-. **- .' * -. C .

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 of Codes and Standards

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

,

4-

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 of Codes and Standards 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT REPORT ON DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

1. INTRODUCTION .. .. ............ . 11.. 

:2. PRODUCT CLASSES .. .. ............. : ................. 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

; .\

i

-S* ' ' -v.

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DRAFT REPORT ON DESIGN OPTIONS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS . '. . . '. - . . 

. ... . 

1. INTRODUCTION ...................... :. ~ ...... , .......... ' ...... ~ .. 1 

2, PRODUCT CLASSES ................. i ••••••••• : ••••••••••••••. , .. '. 1 

3. DESIGN OPTIONS ... : ......... ,; , , : . , , .. , , , , , " , , , , , , , , , , , ; , , , , , . , , 2 

4, CONCLUSIONS ".,',.,." ... ,., .. , .. " .... ".,.,", .. ,.,""" -" " 15' 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Current Product Classes & Efficiency Standards, .', , , , ............ , ... , . 2 . 

Table 2 Proposed Prod!Jct Classes ' .. , , , , , " , , ..... , , , , , ... , . , . , , " , , , , " ... , , 2 

Table 3 Design Options '.""'.""', .. ,',.".,',".' .. ,,",', .. ,"'," 3 

Table 4 Design Options Eliminated from 'Further Analysis, , ' " , , , , . , ,'. , , , . , , , , " 15 

Table 5 Remaining Design Options , , . , , , . , . , . , '.' . , . , , , , , . , , , , , , . , , , , , , , " 15 

\ \\ 

' .. . . 

i 
Draft Report On Design Options for Clothes Washers

1. INTRODUCTION

This report discusses possible design options for improving the energy efficiency of standard

capacity, residential clothes washers.

The procedure used in this design option analysis is based on a Department of Energy (DOE)

interpretive ruling outlining process improvement measures [1]. After the different appliances subject

to possible regulation are ranked, potential design options are identified as the next step in the process

of promulgating appliance efficiency standards. Screening factors are then used to determine if any

design options should be eliminated from further consideration. Much of the input used for screening

design options was provided by clothes washer manufacturers. Other sources include tradepublications and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM).

Although (under the new process) the design option stage of the analysis now precedes an

Advance Notice of Proposed 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 of appliance types. For example, clothes

washers are an appliance type, but a compact clothes washer is a product 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 defined using 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].

N~~~~~~~~~

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

Draft Report On Design Options for Clothes Washers 

1. INTRODUCTION 

, This report discusses possible design options for improving the energy 'efficiency of standard . 

-capacity, residential clothes washers. 

The procedure used in this design option analysis is based on a Department of Energy (DOE) 

interprelive ruling outlin!ng process improvement measures [1].' After the different appliances subject 

to possible regulation are ranked, potential design options are identified as the next step in the process 

ofproniulgating appliance efficiency standards. Screeningfactors are then used tpdetermine ifany 

design options should be eliminated from further consideration .. Much of the input used for screening 

design options was provided by clothes washer manufacturers. Other sourc~s include. trade· . 

publications and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 

Although (under the new process) the design option stage of the analysis now precedes an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rtdemaking (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 Supple'mental 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 creationiofproduct classes. CICl$~s are a subset of appliance types. For example, Clothes 

washers are an appliance type, but a compact clothes washer is a produCt class. Appliance types are' 

segregated into separate: classes to which .different energy-efficiency standards apply. DOE 

differenti(!.tes classes by capacity or other performance-related features that provide utility to the 

. consumer and affect efficiency. In general, classes are defined using data collected in di'scussions 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?fe 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. Current Product 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 Must have unheated rinse option

Front loading Must have unheated rinse option

Suds saving Must have unheated rinse option

In a previous rulemaking [4], the terms top loading and front loading were used to refer to

vertical and horizontal axis clothes washers, respectively. Since horizontal axis machines can be

manufactured in a top loading configuration, product class distinction-based on how clothes are

loaded-is no longer made. Instead, vertical and horizontal axis washers are considered as design

strategies that manufacturers can use to achieve different efficiency levels. For the present analysis,

the product classes in Table 2 were considered.

Table 2. 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 sent to

AHAM for distribution to its clothes washer manufacturer members. The questionnaire requested

data on the energy use and cost of design options. After the initial questionnaire was distributed,

workshops were held between stakeholders including AHAM, manufacturers, and DOE. These

interactions resulted in modifications and additions to the initial design option list.

Several of the original ANOPR design options were renamed to better define their technology.

Microprocessor controls & fuzzy logic was renamed advanced controls/sensor.

Configuration/tolerance of inner and outer tubs was changed to tighter tub tolerance. Higher spin

speed was redefined as improved water'extraction and was separated into four different values for

2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

,. 

Table 1. Current Product Classes & Efficiency Standards 

Product Class 

Compact top loading 

Standard top loading 

Semi-automatic top loading 

Front loading 

Suds saving 

Efficiency Standard 

EF ~ 0.90 t't'/(kWh/cycle) 

EF ~ 1.18 ft'/(kWh/cycle) 

Must have unheated rinse option 

Must have unheated rinse option 

Must have unheated rinse option 

- . . 

In a previous rulemaking [4], the terms top loading and front loading were used t6 refer to 

vertical and horizontal axis clothes washers, respectively. Since horizontal axis machines can be 

manufactured in a top loading configuration, product class distinction-based on how clothes are 

loaded-is no longer made. Instead, vertical and horizontal axis washers are considered as design 

strategies that manufacturers can use to achieve different efficiency levels. For the present analysis, 

the product classes in Table 2 were considered. 

Table 2. 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 sent to 

AHAM for distribution to its clothes washer manufacturer members. The questionnaire requested 

data on the energy use and cost of design options. After the initial questionnaire was distributed, 

workshops were held between stakeholders including AHAM, manufacturers, and DOE. These 

interactions resulted in modifications and additions to the initial design option list. 

Several of the original ANOPR design options were renamed to better define their technology. 

Microprocessor controls & fuzzy logic was renamed advanced controls/sensor. 

Configuration/tolerance of inner and outer tubs was changed to tighter tub tolerance. Higher spin 

speed was redefined as improved water'extractionand was separated into four different values for 

2 
remaining moisture content (RMC); 50%, 40%, 35%, and 30%. The RMC design option is the same

in all four cases but it varies in the amount of final moisture content of the cloth. Different costs and

energy usages are required to achieve the different levels of RMC.

Several design .options were split into two or more options. Improved fill control was

originally interpreted differently by individual manufacturers (with large 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 axis design

Horizontal axis with recirculation

Advanced controls/sensor (soil load sensor)

Suds saving

Direct drive motor

Automatic fill control

Reduced thermal mass

Electrolytic disassociation of water

Ultrasonic washing

Bubble action

Ozonated laundering

Some of the design options in Table 3 are eliminated from further consideration (later in this

report) if one of the following criteria are not met [6]:

3

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

. . 

remaining moisture content (RMC); 50010, 40010, 35%, and 30010. The RMC design option is the· same 

in all four cases but it varies in the amount of firial moisture content ofthe cloth. Different costs and 

energy usages are required to achieve th,e di£J:erent levelsofRMC .. 

. .. Several design .options were split into two or more options .. Improved fill control was 

originally interpreted differently by individual manufacturers (with large differences in'cost and energy· 

savings) and was therefore split into tWo options: improved fiU 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 fjnal design options considered in this analysis. 

Table 3 •. Design Options 

Improved fill control 

Tighter tub tolerance 

Added insulation 

Increased motor efficiency 

Thermostatically <?<>ntrol1ed mixing valves (TCMV) 

Improved water extraction 

(remaining moisture content; RMC = 50%,40%,35%, 30%). 

Horizontalaxis design 

Horizontal axis with recirculation 

Advanced controls/sensor (soil load sensor) 

Suds saving 

Direct drive motor 

Automatic fill control 

Reduced thermal mass 

Electrolytic disassociation of water 

. Ultrasonic washing 

Bubble acti9D 

Ozonated laundering 

Some of the design options in Table 3 are eliminated from further consideration (later in this 

report) if one of the following critena are riot met [6]: 

3 

--:"_,,-_.----- -...... -- --. -- .. ~ .,--.. --.--~-... -. -"~-'-'-~"---"---' 

'r. o t; 
I) Technological Feasibility. Technologies incorporated in commercial products or in

working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.

2) Practicability to Manufacture, Install and Service. If mass production of a technology in

commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of technology could be

achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective

date of the standard, then that technology will be considered practicable to manufacture,

install and service.

3) No adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability.

4) No adverse Impacts on Health or Safety.

The reasons for eliminating a design option shown in Table 3 (or keeping for further

consideration) are discussed in the individual descriptions of the design options outlined below. The

design options that are not recommended for elimination in this report will be analyzed further in a

later report. In this later report, the efficiency and cost of design options and combinations of design

options will be analyzed.

Included in the discussion of design options are limiting performance factors (if the same

factor was submitted by two or more manufacturers). These limiting performance factors describe

parameters affected by a design option. Typically, these factors affect the utility of the 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 be taken

into consideration.

Baseline Model

A clothes washer baseline model is used as a reference for evaluating the energy saving

potential and increased manufacturing costs of various design options. The potential for energy

savings is based on a proposed future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1) [7]. This test procedure

will take effect only when a new clothes washer standard is enacted.

The baseline represents the typical vertical axis washer with an energy efficiency just above

the minimum allowable, as specified by updates to the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act

(NAECA). Currently, all standard size washers must achieve the minimum allowed energy factor of

1.18 ft'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

capability to achieve a 62% remaining moisture content on the normal spin cycle.

4

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

I) Technological Feasibility. Technologies "incorporated in commercial products or in 

working' prototypes will be considered technologically feasible . 

. 2) Practicability to ManufaCture,~ Install and. Service. If mass. produ~tionofa technology in 

commercial products 'and reliable installation and servicing of technolqgy could be 

achieved on the scale necessary. to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective 

date of the standard, then that technology will be cpnsidered practicable to manufacture, 

install and service. .' 

3) No adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability. 

4) No adverse Impacts on Health or Safety. 

The reasons for eliminating a design option shown in Table' 3 (or keeping for further 

consideration) are discussed in the individual descnptions of the design options outlined below. The 

design options that are not recommended for elimination in this report will be analyzed further in a 

later report. In this later report, the efficiency and cost' of design options and combinations of design 

options will be analyzed. ' 

. Included in the discussion of design options are limiting performance factors (if the same 

factor was submitted by two or more manufacturers). These limiting performance factors describe 

parameters ~ected by a design option. Typically, these factors affect the utility of the clothes 

washer. A limiting performance factor does not necessarily exclude a design option from further 

;malysis but describes performance factors that are affected py a design option and should be taken 

Jinto consideration. ' . 

Baseline Model 

. A clothes washer baseline model is used as a reference for evaluating the energy saving 

potential and increased manufacturing costs of various design options. The potential for en~rgy 

savings is based on a proposed future DOE test procedure (Appendix 11) [7]. This test procedure 

will take effect only when a new clothes washer standard is enacted. . . . 

The' baseline represents th~ typical vertical axis washer with an energy efficiency just above 

lrhe minimum allowable, as specified by updates to the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

(NAECA). Currently, all standard size washers must achieve the minimum allowed energy factor of 

l.18 fWkWh, 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 

c;apability to achieve a 62% remaining moisture content on the normal spin cycle. 

4 

.. --.----'-----------:----~-
.nmproved fill control

This design option is defined as improving the tolerance on existing wash water fill sensing.

This can be accomplished by reducing tolerances of presently 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 of an air hose is connected near the bottom of the washer tub

and the other end is connected to a pressure switch. As water fills the tub, air in the hose is forced

into a smaller volume, thereby increasing the air pressure. The air pressure increases until it activates

a pressure switch, which in turn shuts off the 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 was not aware of any opportunity to reduce tolerances of presently

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

outer tub. This annulus fills with water, but does not add to the clothes washer capacity. Having less

space between the inner wash basket and the outer tub reduces the amount of water 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 of the annulus. Since

most of the 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 that if the annulus is too 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 for deflection of baskets with out-of-balance loads. Increasing the spin speed of the

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 the benefit of tightening the tub tolerance.

5

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

Jmproved fill control 

. This'design option is defined as improving the tolerance on existing wash water fill sensing. 

This can be accomplished by reducing tolerances of pr~sently used pr~ssure sensors or ilJlproving 

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 of an air hose is connected near the bottom of the washer tub· 

and the pther end is connected to a pressure switch. As water fills the tub, air in the hose is forced 

into a smaller volume, thereby increasing the air pres.sure .. The air pressure increases until it activates 

a pressure switch, which in tum shuts off the water inlet valve .. A more accurate water level setting 

system would avoid overfilling the wash tub, thereby reducing the amoUlit 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 was not aware of any opportunity to reduce tolerances of presently 

used pressure sensors. But because several manufacturers provid~d cost and efficiency data for' . 

improving the fill control, it was analyzed as a method to i~prove clothes washer efficiency. 

Tighter tub tolerance . 

This design option reduces the space (the annulus) between the inner wash basket and the 

outer tub. This annulus fills with water, but does not add to the clothes washer capacity. Having less 

space between the inner wash basket and the outer tub reduces the amount of water required for a 

fill, thereby savi~g 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 of the annulus.' Sin~e 

most of the annulus in a horizontal axis washer is filled with air, a smaller ~ulus does not yield 

significant energy savings. 

Other considerations are also important in determining an appropriate clearance between 

basket and tub. Manufacturers state that if the annulus is too small there may be problems with "suds 

lock", wher:e 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 of baskets with out-of-balance loads. Increasing the spin speed of the 

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 the benefit of tightening the tub tolerance. 

I' 

5 

/ 
Added insulation

This design option adds insulation around the outer wash tub. Because some heat energy is

lost through the shell of the clothes washer, adding insulation around the outer tub slightly reduces

the water temperature needed for a hot wash. However, since the wash cycle is short, the thermal

mass of the water is very high, and the temperature of the 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 of fiberglass insulation relative to no

insulation resulted in only a 1 - 2°F increase in water temperature during parts of the wash [8].

Some manufacturers stated that this design option would produce little savings and should

be eliminated. Since several manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this design option,

it was analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency.

Increased motor efficiency

About 10% of the total electrical energy consumed by a typical clothes washer is used by the

electric motor. The typical washing machine has a 1/2-% horsepower motor. One manufacturer states

that replacing a split-phase motor with a capacitor start motor may increase the efficiency of the

motor by 10% [9]. Limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) physical

size and 2) servicing/installation.

Manufacturers supplied data for this option but suggested that since the motor energy is a

small part of the total energy, even a 10% reduction in motor energy would result in only a 1%

reduction in overall energy consumption. Although only small energy savings would be realized by

improving the motor efficiency, it was still considered as a method to improve clothes washer

efficiency.

Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMVs)'

This design option'achieves energy savings by more accurately controlling inlet water

temperature for hot or warm fills. In a typical non-thermostatically controlled water inlet system, two

solenoid valves are used; one valve controls hot water fills while the other controls cold water fills.

Both solenoid valves are opened if a warm water setting is selected. In the warm wash mode, a fixed

fraction of hot and cold water are controlled by flow control devices. For example, a manufacturer

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 mixing valve (TCMV) refers to a set of clothes washer valves

which sense water temperature and adjust the supply of hot and cold water to maintain a desired

'Also referred to as "Thermostatically Controlled Water Valves".

6.

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

Added insulation 

This design option adds insulation around the outer wash tub. Because some heat energy is 

lost through the shell of the clothes waSher, adding insulation ar<;>und the outer tub slightly reduces 

the water temperature needed for a hot waSh. However, since the wash cycle is short, the thermal 

mass of the water is very high, and the temperature of the 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 14QoF showed that adding ~ne inch .of fiberg~ass insulation relative to no 

insulation resulted in only a 1-2°F increase in water temperature'during parts of the wash [8]. 

Some manufacturers stated that this design option would produce little savings .~nd should 

b~ ~liminated. Since several manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this design option, 

, it was analyzed as a method to improve clothes washer efficiency . 

.Increased motor efficie"cy 

About 10010 of the total electrical energy consumed by atypical clothes washer is used by the 

electric motor. The typical washing machine has a Y2-2J3 horsepower motor. One manufacturer states 

!that replacing a split-phase motor with a capacitor start motor may increase the efficiency of the 

motor by 10% [9]. Limiting performance factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) physical 

size and 2) servicinglinstallation. ' " 

'I 

Manufacturers supplied data for this option but suggested that since the motor energy is' a 

small part of the total energy, even a 10% reduction in motor energy would result in only a 1 % 

l'edu¢on in overall energy consumption. Although only small energy savings )Vould be realized by 

improving the motor efficiency, it was still considered as a method to improve clothes washer 

(!fficiency. 

Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMVsjI , 

This design option'\ achieves energy savings by more accurately controlling inlet water 

temperature for hot or warm fills, In a typical non-thermostatically controlled water inlet system, two 

, solenoid valves are used~ one valve controls hot water fiUs while the other controls cold water fills. 

Both solenoid valves are opened if a warm water setting is selected. In the warm wash mode, a fixed 

fraction of hot and cold water are controlled by flow control devices. For example, a manufacturer 

may decide tolet 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 mixing valve (TCMV) refers to a set of clothes washer valves 

which sense water temperature and adjust the supp!y of hot and cold water to maintain a desired , 

1 ~so referred to as "Thermostatically 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 can be saved with a TCMV by either reducing the hot water temperature or reducing

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

of the tempered water.

A TCMV design option has the potential to overstate the actual in-home energy savings when

tested under laboratory conditions. The magnitude of the discrepancy depends on the proximity of

the water heater to the clothes washer. When tested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer

is next to the hot water source, whereas this is generally not the case in the home. As a result of the

distance between the hot water source and the clothes washer, there is a temperature drop due to line

losses. As a result of the line losses, a clothes washer with a TCMV may use more hot water than

predicted under the laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real world application savings will also vary

with the temperature of incoming cold water (i.e. ground water). The unheated water temperature

will vary with both geographic location and time of year. More energy would likely be saved in cases

of warmer inlet water as a TCMV would then reduce the amount of time a hot water valve is open.

The amount of savings is also dependent on the set point of the TCMV, the water heater set point,

the temperature selection of the wash (hot or warm cycle), and the location of the 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

a way to increase clothes washer efficiency. Manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this

design option.

iniproved water extraction

There are several ways to reduce the remaining moisture content (RMC) in the laundry load

after the final spin cycle. One method is to increase the spin speed of the wash basket for the final

spin cycle. Other ways include: 1) changing the direction of rotation to more evenly distribute

clothes, 2) having a longer spin Cycle, and 3) increasing the size or number of drainage holes in the

washer drum. Since mechanical drying is more efficient than using heat to dry, energy consumption

for the combined wash and dry process is reduced.

7

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

warm water temperature (10]. In the June 1996 comments to the DOE test procedure, AHAM 

c:omniented that it is not necessary to define thermostatically controlled water valves but to define 

. dothes washers with thermostatically controlled water valves. It is likely that DOE will revise the 

~lforementioned definition to that recornrnended by AllAM: "Clothes washer&.with thermostatically. 

c;ontroHed 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 can be saved with a: TCMV by either reducing the hot water temperature or reducing 

the warm water te~peratu·re. 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 

()f the tempered water. 

A TCMV design option has the potential t6 overstate the actual in-home energy savings when 

tested under laboratory conditions. The magnitude of the discrepancy depends on the proximity of 

the water heater to the clothes washer. When tested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer 

is next to the hot water source, whereas this is generally not the case in the home. As a result of the 

distance between the hot water source and the clothes washer, there is a temperature drop due to line 

losses. As a result of the line losses, a clothes washer with a TCMV may use more hot water t~an 

predicted under the laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real world application savings will also vary 

'mth the temperature of incoming cold water (i.e. giound water). The unheated water temperature 

,WI vary with both geographic location and time of year. More energy would likely be saved in cases 

()fwarmer inlet water as a TCMV would then reduce the amount of time a hot water valve is open. 

The amount of savings is also· dependent on the set point·ofthe TCMV, the water heater set point, 

the temperature selection of the wash (hot or warm cycle), and the locat~on of the sensing thermostat 

c;ontrolJing 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 consid~red as 

it way to increase clothes washer efficiency. Manufacturers supplied cost and efficiency data for this 

design option. 

lnprol'ed wflter eJ..'1raction 

. There are several ways to reduce the remaining moisture content (RMC) in the laundry load 

after the final spin cycle. One method is to increase the spin speed of the wash basket for the final 

spin cycle. Other. ways include: 1) changing the direction of rotation to more evenly d~stribute 

dothes; 2) having a longer spin cycle, an.d 3) increasing the size or number of drainage holes in the 

washer druIIi~ Since mechanical drying is more efficient than using 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 to be 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

iload 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% of the time that the clothes washer is in use (based on

AHAM response to the test procedure Supplemental ANOPR) [12]. Since this feature can be

consumer selectable, clothes subject to wrinkling can be washed with a conventional spin cycle option

to avoid a wrinkling problem. Some manufacturers were doubtful that RMCs of 35% 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. For the 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 test load as being closer to 4 pounds per cubic foot of basket capacity

1[14]. Since the amount of cloth test load has an effect on the RMC achieved, it is unknown whether

the above laboratory tested machines can achieve their stated RMC values under future DOE test

conditions.

Some manufacturers 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 to be any commercially available or known prototype clothes washer that

achieves RMCs of 35% 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 of the clothes.

Therefore, horizontal axis machines use much less water than conventional vertical axis machines.

][n 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 of vertical 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

Limiting perform~ce factors mentioned by manufacturers include: 1) greater wrinkling of 

Iclothes, 2) noise and, 3) vibration. Manufacturers state that the washing machine structure would 

have to be 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 

iload 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 

, lextraction feature will not ,be used for 2S% of the time that the clothes washer is in use (based,on 

AllAM response to the test procedure Supplemental ANOPR) [12]. Since this feature can be 

lconsumer selectable, clothes subject to wrinkling cali be washed with a conventional spin cycle option 

ito avoid a wrinkling problem. Some manufacturers were doubtful thatRMCs of3S% and 30% could 

be practically obtained 

In laboratory testing, RMCs on commercially available horizontal axis washers ranged from 

4~1o to 36% with a SO/SO cotton/polyester cloth load. For the 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 JI), generally based on AllAM 

Irecommendations, specifies the test lo~d as being closer to 4 pounds per cubic foot of basket capacity 

1[14]. Since the amount of cloth test load has ~ effect orithe RMC achieved, it is unknown whether 

lthe above laboratory tested machines c~ achieve their stated RMC values under future DOE test 

conditions. . 

Some manufacturers 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 mode12000S; CrecIa model CW A242; and Miele models W1903, 

W1918, an~ W1930[16]. 

, \ 

There do not appear to ~e any commercially available or known prototype clothes washer that 

achieves RMCs of 35% or 30% and, therefore, these two RMC levels will be eliminated from any 

further analysis. RMC levels of SO% and 40% are analyzed with manufacturer supplied cost and 

dIiciency data, 

Hori,zontal axis design 

, 'Horizontal axis machines rotate th~ 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 of the clothes. 

Therefore, horizontal axis machines use much less water than conventional vertical axis machines. 

l[n 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 of vertical 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 effectivene!:ls [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 the U.S., detergent use would remain unchanged [19][20].

In the May 8, 1995 data submittal by AHAM [21], one manufacturer commented that there

will be many consumer utility issues impacted by the use of a horizontal axis design including:-

* Clothes washer water bath will still not be at household water heater settings:

A greater portion of the fill water will be affected by thermal losses (since less hot water is.

used) due to 1) household supply piping, 2) washing machine structure, and 3) clothes load.

* There will be an increased cycle time 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 in horizontal axis washers. More time is required

to heat water if an internal heater is utilized.

* Loading/unloading accessibility is impaired:

There is a need to stoop to load front loader style horizontal axis washers. A small opening

(to load clothes) is required 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 of electrical system may be required:

A financial impact to consumers may result from having to rewire the electrical system of the

home to 240V in the washer area if an 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 compared to horizontal axis designs, the detergent cost per load will increase. The dosage

is the same or slightly less than horizontal axis designs, not one third of vertical axis designs

as claimed by advocates of horizontal 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 over this design, it is analyzed as a method to improve

clothes washer efficiency.

9

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

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 

su"dsiilg detergent is sold in the U.S., de!ergen~use would remain unchanged [19][20]. . 

In the May 8, 1995 data submittal by AIJAM [21], one maimfacturer commented that there 

will.be many consumer utility issues impacte~ by the· use, of a horizontal axis design including:·· , 

• Clothes washer water bath will still not be at household water heater settings: 

A greater portion of the fill water will be affected by thermal losses (since less hot water is. 

used) due to 1) household supply p~ping, 2) washing machiI).e structure, and 3) clothes load. 

• There will be an increased cycle time to complete the washing process: 

This manufacturer states -that there is the need t() 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 in horizontal axis washers.· More time is required 

to .heat water iran internal heater is utilized. . 

• Loading/unloading accessibility is impaired: 

There is a need to stoop to load front loader style horizontal axis 'washers. A small opening 

(to load clothes) is required to avoid water,leaks .. The qoor is locked to avoid water spillage 

and therefore garments cannot be added after the cycle has been initiated ~ithout 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 c:>f . 

cylinder on top· loading style horizontal axis machine. 

• Rewiring of electrical system may be required: 

. A financial impact to consumers may result from having to rewire the electrical system of the 

home to 240V in the washer area if an internal heater is utilized. 

• A new low-sudsing formulated detergent would be required: 

Leading detergent manufacturers are still developing detergents for honzontal axis machines: 

As compared to horizontal axis designs, the detergent cost per load will increase. The dosage 

is the same or slightly less than horizontal axis designs, not one third of vertical axis designs 

as claimed by advocates of horizontal 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 over this design, it is analyzed as a method to improve 

clothes washer efficiency. . 

9 

.. _--_._--------. 

.,,' . '; 
Horizontal axis.with recirculation

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 of the rotating drum. The small amount of water in the bottom of the drum

of a standard horizontal axis washer is not required. Less hot water 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 to verify that a savings 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, and EW 1250 use direct spray (eight liters per minute of water/detergent

solution is sprayed into the drum by means of a supply valve above the porthole) [22].

Advanced controls/sensor (soil load sensor)

According to the future DOE test procedure (Appendix J1), "an adaptive control system

refers to a clothes washer control system which is capable of automatically adjusting washer operation

or washing conditions based on characteristics of the clothes load placed in the clothes container,

without allowing or requiring consumer intervention and/or actions." This design option would use

sensors to measure the soil load to adjust the wash temperature, agitation and/or tumble cycle time,

number of rinse 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 of the cycle, water level, number of rinses, 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 of the items being 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 of washing that uses a majority of the water) [25]. Manufacturers

submitted cost and energy data for this design option, therefore, this option will be included in further

analysis.

Suds saving

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 la

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

Horizontal axis_with recirculation 

This design option is a variation' on the horizontal axis design opt,ion., 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 of the rotating drum. The,small amount, of water in the bottom of the drum 

of a standard horizontal axis washer is not required. Less' hot water is needed per wash cycle, thereby 

saVIng energy. 

~ , 

In the May 8,' 1~95 data submittal by AHAM" one company comr:nented that they have not 

been able to verifY that a saVings 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, and EW 1250 use direct spray (eight liters per minute ofwater/detergent 

solution is sprayed into the drum by means of a supply valve above the porthole) [22]. , 

Advanced controls/sensor (soil/oad sensor) 

,According to the future DOE test procedure (Appendix II), "an adaptive control system 

refers to a clothes washer control' sy&tem which is capable of automatically adjusting washer operation 

or washing conditions based on characteristics of the clothes load placed in the clothes Container, 

without allowing or requiring consumer intervention and/or actions." Th~s design option would use 

sensors to measure the soil load to adjust the wash temperature,_ agitation and/or tumble cycle time, 

number of rinse cycles, spin speed, and other paramet~rs. Water and energy use can then be tailored 

to the load, thereby avoiding washing the clothes more than necessary. The future DOE test 

procedure (App,endix II) 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 of the cycle, water level, number of rinses, and drying time 

[24].AEG unveiled the qko-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 of the, items being 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 of washing that uses a majority of the water) [25]. Manufacturers 

submitted cost and energy data for this design option, therefore, this option will be included in further 

analysis. ' 

,Suds saving 

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 

-- ... -- -, •. --.------. -._ .. _------ -------~-------. 
next wash cycle. While the water is stored, soil settles to the bottom of the tub. During the next

wash cycle, all but an inch of the 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, not be 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 per load of laundry, e.g., a pre-wash (which is not typically the case), or

if the consumer washed more than one wash load at a time. Subsequent washes could receive

diminishing benefits, since the water in the holding tub would cool if left standing too long. A limiting

performance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer for this 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 of one load to use again as the prewash of the next

cycle [27]. Maytag features this option as a water saving option on one of its washers.

The future (Appendix J1) DOE test procedure will no longer 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 of retaining 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.

Direct drive motor

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, a motor 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

by using a Brushless DC (BLDC) motor with electronic controls. Cleanability was not measured 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 of about

140 W-hr per cycle or 64% of motor energy 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 consumption when the machine is "off'. In the "off' mode, the direct drive motor system has

a power drain of 4.78 watts. The current DOE test procedure does not account for standby power

use. Energy savings could be improved if the standby power loss was decreased [30].

One company submitted a comment that energy losses in the drive system are a very small

percent of total 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

next wash cycle. While the water is stored, soil settles to the bottom of the tub. Duringthe next 

wash cycle, all but an inch of the 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, not be 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 per load oflaundry, e.g., a pre-wash (which is not typically the case), or 

if the consumer washed more than one wash load at a time. Subsequent washes could receive 

diminishing benefits, since the water in the holding tub would cool ifleft standing too long. A limiting· 

performance factor mentioned by more than one manufacturer for this 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 of one load to use again as the prewash of the next 

cycle [27]. Maytag features this option as a water saving option on one of its washers. 

The future (Appendix II) DOE test procedure will no longer provide an energy saving benefit 

for this design optiqn. The two interested parties that commented on this provision during the 

comment period for the test procedures, were not in favor of retaining 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. 

Direct drive motor 

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, an~ sometimes a 

pulley belt. A direct drive motor can replace a conventional motor/transmission system. Rather than 

using a belt and/or transmission, a motor could be directly connected to the agitator, thereby avoiding 

transmission (gearbox) losses. Eaton, a motor manufacturerL claims that this will result in less . 

mechanical energy required, ie., less energy needed to run the agitator motor. This is accomplished 

by using a Brushless DC (BLDC) motor with electronic controls. Cleanability was not measured 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 of about 

140 W-hr per cycle or 64% of motor energy 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 consumption when the machine is "off'. In the "off" mode, the direct drive motor system has 

a power drain of 4.78 watts. The current DOE test procedure does not account for standby power 

use. Energy savings could be improved if the standby power loss was decreased [30]. 

One company submitted a comment that energy losses in the drive system are a very small 

percent of total 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 
In Japan, Australia, and Asia, vertical axis direct drive washers are currently available. Some

horizontal axis machines also use a direct 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 fill control2

This design option incorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes load and

adjust the water level accordingly. For a'vertical axis machine, this may mean setting the water level

to just submerge the clothes load. This design option would overcome the tendency of consumers

to manually select a water level greater than required..

Energy is saved in either the vertical or horizontal axis designs by reducing the amount of hot

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 by more than one manufacturer

for this design option were: 1) gentleness of action 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 thermal mass

This'design option uses a plastic tub to reduce the thermal mass that would be heated by the

water. Tests by manufacturers indicate that very little energy can be saved this way because the bulk

of the thermal mass is contained in the hot water. One manufacturer compared the impact of both

porcelain enameled steel and polypropylene outer tubs on water temperature. Both machines were

filled with 16 gallons of 140°F water and agitated for ten minutes. After ten minutes, there was no

significant difference inwater temperature between the two machines. Calculations show that if there

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 to be gained by decreasing the thermal

mass of the outer tub [31].

Plastic outer tubs are commonly used by manufacturers and can be considered'as part of the

baseline model. There is no practicable way to manufacture washing machines with a lower 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

N., *

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

In Japan, Australia, and Asia, vertical aXis direct drive washers are currently available: Some 

horizontal axis machines also use a direct drive motor. Thus, using manufacturer supplied cost and. 

efficiency data, this design option is analyzed as ~ method to improve the clothes washer efficiency. 

Automatic.fill controlZ 

/. 

This design option incorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes load and 

adjust the water level accordingly. For a'vertical axis machine, this may mean setting the water level 

to just submerge the clothes load. This design option would overcome the tendency of consumers 

to manually select a water level greater that) required.. . 

Energy is saved in either the vertical or horizontal axis designs by reducing the amount of hot 

,water used in the wash cycle. The future (Appendix 11) DOE test procedure (unlike the eXisting 

DOE test procedure) uses an actual clothes lo'ad and, therefore, possible savings due to this design 

option can be measured. Limiting performance factorsmentioned'by more than one manufacturer 

for this' design option were: 1) gentleness of action 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 thermal mass 

This design option uses a plastic tub to reduce the thermal mass that would be heated by the 

water. Tests by manufacturers indicate that very little energy can be saved this way because the bulk 

of the thermal mass is contained in the hot water. One manufacturer compared the impact of both 

porcelain enameled steel and polypropylene outer tubs on water temperature: Both machines were 

filled with 16 gallons of 140°F water and agitated for ten minutes. After ten minutes, there was no 

significant difference in water temperature between the two machines. Calculations show that if there 

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 to be gained by decreasing the thermal 

, mass of the Quter tub [31). 

Plastic outer tubs are commonly used by manufacturers and can be considered' as part of the 

baseline model. There is no practicable way to man~facture washing machines with a lower thermal 

mass beyond the current practice. Therefore, this design option is eliminated from further analysis. 

2In the test procedure the tenninology used is "adaptive water fill control" . . ,-.f 

12 
Electrolytic disassociation of water

The goal of electrolytic dissociation of water is to reduce hot water usage by substituting the

electrolytic production of bleaching agents for the water heating process. A prototype clothes washer

with electrolytic dissociation of water has been successfully tested [32]. Although commercial

detergents perform better at high temperatures, the same hypochlorite concentration obtained by

adding bleaching agents to water can be achieved at low temperatures, if the agents are produced by.

electrolytic disassociation within the machine. The bleaching action is due to the chemical reaction

of the oxygen (derived from the chemical decomposition of the hypochlorite) with the insoluble

organic compounds that constitute the soil in the 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 white materials were used in the test. The washing cycle test was conducted in.two steps.

The first was with electrolytic action, which was performed by adding 4 gm/liter of salt to the room

temperature water. The second stage was with a commercial detergent at a temperature of 95 °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 for the new

electrochemical method. The costs of such 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 of the 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 of mechanical energy can reduce the need for hot water (or chemical energy) in

the cleaning action of clothes washers. One potential method of delivering the mechanical energy is

through ultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove some of the dirt on the soiled clothes. Such

washing machines have been produced by a Japanese firm and were to be marketed in the U.S. One

U.S. manufacturer of clothes 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 of ultrasonic transducers, but does not have experience with clothes washing.

One of the problems with ultrasonic vibration is that clothes are not uniformly exposed to the

vibrations generated by the transducers, which means that some areas remain soiled. Additionally,

the wash solution and the submerged.clothes appear to dissipate much of the 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

. Electrolytic disassociation of water 

The goal of electrolytic dissociation of water is to reduce hot water usage by substituting the . 

electrolytic production of bleaching agents for the water heating. process. A prototype clothes washer 

with electrolytic dissociation of water has been Successfully tested [32]. Although commercial 

detergents perfonn better at high temperatures, the same hypochlorite concentration obtained by 

adding bleaching agents to water Can be achieved at low temperatures, if the agents are produced by' . 

electrolytic disassociation within the machine.. The bleaching action is due to the chemical reaction 

of the oxygen (derived from the chemical decomposition of the hypochlorite) with the il1soluble 

organic compounds that constitute the soil in the 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 white materials were used in the test. The washing cycle test was conducted in.two steps .. , 

. The first was with electrolytic action, which was performed by adding 4 gmlliter of salt to the room 

. temperature water. ,The second stage was with a commercial detergent at a temperature of 95 OF to 

113 OF. 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 for the new 

electrochemical method. The costs ~f such 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 

acceptaflce due to their inability to control the chemistry and temperature in the wash part of the cycle 

[33]. Since there are no commercially available or-working prototypes for residential use, this design . 

option is eliminat~d from further consideration. . 

Ultrasonic washing 

The addition of mechanical energy can reduce the need for hot water (or chemical energy) inthe cleaning action of clothes washers. One potential method of delivering the' mechanical energy is 

. through ultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove sollie of the dirt on the soiled clothes. Such 

washing machines have been produced by a Japanese firm and were to be marketed in the U.S. One 

U.S. manufacturer of clothes washers investigated the Japanese product and fomid that it did not 

successfully clean clothes. The U.S. firm stated that the Japanese company is an' excellent 

manufacturer pf ultrasonic transducers, but does not have experience with clothes washing. . 

One of the problems with ultrasonic vibration is that clothes are not uniformly exposed to the 

. vibrations generated by the transducers, which means that some areas remain soiled. Additionally, 

lite wash solution and the submerged. clothes appear to dissipate much of the 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 

-- ---~------'------
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 air bubble washing machine. This machine 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 air bubbles in different directions. The bubbles are generated by a vibrating bellows which

is driven by an electromagnet. Bubbles are reported to increase the cleaning power of the washer in

several ways: 1) by inducing a high-frequency pressure fluctuation near the clothes, 2) by increasing

the dissolution of detergent, 3) by increasing the amount of dissolved oxygen which increases the

activity of the detergent, and 4) by lowering the viscosity of the 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 of the washer, air bubbles are

generated by a computer-controlled pulsator and circulated upward in vertical and horizontal swirling

motions. The controls adjust the amount of water use by using a single-tub design that washes the

same amount of laundry 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 in Japan, this machine

is not yet marketed in the United States [37]. Standardized and independent tests have yet to be

conducted on the performance of the bubble-action system, therefore the energy saving potential and

performance of a 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.

Ozonated laundering

Currently, three manufacturers make ozonated laundering systems for commercial/institutional

washers. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, is injected into the water. There is some debate

as to how the process of the ozonated cleaning exactly works, Some claim the ozone reacts with

soluble soils, making them insoluble, after which the mechanical action of the washing separates the

soils from the fabric. One manufacturer proposed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces water

tension, making the water a better 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 a longer time. For heavily soiled laundry, temperatures'of 100-110°F are used. Also, since

less chemicals are used, the rinse time 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 of its system. The expected cost and energy consumption

for a residential ozonated wash system are unknown [38].

14

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

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 air bubble washing machine. This machine 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 air bubbles in different directions. The bubbles are generated by a ~brating bellows which 

is driven by an electromagnet. Bubbles are reported to increase the cleaning power of the washer in 

several ways: 1) by inducing a high-frequency pressure fluctuation near the clothes, 2) by increasing 

the dissolution of detergent, 3) by increasing the amount of dissolved oxygen which increases the 

activity of the detergent, and 4) by lowering the viscosity of the 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 of the washer, air bubbles are 

generated by a computer-controlled pulsator and circulated upward in vertical and horizontal swirling 

motions. The controls adjust the amount of water use by using a single-tub design that washes the 

same amount of laundry 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 in Japan, this m~chine 

is n01 yet marketed in the United States [37]. Standardized and independent tests have yet to be 

conducted on the performance of the bubble-actioIJ system, therefore the energy saving potential and 

performance of a 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. 

Ozonated laundering 

Currently, three manufacturers make ozonated laundering systems for ~mmerciaVinstitutional 

. washers. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, is injected into the water. There is some debate 

as to how the process of the ozonated cleaning exactly works; Some claim the ozone reacts with 

soluble soils, making them insoluble, after which the mechanical action of the washing separates the 

soils from the fabric. One manufacturer proposed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces water 

tension, making the water a better 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 a longer time. For heavily soiled laundry, temperatures· of 100-11 0 OF are used. Also, since 

less chemicals are used, the rinse time is minimized thereby reducing the tot~ wash time. Economical 

ozone production is critical to the potential energy savings. One manufacturer estimates savings of 

25% on "utility expenses" with installation of its 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 Further Analysis

Improved Water Extraction for RMC's of 35% & 30%

Suds Saving

Reduced Thermal Mass

Electric Disassociation of Water'

Ultrasonic Washing

Bubble Action

Ozonated Laundering

Table 5 shows the design options remaining for further analysis.

Table 5. Remaining Design Options

Improved Fill Control

Tighter tub tolerance

Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMV)

Improved Water Extraction for RMC's of 50% &40%

Horizontal axis design

Horizontal axis design with recirculation

Automatic Fill Control

Increased Motor Efficiency

Direct Drive Motor

Advanced Controls/ Sensors

Added Insulation

15

N.*

" EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

There does not appear to be any co'mme~cially avaiiable or working prototype residential 

cloth.es washer using this design option. Therefore, ,this design option is eliminated from further 

analysis. 

4. CONCLUSIONS 

For previously stated reasons, the design options in Tabl~ 4 were eliminated from further " ' 

consideration. 

Table 4. Design Options Eliminated from Further Analysis 

Iinproved Water Extraction for RMC's of3S% & 30% 

Suds Saving 

Reduced Thermal Mass 

Electric Disassociation of Water" 

Ultrasonic Washing 

Bubble Action 

Ozonated Laundering 

Table 5 shows the design options remaining fO'r further analysis. 

Table 5. Remaining Design Options, 

Improved Fill Control 

Tighter tub tolerance 

Thermostatically controlled mixing valves (TCMV) 

Improved Water Extraction for RMC's of 50% &40% 

Horizontal axis design 

Horizontal axis design with recirculation 

Automatic Fill Control 

Increased Motor Efficiency 

Direct Drive Motor 

Advanced Controls I Sensors 

Added Insulation 

15 

, I 

.~. 

. r: 
REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1996a. Procedures, Interpretations and Policiesfor

Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products;

Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 --

July 15, 1996.

2. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1994. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 218, 10 CFR Part,430, Docket No. EE-RM-94-403,

November 14, 1994.

3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1991. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer

Products: Final Rule Regarding Energy Conservation Standards for Three Types of

Consumer Products. Code of Federal 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. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure

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

Dishwasher. (61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), 10CFR, Part 430, Docket No. EERM-94-230A.

8. Science Applications Inc., 1977. Energy Efficiency Program for Clothes Washers, Clothes

Dryers and Dishwashers, SAI-77-839, La Jolla, CA. p.4-45.

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

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 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 Supplemental Notice 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. Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers, p.3-8, December,

1995, EPRI Report No. TR-105098.

16

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

, 

REFERENCES 

1. . 'U.S" Department ,of Energy (riDE). 1996a. Procedures, Interpretations and Policiesjor . 

Consideration oj New .or Revised Energy Conservation Standards jor Consu"!er Products; 

Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 136, Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430 --

July .15, 1996. ' 

2. ,U,S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1994. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

'Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 218, 10 CFR Part, 430, Docket' No. EE-RM-94-403, 

November 14, 1994. 

3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1991. Energy Conservqtion Program for Consumer 

Products: f'inal Rule Regarding Energy ConsenJation Standards for Three Types of 

Consumer Products. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 430, Vol. 56, No. 93, May 

14, 1991. Docket No. CE-RM-88-101. 

4. Ibid 

5. US. DOE. 1994. Op cit. 

6. US. DOE. 1996a. Op. cit. 

7, US. DOE. 1996b. Energy .conservation Program for Consumer Products: Tes! Procedure 

for Clothes Washers and Reporting Requireme1Jt for Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, and 

Dishwasher. -(61 Federal Register 17589, April 22, 1996.), lOCFR, Part 430, Docket No. EERM-94-230A. . . 

8, Science Applications Inc., 1977. Energy EffiCiency Programfor Clothes Washers, Clothes 

Dryers an4 Dishwashers, SAI-77-839, La Jolla, CA. p.4-4S. 

,-

9. . Association of Rome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM). 1995. Comments on the Advance 

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

1995. 

10. US. DOE.' 1 996b. Op cit. 

. 11. AHAM. 1996. Comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Prod,ucts: Test Procedure for Clothes Washers Test 

Procedure, DOE Docket No. EE-RM-94-230A, comment #7, June 6, 1996. 

12. Ibid 

. , 

13. ArthurD. Little, Inc. (ADL). 1995. Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers, p.3-8, December~ 

,1995, EPRI Report No. TR-I05098. 

16 _ 

"-, 

---- -- -~.-~-- t';.-~-~~;r-------------' 
14. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Op. cit.

15. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Federal Register, April 24, 1996, Volume 61, Number 80, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. CW-004]. Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Granting of the Applicationfor Interim Waiver and Publishing of the

Petition for Waiver of General Electric Appliances from the DOE Clothes Washer Test

Procedure.

16. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). High Efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative,

Qualifying Products as of 7/9/96.

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 the ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Volume 1, Building

Equipment and Appliances, p.1.147-1.156.

19. A. Cahn. 1994. The Laundering Process, handout presented at the Workshop on Home

Laundry Energy Standards Regulatory Issues, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1994.

20. Procter & Gamble, Comments on the Advance Notice 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 of Washing", September 1992, Vol. 49, No. 9, p.75.

27. Appliance, September 1995, p.51.

28. Maytag 1996. Comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed 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 Supplemental Notice 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

14. U.S. DOE. 1996b. Op. cit. 

15. U.S. DOE. 1996c. Federal Register, Apri124, 1996, Volume 61, Number 80, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy [Case No. CW-004]. Energy C;onservation Programfor 

Consumer Products: Granting of the Applicationfor Interim Waiver and Publishing of the 

Petitio'; for Waiver of General Electric Appliances from the DOE Clothes Washer Test 

Procedure. 

16. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). High Efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative, 

Qualifying Products as of 7/9/96. 

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 the ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Volume 1, Building 

Equipment and Appliances, p.1.147-1.156. 

19. A. Cahn. 1994. The Laundering Process, handout presented at the Workshop on Home 

L~undry Energy Standards Regulatory Issues, Washington, D.C., November II, 1994. 

20. Procter & Gamble, Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE Docket 

No. EE RM-94-403, comment #9, J~nuary 20, 1995. 

21. AHAM. 1995. Op. cit. 

22. Electrolux product literature. New for '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 of Washing", September 1992, Vol. 49, No.9, p.75. 

27. Appliance, September 1995, p.51. 

28. Maytag 1996. Comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed 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 Supplemental Notice 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 
30. S. Kristic, J. Pardee, "Direct" Comparison Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a

Transmission-Less Motor-Drive System for Conventional Clothes Washers, Proceedings of

the 44th Annual International Appliance. Technical Conference, p. 101, May 1993.

:31. U.S. DOE. 1990. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for

Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers, p.3-14, DOE/CE0299P, December 1990.

32. Ibid p.3-15.

33. Ibid. p.3-15.

34. Ibid. p.3-15.

35. Appliance Manufacturer, "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 Residential Appliances and

Residential and Commercial Lighting, January 1995, Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, LBL-35982.

38. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1996. Ozone Laundering: A Better Wash Process

for Commercial Laundries, Technical Brief RP2890, March 1996.

18

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55C

30. S. Kristic, J. Pardee, "Direct" Comparison Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a 

Transmission-Less 'Motor-Drive System for Conventional Clothes Washers, Proceedings of 

the 44th Annual Inter.natio1Ui1 Appliance. Technical Conference, p.1 01, May 1993. ' 

. . . . 

:31. U.S. DOE. 1990. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Wt;lShers,ahd Clothes Dryers, p.3-14, DOE/CE0299P, December 1990. 

32. Ibid p.3-15. 

33. Il!id p.3-15. 

34. ' ,Ibid p.3-15. 

35. Appliance Manufacturer, "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 Residential Appliances and 

Residential and Commercial Lighting, January 1995, Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, LBL-35982. 

38. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1996. Ozone Laundering: A Better Wash Process 

for Commercial Laundries. Technical Brief RP2890, March 1996. 

18