .2.927 1.728 T,E,E,C,C -0.383 38.921 13.372 RMC = 50% STD 3.677 1.045 0.000 24314.178 10613.869 2695.075 4.677 0.350 0.029 0.372 0.173 0.245 3.338 2.037 RMC =40% Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 :5. 5 5 5 SWA $12.32 $0.32 $0:00 $41,437.0 $17,618.02 $3.658.27 $18.12 1.469 0.234 1.702 2.927 1.720 T,E,E,C,C -0.677 38.921 13.372 STD ,7.493 2.156 0.000 27468.394 111923.857 2599.578 8.936 0.350 0.026 0.360 0.173

___ . .0.309 3.338 2.037 Horizontal Axis Comp 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5. Design SWA $67.98 $8.24 $0.56 $86,852.27 $125,689.6 $15,716.65 $101.57 0.436 0.193 0.599. 2.766 4.618 E,EE,C,C 0.000 25.730 9.325 STD 62.648 30.463 0.487 59228.735 82027.537 5771.343 110:138 0.163 0.276' 0.184 0.067 0.000 6.296 2.378 Assumes aconstant production volumeat a 1994 level of6,576,346. Production Sum ofhot water and machine energy used in test procedures. volume applies only to baseline and includes all models in theproduct class. J Energy factor should be no less than current minimum efficiency standard. Burdened labor rate. Source ofenergy use data: test data (T), calculations (C), orestimation (E). Forpurposes ofthis analysis, assumes a five-yearregulatory life. Based on energy calculated at 0.5 kWh/lb water removedwhen compared to baseline. Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/orexpansion. " Number ofcompanies providingdata. Includes research &development, product certification, administrative overhead. Shipment-weighted average value. Total ofmaterial/parts, labor, and shipping,plus perunit allocation of investment costs. ° Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. Includes only extemally applied hot water. P For energy datawhere less than fivecompanies reported, a newbaseline is calculated Includes internal hot water. based onlyon those companies providingdata for the design option.
(';ablc(: I continues on next page)


### C-2 TABLE C.I

.Raw Data Provided 

### by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis Cost Dlltll Wllsher Enrl'gy Usc Data

- ProposedTestProcedure
. WaterUsc Data Cost per Unit" Invcstmcnt**()atll~"** Total Ilot Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons l\:1tl/Part Labor" Shipping Tooling Capital" Other< pcr Unit'. Water!' Machine" Totali

.**ContainerFacto~** Sotircek Energy'
. Gallons. pe(cu.ft. kWh/eye: galleyc gallcrl.{t; Design Option
.1000's 1000's 1000's kTf7r1i::ve kWlrlcye kWh/eyecl/.n. (flkWh' Baselinc Compm: SWA"
. STDo Nc\vBaselimf Improvcd j:ill Control Comp SWA STD Config/Tolerance '. Comp

. orInner & Outcr SWA Tubs-rcduce Wllter SID Added Comp**I~sulation** SWA [ncrcllscd Motor
. Efficicncy .:rhcrmostatically Controlled Mixing Valvcs Improved Watcr Extraction RMC = 50% RMC =40%,

Horizontal Axis Dcsign. STD Comp SWA STD Comp 'SWA STD Comp SWA STD Comp SWA STD Comp SWA

. STU 4 4 $10.98· $0.55 10.931

4 $4.61 4.008

2 $43.44 31.537 5 .$in8 9.641

5 $7.70 6.570

5 $4.50 3.677

5

. $12.32

7.493

5

. $67.98 3.943 4 $0.22 0.239

2 $0.90 0.495.

5 $0.07**0~230**

·5· $0.33 0,454.

5 $0.31 1.045

5 $0.32 2.156

5 $8.24

, 62.648
.30,463 4 $0.00 0.000
.

4· '$0.00 0.000

2 4 $139.31 \39.164 4 4 $0.00 0.000

4 4 $123.55 199.264 4 $15,239.0 $17,13710 $836.20 11032.202 14463.192 339.621· 2 . 2_ 2 4 $11.58 14.668

4 $7.09 4.567

2 $0.00 $68,226.0 $44.59 $8,66204 $48.77 0.000, 56568.540 214.253 3428.308 35.377

5 5 5 5 5 $0.00 $.1,()42.74 $2,67843 $J,373:n $9

..51 0.000 2141 152 2230.5X3· 22(,5312 10.088

5 5 is S**~** $0.00 $75.09 .$\.72 $363.26 $8.16 0.000 161.222 4.472**1133.2~9** 7.119

5 5 5 5 5' $0.00$35,843,0 SI4,950.39 $2.47388 $9.60 0.000 24314.178 10613.869 2695.075
. 4.677

5 5 5 5 5**$O~OO** $41,437.0 $17,618'c)2 $3.658.27 $18.12 0.000 27468.394 11923.857. 2599.578 8.936

5 5 5 5 5 $0.56 $86,852.27 $125,689.6 S15,71665 $101.57 0,487 59228.735 82027.537 5771.343 110'\38

.**A~sunies** aconstantproduction volume at a 1994 level of6,576.346. PrOduction volume applies only to baseline and includes ail modelsin the product class. Burdened labor rate. Forpurposes ofthis analysis, aSsumes afive-yearregulatorylife. Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plant upgrade and/orexpansion. Includes research & development, product certification, administrative overhead. Total ofmaterialiparts, labor, and shipping, plus perunit allocatio'n ofinvestmcht costs. 5 5 55 5 5 5 '5 5 1:469 (U30 1.525

4 1.409 0.278

5 1.382 0,435

2 1.599 0.580

5

. 1,4(,8 0.351
.

5 1.426 0.352

5 1,469 0.350

5 1.469 0.350

5 0.436 0.163 0.220 0.D38 0.221

4 0.221 0.044

5 0.220 0.D38

2

. 0.236

0.021

5 (J.200 0035

5 0.220 0038

5 0.226 0.029

5 0.234 0.026

5 0.193 0.276' 1.689 0.379 1.747 2.927 0.173 2.960 1.733. C,C,C,T,C 0.000 0.000 39.921 13.372 3.338 2.037 "38.304--I2.973-; 4 4 1.695
. 4 1.816 4 4 4 4 . 1.631
. 2.960. C,C,C,E 0.000 36.189 12.261 0.320

5 '1.602 0,463

2 1.835 0.601

5 1.668 0.379

5 1.645

. 0.383 5 1.694 0.372

5 1.702 0.360

5 0.599. 0.184 0.095 5 2.92'Z 5 0.000 1.284 0.727 -------------------_._----------_ .. 5 555 0.000 i 36.049 12.3.78 0.173 0.000 4.079 1.651

..- ---...**--~.----** ..- ._---_._---._-----------------

2 2 2.941 0.283

5 2.927 0.173

5 2.927 0.173

5 2.927 1.603 5 1.754 . 5 1.780

5 1.728 2 C,E 2 2 2 0.000 ; 39.883 13.634 0.000 4.243 3.048

- ....._- --- -------- 5 5 5' 5 C,C,C,C,E. 0.000 38.921 3.338

5 13:372
. 2.037 5 C,C,C,C,C 5 T,E,E,C,C 0,000 5 5 0.000 i 38.921 13.372 0.000 3.338 2.037

....-._---_... . .,----- ....._-_.

### __ .•._-- 5 5 5' -0.3.83 38.921 13.3.72 0.173 0.245 3.338 2.037 -'

.._-_.. -.--_.---- ---- ..-- ... -..._- - - --- ___ • ___._.___.... _ ••_. __ 0. 5 5 5 . 5 5 5 2.927 1.720 T,E,E,C,C -0.677 38.921 13.372
. 0.173.

___.... .. .. ____.... _._.0.302.
..,...1.33.8_ ..::.1:Q}l.: 5 2.766 0.067 5 4.618 5' 5 5 5 E,E,E,C,C 0.000 0.000 25.730 6.296 9.325 2.378 Sum ofhot water and machine energy used inteSt procedures

. Energy factor should be no less than current minimum efficiency standard. Source ofenergyuse data: teSt data (T),**calcula~ions** (C),orestimation (E). " Based on energy calculated at 0.5 kWh/lb waterremoved when comparedto baseline. mNumberofcompanies providingdata. Shipment-weighted average vallie. Standard deviation on**shipment~weighted** average value. Includes only extemaJly applied hot water.
. . Includes intemalliot water. " P .For energy datawhere less than five companies reported, a new baseline'is calculated based only onthose companies providing data forthe design option.


### crablc C I continlles 011 next pagc)
C-2

### TABLE C.I Raw Data Provided by AHAM and Used inthe Engineering Analysis (cont.) Cost Data Washer Energy Use Data - Proposed Test Procedure Water Use Data Cost per Unit' Investment Data)" Total 1lot Clothes Energy Dryer Total Gallons Mtl/Part Laborb Shipping Tooling Capital" Olthere per Unil' Water" Machine h ' Total' Container Factor j Sourcek Energy' Gallons percu.ft. Design Option g p' 1000's 1000.10s k._W//cvc kli',/cv kfl,/rrc cry.fi. ftr/k,'U,7, _wv/c

...... /cvc
. ... /cu.. New BaselineP 1 520 0 219 1.739 .2.960 1.703 38.299 12.971 Advanced Conmp" 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Controls SWA" $54.98 $1.24 $0.00 $45,667.95 S15,13095 $16,068.24 $60.75 1.508 0.219 1.727 2.960 1.714 E,E,E 0.000 38.299 12.971 STD" ,28.991 0.707 0.000 41627.376 14142.136 11419775 26.290 0.321 0.035 0.353 0.115 0.000 1.424 0.822 Direct Drive Comp 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Motor SWA $68.87 $0.74 $0.00 $8,617.44 .$8,528.26 S4.353.32 $70.88 1618 0.086 1 703 2.941 1.727 C,E 0.000 39.883 13.634 STD 53:457 1.273 0.000 6642.561 7071.068 3107.027 55.451 (0.587 0.021 0.608 0.283 0.000

. 4.243 3.048 Horizontal Axis Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 with SWA $74.92 $6.00 $0.17 $95,727.83 $134.844.25 $21.727.10 $104.53 0.348 0.260 0.608 2.736 4.503 C,C,E,E 0.000 21.782 8.034 Recirculation STD 31.182 11 644 0.500 63393.182 95407.456 8952979 28.273 0126 0 166 0.185 0.144 0.000 3.389 1.637 New Baseline I 525 0 221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 Automatic Fill Comp 4 4 · 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Control SWA $30.12 $1.24 $0.00 $29,719.00 1.768.76872 $S6.06081 34.15 I 5( 0.221 1.571 2.995 1.906 E,EE,C

. 0.000 : 34.672 11.620 STD 12.807 3.637 0.000 24676.399 9995.003 4775.921 15124 0.255 0.044 0.290 0.165 0.000 1.969 1.004 New Baseline 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 tHorizontal Axis Comp 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 .4 4 with 50% RMC SWA $75.68 $8.41 $0.62 $97.088.68 $143,588.A49 516.626 00 $110 2? 0.445 0,205 0.621 2.778 4.474 C,C,C,E,E -0.317 27.181 9.808, SfI) 84.857 34.558 0.515 623376699 88404.374 4867 152 139.390 0.160 0.297 0.161 0.058 0.219 3.392 1.361 New Baseline 1525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 Horizontal Axis Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 with 40% RMC SWA $82.58 $8.30 $0.62 $ 103,056.3 $146,564 13 $19,619.04 $117 72 0.445 0.210 0.626 2.778 4.434 C,C,C,E,E -0.595 27.181 9.808 STD 93.164 34.587 0.515 63613.907 90683 111 5107 8.37 148.284 0.160 0.293 0.152 0.058 0.368 3.392 1.361 New Baseline 1.520 0.219 1.739 2.960 1.703 38.299 12.971 Hlorizontal Axis Comp 3 3 3 3 3

- - 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 with Aultomatic SWA $67.21 $5.36 $0.65 $97,956.79 $143.847.18 S17,038.09 $9583 0.414 0 169 0.583 2.782 4.771 C,C,EE 0.000 26.430 9.515 Fill Conitrol STD 34.036 13.426 0.520 60563.595 104969.425 3110.307 26.065 0.064 0.021 0.079 0.058 0.000 i 3.023 1.090 New Baselinec 1.525 0.221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 Vertical Axis. Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AutoFill. TCMV, SWA $39.43 $1.80 $0.00 $69,008.50 $27,744.51 $14.580.77 $49.38 1314 0,.227 1.541 2.995 1.944 C,C,E,E -0.361 34.672 11.617 50% RMC STD 17.642 5.277 0.000 47604.864 19080.927 9727.611 22.798 0.278 0.034 0.301 0.165 0.289 1.969 1.004 New Baseline '1.525 0 221 1.747 ' 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 Vertical Axis. Comp 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA $47.60 $1.81 $0.00 $75,17029 S30,744.42 15.823.87 $S58.33 1314 0.233 1.546 2.995 1.937 C,CE,E -0.666 34.672 11.617 40% RMC STD 20.009 0.583 0 51452.143 21061.697 10556.755 26.893 0.278 0.028 0.294 0.165 0.313 1.969 1.004 Assumes aconstant production volume at a 1994 level of'6.576.346 Production ' Sum ofllt water and machine energy used intest procedures. volume applies only to baseline and includes all models inthe product class. l'.'nergy hactor should be no lessthan current minimum efficiency standard. Burdened labor rate. Source oflenergy use data: testdata (T). calculations (C), or estimation (E). For purposes ofthisanalysis. assumes a five-year regulatory life Based on energy calculated at 0.5 kWh/lbi water removed when compared to baseline. Includes investment in such items as production machinery and plail upgrade tldor Numberl companis providing data. Includes research &dcvcslopicntl. product cerilitication, administl alivc vc rhne l .Slhipilsl cI-weighlld average valuc. lTolal of'material/parlts labor, and shipping, plus per unit allocalion of ilmvestmenui, costs. Stalndadllt deviation on shlipment-weigllhted average value. Includes only extemaclly applied hot water. I:o, cne-!",v dal; where less thaI live comopanies reported. a new baseline is calculated Include's itcln' lhot \aIter. hse'id ollv 11 thlmse comp; a1ies provitdinge d aita lottlhe design option. 

### C-3 TABLE C.I Raw Data Provided 

### by AHAM and Used in the Engineering Analysis (cant.) Cost Dntn Wnshcl' Encl'gy Us(' Dntn

- Propos('d TcstProccdure Cost per Unit' Investment Data"'. Total Hot Clothes Energy MIl/Part Lahor b Shipping Tooling**Capital~** Other' per lJni{ Water Maehineh · Totali Container**Faeto~** Soureek Dryer Energy Water Use Data Total Gallons Gallons per Cll.ft.**~D:.:::c~si~g.!!n...:O~pl!:t~io~I",-I**____ ,--___________ ·**~10()_Q_!** 1000's 1000's ,HVh/cvc HVhlcvc HVhlrvr cuf!. (rl.L:W7!**J..II.ll./~**..**~** ,..... ,.'"" r"'" , gaf,!cvc .-.... 11
....4. r, 5""\"U.II, Advanced Controls Direct Drive Motor New l3asclineP Compm SWA" SIDo Comp SWA SrD
. Horizontal Axis ComI' with SWA Recirculation STD Ncw Baseline Automatic Fill (omp Control SWA SID Ncw Basclinc Horizontal Axis with 50% RMC COIllP SWA SrD Ncw Baseline· Horizontal Axis Comp \\'ith 40% RMC SWA SrD New Baseline 1 Iorizontal Axis Comp with Automatic SWA Fill COIitrol SrD Ncw f3aselinc' Vertical Axis. Comp Auto FilL TCMV. SWA 50% RMC STD Ncw Baseline Vertical Axis. Comp Auto Fill, TCMV, SWA 40%RMC STD 2 $54.98 28.991

2 S6887 53457

4 S74.92 31.182

<1 S30.12 12.807

II.

. $7568

84.857

4 S82.58 93.164

3 S67.21 34.036

4 $3943 17.642

4 S47.60 20.009 2 Sl.24 0.707

2 SO.74 1.273

4 $6.00 11.644

4 Sl.24 3.6.37

,! S841 34.558

4 $830 34.587 .3 S5.36 13426

4 $1.80 5.277

4 SI.81 0.583 ? $Cl.OIl 0000

2 SO.OO 0.000

4 SO.17 D500

4 $0.00 (l.OOO

4 SO.Ii:? 0.515

4 SO.62 0.515

.3 $0.65 0.520

4 $0.00 0.000

4 SO.DO



### o 2 

# . I 520 3 $45.667.95 S15,13095 $16,068.24 S60.75 !.S08 41627376 14142.IY, 11419775 26.29() OJ:? 1 :? $8,61744 6642.561 4 2 S8528.2(' 70710(,8 4 2 $4.353.32 .3107.027 4 2 $70.88 55451

4 2 I (d8 0.587

4 $95,727.83 $134,844.25 S21 .727.10 $104.53 0 ..348 63.393.182 ()S40745(, 8()S2 (n9 28.273 0 12(, I S2S <1 4 '1 ,1 4 $2<),71 <)00 S11.7(,87:.' $(,.()(,tUi I S3 11.1 S**~5()** 24('7(>.399 9995()(U 477S.92I 15 12/1 ()2'i5 1.525 4 4 4 ,1 4 $97.088.C>f; SI<13,58x,l9 SI(,.(,2() ()O SIlO 2? 0.445 62337 (,')9**8~4()4.374** tlX(,7 152 139.V)O ().I(,O 1.525 4 4 4 4 4 $IOH)56.3 SI46,564 I**~** $19/,J904 $117 T2 0.445 63613.907 ()0683 III 5107 X37 148.284 (J.W) 1.520 .3 .3 ? 3 3 0219 1.739 .2.960 .3 3 3 0.219 1.727 2.960 (U)35 0.353 0.115

222 0.086 1.703 2.941 0.02J 0.608 0.283

4 4 4 0.260 0.608 2.736 o 1(,(' () IX5 0.144 () 2:? I 1.7117 2. <)(,()

444 0221 1.571 2.995 0.044 0.290 0.165 0.221 1.747 2.960

4 4 4 0205 0621 2.778 0297 U.161 0.058 0221 1.747 2.960

444 (J.210 0.626 2.778 0293 0.152 0.058 0.219 1.739 2.960

3 :3 3 $97.956.79 SI43.X47.18 $17.03809 $95X3 0.414 0 169 0.5X.1 2.782 60563.595 I04969.425**.~** I J0.307 260(,5
4 4 4 4 $69.1)08.50 S27.744.51 S14.580.77 $493X 47604.864 19080.927 9727.611 22.798 0.064 0.021 n.079 0.058 1.525 n.221 1.747 2.960

4 4 4 4 1314 0227 1.541 2.995 0.278 0.034 0.301 0.165 1.703 3 1.714

2 1.727

4 4.503 l.m5

4 1.906 1.695 3 E,E,E 3 0.000 38.299 3 38.299 12.971 .3 12.971 0.000 1.424 0.822 ._---._---_.._._-------_. __._-- -------_._.._----._-- 2 2 2 2 C,E 4 C,C,E,E

4 E,E,E,C 0.000 39.883 13.634 0.000

4 0.000 0.000

4 0.000 0.000 4.243 4 21.782 3.389 3X.304

4 34.672 1.969 3.048 4 8.034 1.637 12.973

4 11.620 1.004 38.304 12.973 4 4 4 .4 4 9.808. 1.361 4.474 C,C,C,E,E -0.317 27.181 0.219 3.392 1.695 38.304 12.973

4 4 4 4 4 4.434 C,C,C,E,E -0.595 27.181 9.808 1.703

3 4.771 1.695

4 1.944 3 C,C,E,E

4 C,C,E,E 0.368 3.392 1.361 3 0.000 0.000

4 -0.361 38.299 3 26.430 3.023 38.304

4 34.672 12.971 3 9.515 1.090 12.973

4 11.617 0.289 1.969 1.004 --_._-- --_ .._-_._. -._._--

. 1.525 0221 1.747 2.960 1.695 38.304 12.973 4 4 4 4 4 " 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 $75,J7()29 $30.744,)2 SJ5.X23.87 S58
..n 1314 0.233 1.546 2.995 1.937 C,C,E,E -0.666 34.672 11.617 51452. 143 21061.697 J0556.:..;. 7..:;5.:::,5--=:2;,:.:6"."**8~9.:::.3-,--.::0:..:.:.2::.c7.::8:....".,___"'0.:.;;. 0:.=2c:::8_~0~.2.:::.94...:....._0:::,;.c.!.1** :::,;65:::.-

________ c:::0.:.,::.3:..!,1.:::,3_....!..:1..:::.,96:::,;9::......---!1..;,:.0:.,:;:0:24_ /I$Sl1l11CS aconstant production volume at a 1994 level 01'6.576.346 Production SUI11 "fhnt lVater and machine cnergy used in test procedures. volume applies only to haselineand includes all models in the product class. Fncrg\' lactor should he no less than current minimum et1icicncy standard. Burdened labor raic. SOUJW "fenergy lise data: test data (T). calculations (C), or estimation (E). F<\r purposes ofthis analysis. assumes a five-year regulalory life Ilascd on energy calculated at n.5 kWh/lh waterremoved when compared to baseline. Includes in\'estment in slich items as producti("lIl Jllachiilcry alld plalll upgratk al1d/or**C\P;IIlSI~11I** NUllllh:r l,rcol1lpanics pr()viding (bttt. Includcs**rL:~carch** & dc,·clopIllCIlL product cCf1ilicaliotl, adlllillislla1J'·L: O\·crlH.:ad Shipmcllf-w\;ighkd a"cragl..' vallie. Tolal ofmatcrilli/parts.labllr, and shipping. plus per unil all"cation "l'in,

.."tnwlIl cosh. Standard**d~viation** on**shipJ11~nt-\\'"ightcd** awrage value. Indudc!'**ol~ly** c\tcfllally**applit~d** hot watcr FOl \
..**.'ll~rg\'** dala whcre kss thall li\'\...·**~·lllllpallic!'i** n.:pon.:d." new hasdine is calculated Illeludes inkr1lal hot \\'akr. ha:-,\:d olll\' Ull 111lls,,: companies pru\"1dill.g data h.lr the th:sign option. C-3

### Table C.2 provides data supplied by AHAM showing confidence levels on the design options listed in Table C. 1. Foreach design option, the confidence levels provided in Table C.2 indicate how confident manufacturers are in 1)the accuracy oftheir cost and investment data and 2) their success at mass-producing and marketing a clothes washer with the prospective design option. Confidence levels are expressed as percentages with a higher value indicating increased confidence. Also included in Table C.2 are limiting performance factors for incorporating the design options in clothes washer designs. Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data Confidence Levels Limiting Cost and Mass Production Marketing Performance Design Option Investment Data Success Success Factor' Improved Fill Compb 4 4 4 4 Control SWA' 66.781% 79.579% 47.637% 1,1,4,4.4,7.8,12, STDd 0.150 0.075 0.210 15,15,16,17 Config/Tolerance Comp' 4 4 4 5 ofInner &Outer SWA' 69.340% 54.540% 87.030% 1,2,4,5,5,5,7,10.O,0 Tubs-Reduce Water STD" 0.075 0.2!7 0.075 11,11,13,14,15,16 Added Comp 1 2 2 2 2 Insulation SWA' 53.680% 37.360%/ 39.570% 0.0,2.6,7,9.14 STD'" 0.177 0.354 0.460 Increased Motor Compb 5 5 5 5 Efficielnc SWA' 77.680% 9i.900% 75.690% 0,2,2,2,5,6,6, i. .2 STDV" 0 110 0. i i 0.259 Thermostatically Comp 5 5 Controlled SWA' 62.590% 97 840% 56.430% 1.1.17.13 Mixing Valves STD' 0.084 0.055 0.246 Improved Watel CompL 5: 5 5 Extraction SWA' 71.170% 78.840%'- 76.860% 3,5.,5,91,1 ),10.15 IRMC = 50% ' STIDd 0.061 0.124 0.190 RMC =40%., Comp" 55 5 SWA' 48.280% 61.260% 64.590% 3.3,3.,5,5,5,10,10.10 STD° 0045 0.199 0.135 12.14,15 Horizontal Axis Compb 5 5 5 5 Design SWA' 62.438% 91.899% 67.942% 1,1.2,56.,77.8,8.9.9.9.1( STD 0.15_2 0.292 0.313 10, .14,16,16.16.1-7 Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number ofcompanies listing the factor as a concern. 1. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 2. Physical Size 8. Tangling 14. Capacity 3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear 4. Gentleness of Action 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity 6. Servicing/Installation 12. Safety Number of companies providing data. Shipment-weighted average value d. Standard deviation on shipment-weighted average value. (Table C.2 continues on next page) 

### C-4 Table C.2 provides data supplied byAHAM showing confidence levels on the design options listed in Table C.I. 

### For each design option, the confidence levels provided in TableC.2 indicate how confident manufacturers are in I) the accuracy oftheir cost and investment data and 2) their success at mass-producing and marketing aclothes washer with the prospective design option. Confidence levels are expressed as percentages with a higher value indicating increased confidence. Also included in Table C.2 are limiting performance factors for incorporating the design options in clothes washer designs. Table C.2 

### AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data
Design Option Improved Fill Control ConfiglTolerance ofhIDer & Outer Tubs-Reduce Water Added Insulation Incrcased MOlor Efficlcnc\ ThermostaticallY Controiled Mixing Vah'es Improved Watel ExtraclIon RMC = 500/" RMC =40%

Horizontal AXIS Design Compb SWN STDd Comp" SWA' STDd Compo SWN SID" Compo SWA' STD" Compo SWA' S'TDd Compo SWA' STDd Comp" SWA' STD" Compb SWA' Cost and

. Investment Data 4 66.781%

0.150

4 69.340%

0.075

2 53.680%

O. ]77

5 77.680%

() 1 1 () .5 62.590%

0.084

5 7).170%

0.061

5 48.280%

U.045

5 62.438% Confidence Levels Limiting Mass Production Marketing Performance Success Success Factor' 4 4 4 79.579% 47.637% 1,1,4,4,4,7,8,12,

0.075 0.210 15,15,16,17

4 4 5 54.540% 87.030% 1,2,4,5,5,5,7,I0, 1 0, 0.217 0.075 11,11,13,14,15,16

2 2 2 37.360% 39.570% 0,0,2,6,7,9,1 4

0.354 0.460

5 5 5 :";1.900%, 75.690% 0,2,2,2,5,6,6,10.12

v.1HI 0.259

5 5 .5 97.840% 56.430% !.I,L7,!3

(1055 0.246

.:; 5 5 78.840% 76.860'Yo 3,5,5,5,9,10,I0, 1 0, 15 0.124 0.190

.5 5 .5 61260°/.0 64.590% 3.3,3,5,5,5,I0,IO,l 0,

0.199 0.135 12.14,15

5 5 5 Cll.899% 67.942% 1.1,2,5,6.7,7,8,8,9,9,9,1() STDe 0.152 0.292 0.313 10,11,14,16.16.16,1'.;7 Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number ofcompanies listing the factor as a concem . 1. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness RetentIon 2. Physicai Size 8. Tanglmg 14. Capacity 3. WnnklIng 9. Cycle TIme 15. Wear 4. Gentleness ofAction 10. Vibration 16. Rinsing '5. Noise 11. Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivity 6. Servicingllnstallation Number ofcompanies providing data. Shipment-weighted average value 12. Safety

d Standard de\'iation onshipment-weighted average value. (Table C2 continues on next page) C-4Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limiting Performance Factor Data (cont.) Confidence Levels Limiting Cost and Mass Production Marketing Performance Design Option Investment Data Success Success Factore Advanced Compb 3 3 3 2 Controls SWA' 

### i 38.390% 35.955% 26.217% 1,4,7,9 STDd 0.389 0.318 0.035 Suds Savings Compb : 4 4 4 4 SWA' ! 2.040% 97.860% 19.280% 0,1,1,2,6,7 STDd i 0.050 0.096 0.354 Direct Drive Compb 2 2 2 2 Motor SWAC

. 45.150% 55.890% 90.740% 0,2,2,5,6,8 STDd 0.247 0.283 0.035 Horizontal Axis Compb 4 4 4 4 with 40% RMC SWAC 38.797% 64:070% 51.508% 1,3,3,3,5.5,6,7,7,8,8.9.9 STDd 0.111 0.216 0.229 10,10,11,14,15,16,16 Horizontal Axis Compb 3 3 3 3 with Automatic SWA' 64.353% 90.534% 71.289% , 1,6,7,7,8,8,9,10,11, Fill Control STDd 0.100 0.153 0.150 16,16,17 Vertical Axis, Compb 4 4 4 4 Auto Fill. TCMV, SWA' 3'.851% 35.988% 29.249% 1,1.3,4,5,7,81.1 3.i5. 50% RMC STD' J.247 0.189 0.138 16,16,17 Vertical Axis, Compb 4 4 4 4 AuioFill, TCMV, SWA'

- 8523 0 29.249% 3% 1,1,3.3,4.5,7.8.10.13.! 4. 40% RMC STD 0.125 0.171 0.138 15.16.17 a Factors that are repeated indicate multiple number ofcompanies listing the factor as aconcern) 1. Soil Removal 7. Consumer Interface (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 2. Physical Size 8. Tangling 14. Capacity 2. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear 4. Gentleness ofAction 10 Vibration 16. Rinsing 5. Noise 11- Sand Removal 17. Suds Sensitivltv 6. Servicing/Installation 12. SafeTx b Number ofcompanies providing data.

Shipment-weighted average xal;:. d Standard deviation on shipmenm-vweighted average alue.

C-5 Table C.2 AHAM Confidence Level and Limitin
Design Option Advanced Controls Suds Savings

Direct Drive Motor Horizontal Axis with40%RMC Horizontal Axis with Automatic Fill Control Vertical Axis, Auto Fill. TCMV. 50%RMC Compi. i SWN 

## i

...**§XI)~~.** Compb: SWN I STDd Compb SWN. STDd Compb SWN STDd Compb SWN STDd Compb. SWN STDd Vertical AXIS, Compb Auto Fill, TCMV, SW N Cost and InyesUnent Data 3 38.390%

0.389**-~ ---------~----.---** 

4 ""2.040%

0.050

2 "+5.150%

0.247

4**~S.797%** 0.111

3 6..+.353%

0.100

4**~:.851** % J.247

4 ::- 852% Confidence Levels Mass Production Success 3 35.955%

0.318

.- ----------------- 4 97.860%

0.096

2 55.890%

0.283

4 64:070%

0.216

3 90.534%

0.153

4 35.988%

0.189

4 32.203% Marketing Performance Success Factor" 3 2 26.217% 1;4,7,9

0.035

4 4, 19.280% 0,1,1,2,6,7

0.354

2 2 90.740% 0,2,2,5,6,8

0.035

4 4 51.508% 1,3,3,3,5,5,6,7,7,8,8,9,9

0.229 10,10,11,14,15,16,16

3 3 71.289% 1,6,7,7,8,8,9,10,11,

0.150 16,16,17

4 4 29.249% 1,1.3,4,5,7,8.10,13.15.



### o 138 16,16,17

4 4 29.249% 1,1,3.3,4.5,7.8.10.i 3.14. 40%RMC STD';lI25 0.171 0.138 15.16.17 Factors that are repeated indie"le multiple number ofcompames hsting the factor as aconcern) I. Soil Removal 7. Consumer InteI'face (Ergonomics) 13. Whiteness Retention 2. Physical Size 8. TrrngliIig 14. Capacity 3. Wrinkling 9. Cycle Time 15. Wear <1. Gentleness ofAction 10 Vibration 16. Rinsing .; NOIse II· Sand Removal 17 Suds SensitlVit\ 6. Sel'Vlcinglinstallation

b Number ofcompanies**pro\'idm~** jata**~,hlpment-\\'elghted** average**\J:~:':** 12. Safel\

Standard deviation on shipmeJ1l-weighted average \ alue.

C-5

### APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION
Anadjustment to theDf(theamount ofenergy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was required for gas dryers because the value of0.5 kWh/lb used inthe future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) was determined based onthe use ofan electric dryer. A correction factor was derived from data submitted by AHAM as part oftheir dryer data submittal [1]. The data is summarized in the following table. Table D.1 Dryer Energy at70% Initial Moisture Content Clothes Dryer Type Gas Energy Electric Energy Total Energy kWh/'cvce kJhl.hcycl cce klWh/cvcl Electric 2.210 2.210 Gas 2.379 0.102 2.481


### A simple ratio ofthe total drying energy can then be used as a correction factor to the 

### D,.
GCF = Gas Dyer Total Energy 2.481 1.12 

### Electric Dryer Total Energy 2.210 where GCF = Gas Correction Factor Thus, the energy required to remove moisture in a gas clothes dryer is represented by the following equation. De:., = De (D.2) where Defg = gas dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWh/lb) 

### Df = electric dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWh/lb) To simplify the calculation ofthe energy expense ofdrying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used by a gas dryer is assumed to be priced at the cost ofgas (including the small amount ofelectricity that is used).

D-l 

### APPENDIX D. DRYER EFFICIENCY FUEL CORRECTION DERIVATION

An adjustment totheDej(the amount ofenergy required by a dryer to remove moisture) was required for gas dryers because the value of0.5 kWhJlb used in the future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) was determined based onthe use ofan electric dryer. A correction factor was derived from data submitted by AHAM as part oftheir dryer data submittal [1]. The data is summarized in the following table. Table D.I DryerEnergy at 70% Initial Moisture Content Clothes DryerType Gas Energy Electric**Energ~·** Total Energy kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWllIcvcle Electric 2.210 2.210 Gas 2.379 0.102 2.481
A simple ratio ofthe total drying energy can then be used as a correction factor to the**D~r**
GCF = Gas Dlyer Total Energy Electric Dryer Total Energy = 2.481 2.210
where GCF 

### = Gas Correction Factor = 1.12 (D.I)

Thus, the energy required to remove TJ)oisture in a gas clothes dryer is represented by the following equation

where Def.gas De! gas dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWhJlb) electric dryer energy required to remove moisture (kWhJlb) (D.2)

To simplifY the calculation ofthe energy expense ofdrying clothes in a gas dryer, all the energy used byagas dryer is assumed !obe priced at the cost ofgas (including the small amount ofelectricity that is used).

D-l

.

### REFERENCES 1. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Commentson theAdvance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking.DOE Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #37, June 27, 1995.

D-2 REFERENCES 1.
;<, Association ofHomeAppliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995;,

### CommentsontheAdvance

, Notice ofProposedRulenuiking. DOEDocketNo. EERM-:94-403, comment #37, June 27,

'1995. " ' , ,

, f

D-2 i

### APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FOR IMPROVED WATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION
In calculatingthe benefits ofimproved water extraction, several parameters were taken into consideration. These include 1)the amount ofenergy saved inthe clothes dryer for every extra pound ofmoisture removed inthe washer, 2) the fraction ofclothes dryer loads per washer load (some clothes are line-dried), 3)the average load size, 4) the moisture content ofthe clothes before entering the clothes dryer, and 5)the fraction oftime the lower RMC option is used., These are described ingreater detail below. The dryer energy (D.) isdefined as the amount ofenergy needed to completely drythe test load ina clothes dryer afterthe washer final spin cycle. The amount ofenergy needed to dry clothes after they are removed from the clothes washer depends on how much moisture isretained after the final spin. The remaining moisture isspecified as apercentage ofthe "bone dry" weight ofa standard test load. For this analysis, a baseline RMC of62% after the final spin cycle was assumed. This is based on data AHAM submitted on shipment-weighted averages for abaseline washer. A62% RMC means that the weight ofawet test load weighs 62% morethan abone dry test load (1.62 xdry test load). After being dried ina clothes dryer, the test load isassumed to have a residual RMC of4% The future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) provides a table that specifies the maximum clothes load for agiven size clothes washer. For a2.9 to 3.0 ft 3 

### washer, the maximum load is 12 1 lbs. The average load to maximum load fraction. 0.52, was derived from Procter & Gamble data and made part ofthe proposed and future DOE test procedures. The dryer energy issometimes also referred to as moisture removal energy. The equation describing the dryer energy isgiven below where:
D=LAF * (Max. Load) (RAC

- RMC4%) · De DUF (E.1)
LAF = LoadAdjustment Factor= 0.52 Max. Load = Maximum clothes load = 12.1 lbs/cycle RMC = RemainingMoisture Contentafter final spin cycle, (expressed as afraction) RMC 4

### % = 

### RemainingMoisture Contentwith a4% residual, (expressed as a fraction) Def 

### = 0.5 kWh/lb ofmoisture (nominal energy required for clothes dryer to remove moisture) DUF = Diyer UsageFactor= 0.84. DUF is the ratio of dryer cycles to clothes washer cycles peryear. Since it is not expected that consumers would use higher spin speed or other options to reduce the remaining moisture content 100% of the time, the future DOE test procedure E-l 

### APPENDIX E. CALCULATIONS FORIMPROVEDWATER EXTRACTION DESIGN OPTION

In calculatingthebenefits ofimproved waterextraction, several parameters were taken into consideration. These include 1) the amount ofenergy saved in the clothes dryer for every extra pound ofmoisture removed in the washer, 2) the fraction ofclothes dryer loads per washer load (some clothes areline-dried), 3) the average load size, 4) the moisture content ofthe clothes before entering the clothes dryer, and 5) the fraction oftime the lower RMC option is used., These are described in greaterdetail below. The dryer energy (De) is defined as the amount ofenergy needed to completely dry the test load in a clothes dryer afterthe washer final spin cycle. The amount ofenergy needed to dry clothes afterthey areremoved from the clothes washer depends on how much moisture isretained after the f final spin. Theremaining moisture is specified as a percentage ofthe "bone dry" weight ofa standard test load. Forthis analysis, a baseline RMC of62% after the final spin cycle was assumed This is based on data AHAM submitted on shipment-weighted averages for a baseline washer. A 62% RMC means that the weight ofawet test load weighs 62% morethan a bone dry test load 0.62 x dry test load). After being dried in a clothes dryer, the test load is assumed to have a residual RMC of4% The future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) provides a table that specifies the maximum clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9 to 3.0 ft3 washer, the maximum load is 12 1 lbs. The average load to maximum load fraction, 0.52, was derived from Procter & Gamble data and made part ofthe proposed and future DOE test procedures. The dryer energy is sometimes also referred to as moisture removal energy. The equation describing the dryer energy is given below**where~** De = LAF
. (Max. Load)

. (RMC

- RMC 4%)
. D

## er ' DUF (E.l)

LAF· 

### = LoadAdjustme11l FacIOI' 

### = 0.52 Max. Load 

### = Maximum clothes load 

### = 12.1 Ibs/cycle RMC 

### = RemainingMoisture Content after final spin cycle, (expressed as a fraction) RMC4% 

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

### = 0.5 kWhllb ofmoisture (nominal energy required for clothes dryer to remove moisture) DUF = Dlyer Usage Factor 

### = 0.84. DUF is the ratio ofdryer cycles to clothes washer cycles peryear. Since it is not expected that consumers would use higher spin speed or other options to reduce the remaining moisture content 100% of the time, the future DOE test procedure
E-1

### (Appendix J1) assumes that consumers willuse the lower remaining moisture content option 75% of the time and the baseline case of62% remaining moisture content the remaining 25% ofthe time. The adjusted dryer energy is shown in the equation below.

D = 0.75 D + 0.25 

### (E.2)

e,adjusred 75 e,reduced + 25 62% (E.2)


### where: Derced, = 

### the dryer energy required with using a improved moisture extraction design option (lower RMC option). De 62% 

### = the dryer energy required with the baseline RMC of 62%.

E-2 (Appendix

### Jl)assumes that consumerswill usethe lowerremaining moisture content option 75% of the time and**~he** baseline case of62% remaining**mois~ure** content the remaining 25% ofthe time. The adjusted dryer energy is shownin the equation below.

'Where: De,adjuSred= 0.75'· De,reduced + 0:25
. D e,62% . (E.2)

De.reduced

De.62% the dryer. energy required' with using a improved moisture extraction design option (lowerRMC option).



### = the dryer.energy required'with the baseline RMC of 62%.

- ' ",' .

...... :

E-2

### APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY Although the proposed DOE test procedure specifies different amounts ofcloth test loads varying with clothes container volume, for purposes ofthis analysis the amount ofclothes washed per cycle was assumed to be the same for all design options. Consideration was given to adjusting the energy use values to account for the slightly smaller horizontal axis clothes container capacity, and therefore, smaller test load size in accordance with the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1). However, because ofdisagreements over clothes container capacity measurement and clothes loading in vertical and horizontal axis washers, adjustments to the horizontal axis clothes container capacity were not made. With regard to vertical axis washers, clothes container capacity-as measured according to the future DOE test procedure-includes volume above the water line. Some argue that including volume above the water line overstates the usable clothes container capacity. But others claim that this volume should be included since clothes above the water level will be pulled down into the water as they become wet and compacted. This ofcourse assumes that clothes filled to this level will still receive an adequate wash. With regard to horizontal axis washers, claims have been made that for the available clothes container capacity, more clothes can be loaded into a horizontal axis washer than in a vertical axis machine while still achieving satisfactory wash performance. Another consideration for assuming a constant load size is to allow for fair comparisons between different design options. For example, assuming a smaller clothes load for horizontal axis washers would reduce its calculated wash and drying energy. This would overstate the energy savings ofhorizontal axis washers relative to that ofvertical axis washers. It should be noted. however, that the MEF normalizes the energy usage to the rated volume by dividing the clothes container volume by the total energy use

F-i 

### APPENDIX F. CLOTHES CONTAINER CAPACITY
Although the proposed DOE test procedure specifies different amounts ofcloth test loads varying with clothes containervolume, for purposes ofthis analysis the amount ofclothes washed per cycle was assumed to be the same for all design options. Consideration was given to adjusting the energy use values to account for the slightly smaller horizontal axis clothes container capacity, and therefore, smallertest load size in accordancewiththefuture 

### DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) However, because ofdisagreements overclothes container capacity measurement and clothes loading in vertical and horizontal axis washers, adjl:lstments to the horizontal axis clothes container capacity were not made. With regard to vertical axis washers, clothes container capacity-as measured according to the future 

### DOE test procedure-includes volume above the waterline. Some argue that including volume abovethe water line overstates the usable clothes container capacity. But others claim that this volume should be included since clothes above the water level will be pulled down into the water as they become wet and compacted. This ofcourse assumes that clothes filled to this level will still receive an adequate wash. With regard to horizontal axis washers, claims have been made that for the available clothes container capacity, more clothes can be loaded into a horizontal axis washer than in a venical axis machine while still achieving satisfactory wash performance. Another consideration for assuming a constant load size is to allow for fair comparisons between different design options. For example, assuming a smaller clothes load for horizontal aXIs washers would reduce its calculated wash and drying energy. This would overstate the energy savings ofhorizontal axis washers relative to that ofvertical axis washers. It should be noted. however, that the MEF normalizes the energy usage to the rated volume by dividing the clothes container volume by the total energy use.

F-l