5.7 ENERGY MODELING

DOE carried out detailed energy modeli ng of representative baseline and ENERGY STAR refrigeration products as one indication of the incremental costs required to achieve higher efficiency le vels. The products selected for reverse engineering provided the ba sis for the energy modeling. Energy model input was determined for these products from the da ta collected during th e reverse engineering work, described in Section 5.5.3. Additional data used both as input and for calibration of individual product energy mode ls was provided by energy testing as described in Section
5.5.5. Energy modeling was also conducted for modified designs using groups of design options to improve efficiency to determine the expected energy savings associated with the design options. Using the energy modeli ng results and manufacturing cost modeling results for these designs allowed DOE to develop incremental cost estimates for multiple efficiency levels based on each of the baseline products analyzed.

DOE carried out energy modeling during this rulemaking using an improved version of the EPA Refrigerator Analysis (E RA) program, earlier vers ions of which have been used in previous refrigerator rule makings. Section 5.7.1 describes the ERA model development briefly. A more detailed description of the program and its recent development is presented in appendix 5-B.

5.7.1 Energy Model development

ERA is a steady-state energy model that calc ulates heat leakage into a cabinet and determines the energy needed by the refriger ation system to maintain the interior temperatures as specified by the user. Tota l energy used includes the energy from the compressor, fan motors, defrost heater, electr onic control, and anti-sweat heaters, if applicable. See appendix 5-B for a detail ed explanation of the ERA model.

The DOS version of ERA was developed ini tially under EPA-sponsorship during the late 1980s. This was undertaken by the EPA as part of its involvement in the establishment of energy standards for refrigerators, refrig erator-freezers, and freezers under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (N AECA). A developmental version of the program was used by the DOE as a partial basi s for the energy standard established in 1989 (effective in 1993). The work also involve d extensive testing of the model against manufacturer-supplied refriger ation appliance design and test data. Based on these comparisons and manufacturer review co mments through its industry organization (AHAM), development of the model continued until its release in 1997. 1

ERA combined an analysis of the refrigerat ion load requirements of the cabinet with a simulation of the capacity and efficiency of the refrigeration cycl e. The cabinet loads module was a modest enhancement of a progr am developed for the DOE during the late 1970s, 2 including the consideration of door-openi ng effects on the load and an ability to deal with complex insulation systems. The cycle module was a deri vative of the NIST CYCLE 7 program, 3 which used the CSD equation of state to represent the thermodynamic properties of pure and mixed refrigerants, 4 adapting routines for

5-34calculating refrigerant pr operties from REFPROP3. 5 The program, and its User’s Manual, were first released to the public in 1993, a nd for a few years were downloadable from the
EPA website. 6 Subsequent to the 1993 final rule , DOE published updated standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers an d freezers in 1997, becoming effective in 2001. Analysis carried out in suppor t of the 1997 final rule involve d use of the final released
EPA version of ERA. 1

The DOS version of ERA was subsequently m odified as described in appendix 5-B, but
these revisions were not made available to the public. During the course of this rulemaking, further development of the model wa s carried out in order to allow use of the model for calculation of energy use of modern residential refrigeration products and to allow a modern version of the program to be made available to stak eholders to validate DOE analysis. Key modifications made include the following.

• Enhancement of the user-interface to a Windows environment

• Employment of the most current refrigerant property routines

• Incorporation of a broad range of eva porator and condenser algorithms that correspond to the technologies now found in modern refrigerators

• Improved compressor modeling, with built-i n procedures for validating supplied

compressor maps

• Improvements where desirable in the cabinetloads analysis and cycle performance algorithms.

• Preparation of internal documentation of the program through extensive contextsensitive Help files.

Many of the energy model calculations describe d in this chapter were made using a DOS version of the ERA program prior to the completion of the Windows version.

The development history and capabilities of th e program are described in more detail in appendix 5-B.

5.7.2 Supplemental Spreadsheet Models

Spreadsheet analysis tools we re developed and used as part of some of the energy model development and calculations in order to (1) calculate airside heat transfer performance of spine fin evaporators, (2) de termine appropriate composite insulated wall thermal resistivity when calculating cabinet thermal performance using vacuum panel insulation, and (3) adjusting ERA energy model output results for some product configurations for which ERA did not allow input of separate thermal resistivity for separate walls.

Spine fin evaporator airside heat transf er performance was calculated using a spreadsheet. Equations for the model we re based on the work of Holtzapple and
Carranza. 7,8 The ERA heat exchanger models (t he ERAEVAP program ) provided heat transfer coefficients for refrigerant-side h eat transfer in the two-phase and superheated regimes. Using these values, the spreadsheet model provided the overall heat transfer

5-35coefficients for the two regimes of the evapor ator and the effective heat transfer area, which were the inputs for DOS version of ERA.

When modeling use of vacuum insulation pa nels (VIPs), the cabinet walls or door have two regions of differing thermal resist ivity. Average values of resistitivity were calculated and entered into ERA to model these composite insulation systems.

The ERA model structure did not allow separate specification of insulated wall resistivity for the compressor compartment—the program us es the bottom surface resistivity for this region of the cabinet. In some cases, separate spreadsheet calculations were conducted to adjust energy model results to account for the di fferent resistivity that may be used in this region. For this calculation, used when appl ication of VIP to the bottom surface was considered, the compressor compartment therma l load was increased proportional to the
ratio in resistivities of the modeled surf ace and the composite surface including VIP. The compressor energy use was then increased in proportion to the reduction in overall
thermal load.

5.7.3 Development and Calibration of ERA Current Energy Test Models

ERA modeling during the e ngineering analysis invol ved the following three phases.

• Modeling of existing products based on the current energy test procedure.

• Adjustment of models to represent base line products tested under the expected revised test procedure.

• Iterative modeling with multiple series of adjustments to calculate the energy savings
which can be achieved with different combinations of design options.

This section focuses on the first phase of the ERA modeling work, namely establishing models for the teardown products based on the current energy test procedure. These models were later adjusted to repr esent baseline energy use under the new test procedures, and these models were used s ubsequently to calculate energy savings potential. The baseline analysis results were compared with available data to assure that the models provide accurate representation of product energy use. This section discusses
the creation and calibration of the ERA energy models, the metrics which were compared, and the adjustments which were ma de in some cases in order to improve
calibration.

Input data for energy modeling was colle cted during the reverse engineering phase of the project. Collec tion of this data is discu ssed in Section 5.5.3.2 above. For products which DOE arranged to have ener gy tested, additional information was available for certain model parameters, such as defrost heater on times, compressor run time between defrosts, evaporator exit superh eat, etc. Performance data was obtained from compressor vendors for the compressors used in the teardown products, as well as for compressors which could be considered as alternative options to reduce energy use.

5-36Initial energy models were created, and the models were subsequently adjusted to provide a best match with available data for product performance. Key sources of
information used for calibration of the en ergy models were the product EnergyGuide labels and data from energy tests carried out for a number of the reverse engineering units (Section 5.5.5). Energy test parameters beside s energy use which were examined include compressor running power input, duty cycle, evaporating temperat ure, and condensing temperature. Since not all ERA input paramete rs can be determined definitively based on available information, some of the inputs were adjusted within reasonable ranges in order to provide good matches between model result s and other performance indicators. It is recognized that energy levels reported in the EnergyGuide can be conservative to provide margin for variation in the pr oduction process. Hence, it is expected that ERA results would more likely be lower than th e EnergyGuide value than higher.

In some cases the directly modeled ener gy use was significantly lower than actual product energy use, In some of these cases in which the system operating parameters could be well calibrated based on test data, DOE attributed the high actual duty cycle and energy use to high actual cabinet thermal lo ad. A number of f actors could possibly explain such results, including greater impact than expected of thermal short circuits associated with wiring harnesses and other de sign details, excess gasket region load, and consistently lower insulation thermal perf ormance than expected. A consistently underperforming compressor model could also explain such a discrepancy, but DOE concluded that this explanation is less likel y than factors which would increase cabinet thermal load. Hence, for these cases, additiona l cabinet load was added to result in an energy use and compressor duty cycle which pr ovided reasonable agreement with the
available data. The side-mount refrigerator-freezers (produ ct classes 4 and 7) were adjusted using this approach.

In some cases, DOE concluded that ER A was not modeling particular heat exchangers properly. Adjustments were made in which the calculat ed effective surface area of the heat exchanger was adjusted upwards or downwards to repr esent heat transfer performance different than modeled. These adjustments were made to achieve more reasonable match of evaporati ng or condensing temperatures . Similar adjustments were made in some cases to evapor ator pressure drop to adjust for an apparent discrepancy between measured evaporat or surface temperature a nd compressor power input.

The ERA analysis results afte r adjustments of the model i nput for the seven key product classes analyzed are compared with the En ergyGuide data and En ergy test results in Figure 5.7.1 for refrigerator-fre ezers, in Figure 5.7.2 for stan dard-size freezers, and in Figure 5.7.3 for compact refrig erators and freezers. Energy testing was performed on a limited group of freezers and compact products: one upright freezer, one chest freezer, and one compact refrigerator. For these figur es, the energy use of the freezers has been adjusted consistent with the energy test by applying the 0.85 correcti on factor for upright
freezers and the 0.7 correction f actor for chest freezers.

The energy models are within a few percent of the EnergyGuide labeled energy use with one key exception, the 1.7 ft 3 compact refrigerator. For this unit, the roughly 15%

5-37discrepancy with the EnergyGuide energy use was not reconciled. Because the measured energy use also differed signi ficantly from the rated ener gy use for this product, DOE
could not draw firm conclusi ons regarding system operation in order to assist in the calibration effort. DOE expects that both th e cabinet and system for this product are operating less efficiently than modeled.

2.5 ERA
) Energy Guide Energy Test 2.0 / d

1.5

1.0

l 0.5 y a
h W k (

e s U y g r e n E y i a D

0.0 t n u o M

e
S 3 f 6 2 f 2 2 22 . 8 1 o T * E 3 t f 1 2 i d

f 1 2 t t f 6 1 t n u o M p t n u o M p o T 3 t n u o M p o T 3 2 t n u o M m o t t

o B * E 3 t f 5 1 t n u o M m o t t o B * E 3 t f 5 t n u o M m o t t o B * E 3 t f 5 t n u o M

e
S 3 t i d t n u o M e d S * E 3 f 6 2 i

t t

Figure 5.7.1 ERA Analysis for Refrigerator-F reezers Compared with EnergyGuide Labels and Energy Test Measurements

5-38) 2.5

2.0

0.0

Figure 5.7.2 ERA Analysis for Freezers Compared with EnergyGuide Labels and Energy Test Measurements

1.2

1.0

0.0 ERA Energy Guide Energy Test

/ d

1.5

1.0

l 0.5 y a
h W k (

e s U y g r e n E y i a D

ERA Energy Guide Energy Test

/ d

0.8

0.6 y a
h W k (

e s U y g r e n E y i a D

0.4

l

0.2 )

2

r e z e e r F t s e h C t c a p
m o C 3 t f 7 1

r e z e e r F t s e h C t c a p
m o C 3 t f 7 r e z e e r F t s e h C t c a p
m o C 3 t f 4

. 3 r o

i r f e R t a r e g t c a p
m o C * E 3 t f 4 r o

i r f e R t a r e g t c a p
m o C 3 t f 4 r o

i r f e R t a r e g t c a p
m o C 3 t f 7

. 1 r e z e e r F t s e h C 3 f 0 2 t r e z e e r F t s e h C * E 3 f 5 r e z e e r F t s e h C 3 t r e z e e r F t

i r p U * E 3 h g r e z e e r F t h g r e z e e r F t h g

1 t f 5 1 t f 0 2 i r p U 3 i r p U 3 t f 0 t

2 f 4 1

Figure 5.7.3 ERA Analysis for Compact Refrigera tors and Freezers Compared with EnergyGuide Labels and Energy Test Measurements

5-395.7.4 Adjustments to Energy Models to Rep resent Baseline Products Tested Under the Proposed Test Procedure

This section discusses adju stment of the calibrated baseline ERA models to address two issues: (1) modification of some of the modeled product designs so they represent baseline-efficiency products of the desired product classes, and (2) adjustment for the proposed test procedure changes.

Modifications were made to some of th e modeled product designs so that they represent baseline products of the product classes of inte rest with appropriate typical characteristics. The changes made are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Some of the teardown products purchas ed were not available as baselineefficiency products, i.e. products with energy use that is minimally compliant with the current energy standards. This was true prim arily for product class 5, refrigerator-freezers
with automatic defrost and bottom-mounted freezers without TTD ice service. As indicated above in Table 5.5.2, one of these products had energy use roughly 15% below the maximum allowable energy use (the form er ENERGY STAR level), and the others had energy use at 20% below (t he current ENERGY STAR leve l). In order to allow the engineering analysis to examine the cost a ssociated with the efficiency improvement from the 0% to the 15% and 20% efficiency levels, a baseline model was created for a product which would be minimally compliant with the standards. This was done by carrying out the engineering an alysis in reverse, removing the less cost-effective design options first, in order to achieve calculated energy levels consistent with the baseline energy standard.

For product class 5, baseline models were established to represent products with French Doors. Comments made at the framework meeting and submitted to DOE as part of the framework comment period addressed this issue, as discussed in chapter 2. Most of the teardown products were purchased prior to the framework meeting, so DOE was not
able to consider this issue when selecting these products. The two French Door products (see Table 5.5.2) were purchased later, to allow investigation of the different design details for these products. However, these Fr ench Door products ar e not product class 5, since they have TTD ice service. During the manufacturer interviews, DOE learned that more than half the sales of product class 5 cu rrently have French Doors. As a result, DOE has used a French Door design as the basis fo r the engineering analysis for this product class. Because neither the products initially purchased for teardown nor the French Door products purchased later stri ctly fit the intended base line design configuration, adjustments were made to establish produc t class 5 French Door designs for the engineering analysis. This was done for the 25 ft 3 product by developing and adjusting an energy model for one of the 25 ft 3 product class 5A reverse engi neering units and for the
18.5 ft 3 product by adding French Door design featur es to the initial baseline model for
the 18.5 ft 3 product class 5 reverse engi neering unit. Developmen t of the product class 5
French Door models involved the fo llowing considerations and steps.

5-40French door refrigerator-freezers generally re quire electric anti-sweat heaters to prevent condensation of moisture on the gask ets and/or flip-mullions which seal between the French doors, since refrigerant-line anti-s weat heating is not po ssible in this region.
The electric anti-sweat heater power input for the models was se t at 6 W total, in spite of
information that these heaters can have higher wattage input. The maximum timeaveraged heat input for a warm refrigerant liq uid anti-sweat heater is typically somewhat lower per length, g suggesting that a wattage level of 6 W should be sufficient. DOE did not have adequate information regarding the thermal characteristics of the French Door gasket in order to allow a more refined estimate. DOE developed the baseline product design parameters assuming that the energy use is the average of tests with the anti-sweat heater on during one test and off during another. h

Gasket load for the fresh food compar tment was increased to account for the additional gasket region length. This was added to the single-door 18.5 ft 3 product class 5 model, but was already part of the baseline for the fresh food compartment doors of the
25 ft 3 product class 5A model. The freezer compartment of the 25 ft 3 product class 5A teardown model had two drawers. Hence, the energy model representing this product as received incorporated an increase in the freezer compartment gasket load to account for the additional gasket length. When establis hing the baseline ERA model for subsequent design option analysis, the added gasket load representing the two drawers was removed from the model. DOE took this step in order to establish a baseline model representing a single freezer drawer.

The loads associated with the TTD ice system of the 25 ft 3 product class 5A
baseline were eliminated to create the 25 ft 3 product class 5 with French Doors model. This includes the loads of the ice chute penetration, as well as the loads associated with the duct which conveys cold freezer air to th e ice maker compartment. Additional loads and energy use associated with heaters in th e region of this duct ne ver entered into the model, because DOE understand s that the teardown product wa s tested in a fashion which prevented activation of these heaters.

Different compressor efficiency levels we re selected and/or different fan motor types were selected in order to achieve m odeled energy use consistent with the energy
conservation standard.

DOE obtained the product class 4 tear down unit (refrigerator-freezer with
automatic defrost and side-mounted freezer without TTD ice service) with the understanding that it had TTD i ce service. To address this discrepancy in the energy

g For example, if the liquid flow of an 800 Btu/h nominal capacity compressor is cooled from a condenser exit temperature of 110  ̊ F down to an ambient temperature of 90  ̊ F, the delivered heat load during compressor operation is 70 Btu/h. Assuming roughly 50% duty cycle and 13 ft of freezer perimeter (the typical location for warm liquid anti-sweat), the heat per linear foot is 10.8 Btu/h-ft, equivalent to 3.2 W/ft.

h As discussed in Chapter 3, the DOE energy test pr ocedure calls for calculation of refrigerator energy use based on a test with anti-sweat heater switch in the on position. However, DOE understands that many if not all manufacturers calculate energy use as the aver age of tests with the switch in the on position and the off position. DOE expects to propose changing the test procedure to allow averaging of the two tests in the ongoing test procedure rulemaking.

5-41modeling work, the initial baseline model fo r the product was modified to represent product class 7 (refrigerator- freezer with automatic defr ost and side-mounted freezer with TTD ice service). This was done by adding load and additional elect ric anti-sweat heat appropriate for the TTD feature.

The engineering analysis has been carri ed out based on the expected revised energy test procedure, which includes modifi ed cabinet temperatures as discussed in Section 5.4.2. After calibration of the ERA models with EnergyGuide and energy test data according to the current energy test pr ocedure, and after th e adjustment to the models to better represent the products under investigation as described above, the ERA models were adjusted to re present operation under the new energy test procedure. This adjustment did not apply to the freezers, since there are no proposed changes to the freezer compartment temperatures. The calculated impact of the compartment temperature changes on the energy use is di scussed in Section 5.4.2.1 and is shown in Table 5.4.8 of that section. This calculated impact of the temperature changes is fairly consistent with the results provided by AHAM, although it is less than the impact measured during DOE testing of the teardown products.

5.8 DESIGN OPTIONS

After conducting the screening analysis described in chapter 4, DOE considered the remaining technologies in the design op tion analysis. Tabl e 5.8.1 lists the design options considered for each product classes. Some design options are only applicable to certain types of equipment. Following the tabl e is a description of how each of the design options was applied during the engineeri ng analysis. See chapter 3 for background descriptions of the technologies.

5-42Table 5.8.1 Design Options by Product Class

Design Option PC3 PC5 PC7 PC9 PC10 PC11 PC18

Increased Insulation
Thickness 9

1 in 9

1 in 9
3/4 in 9
3/4 in
Vacuum-Insulated
Panels 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Improved Compressor Efficiency 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Variable-Speed Compressor 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Increased Evaporator
Surface Area 9 9 9 9 9 9

Increased Condenser
Surface Area 9 9 9 9 9

Forced Convection
Condenser 9

Brushless DC Evaporator Fan 9 9 9 9

Brushless DC
Condenser Fan 9 9 9 9

Adaptive Defrost 9 9 9 9

Variable Anti-Sweat
Heater Control 9

5.8.1 Increased Insulation Thickness

Manufacturers stated during discussions th at the potential for insulation thickness increases is very limited for many product classes. Greater insu lation thickness would
result in either decreased in terior volumes, increased ex terior dimensions, or some combination of both. They cited the high perc entage of the market associated with replacements and the fixed sizes available for replacement refrigerators in consumers’ kitchens. The 1995 TSD supporting the 1997 refri gerator energy cons ervation standard final rule provided information regarding the re duction in served market associated with
exterior size increases. 9 Reduction in internal volume is undesirable because this is a key selling feature. As a result, DOE did not consider insulation thickness increase in the analysis for standard-size refrigerator-freezers.

There is some more flexibility in the pot ential to increase insulation thickness for freezers, since freezers are less likely to be placed in fixed-dimension spaces in kitchens.
DOE did consider insulation thickness increase of up to 1 inch for standard-size freezers.

5-43Compact refrigerators often have limitations on potential for size increase. However, many compact refrig erator products currently have insulation thickness no more than an inch. The potential energy benef it of insulation thickness increases for these products is significant. Hence, DOE consider ed increases of up to 3/4 inch for these products. DOE considered increase up to 3⁄4 inch also for compact freezers.

While a manufacturer’s approach to implementing insulation thickness increase would likely involve a combina tion of reduced internal volume and increased external dimensions, DOE used just external dimension increase. This was done to assure that the product size (represented by adjusted volume) a nd the associated baseline energy use for the product did not change as th e design options were applied.

Costs associated with insulation thickne ss increases were calculated using the manufacturing cost model. As discussed in Section 5.6.6, DOE applied a conservative treatment of deprecia tion costs in which additional cost equal to the greenfield depreciation cost per product was added in order to reflect the likely build of a new production facility. DOE assumed that the de preciation cost would be incurred for any increase in insulation thickness. However, DOE allowed for increases in the door thickness without applying depreciation costs as sociated with the cab inet, and vice versa.

Initial manufacturing cost model calculati ons provided the total cost impact of increasing all of the insulation in the product by a single amount . In order to allocate the
cost increase to the cabinet and the door, DOE assumed that the cost of increasing the
insulation thickness of th e door was 5% of the total. This allocation was applied to both direct costs and depreciation costs.

5.8.2 Vacuum-Insulated Panels

Vacuum-insulated panels (VIPs) increas e efficiency by significantly increasing the thermal resistivity of the cabinet walls, a nd therefore decreasing he at penetration into
the cabinet. DOE considered th e addition of 1⁄2-inch thick VI Ps to the walls and doors of the cabinet for all product classes, and the re mainder of the insulation thickness was filled
with PU foam. Data for VIP thermal characte ristics and costs were provided by va-Q-tec,
a VIP manufacturer. The cost information was confirmed through discussions with
manufacturers. In these disc ussions, manufacturers pointed out that edge effects can result in actual performance significantly less than predicted. However, DOE considers that thermal performance estimates based on the va-Q-tec technology are more accurate than for other VIP options because this technology has a more modest mid-panel thermal resistance and a significantly thinner metallic layer than other options. The mid-panel conductivity of this VIP technology is 3.5 mW/m-C (0.024 Btu-in/sqft-hr-  ̊ F). 10 In contrast, the conductivity of PU foam is in the range 0.13 to 0.14 Btu-in/sqft-hr-  ̊ F.

As discussed in Section 5.7.2, thermal pe rformance of composite walls including VIPs was done using composite wall average thermal resistivities. The composite wall resistivity R
w was calculated as follows.

5-44

## ( R t + R t 

## )

VIP VIP PU PU
= R

w 

## ( t VIP + t PU 

## )

Where R VIP and R PU are the thermal resistivities of the VIP and the PU foam, and

t VIP and t PU are the thicknesses of the VIP and PU foam layers. The thermal resistivities
for the materials are the inverses of the conductivities.

DOE analysis of cabinet load reduction achievable through the use of VIPs using this analysis approach is c onsistent with analysis carried out by va-Q-tec and also consistent with prototype testing using VIP technology. The reduction in cabinet load possible using VIPs for a refrigerator-freezer with typical wall thickness is roughly 30%, which is consistent with results reported by Electrolux for use of vacuum insulation in
freezers. 11

The following cost information, which va-Q-tec provided and/or which DOE developed based on subsequent discussions, fo rmed the basis of the applied costs for
VIPs.

• Average panel cost $3.08/ft 2 at 1.2 cm thickness.

• Fill cost as a percent of panel cost 60%.

• Added glue cost for adhering the panel to cabinet surfaces 5% of panel cost.

• Cost savings associated with disp laced PU foam 2.5% of panel cost.

In order to allow calculation of costs for other VIP thicknesses, the fill cost is considered proportional to the thickness, while the remaining cost per square foot is constant. In addition, direct labor cost associated with applic ation of the panel to cabinet and door surfaces was calculated based on the $24/hr wage rate (including fringe benefits) discussed in section 5.6, and time for application of 10 minutes for a compartment and 1 minute for a door. The direct material and labor costs associated with use of the VIP must be adjusted to account for capital expenses a nd overhead associated with incorporation of VIPs into the production process. Because the material cost of VIPs is currently high in relation to the costs of other materials used in the manufacture of refrigerators and freezers, the cost adders for overhead and depreciation discussed in
Section 5.6.6.1 and shown in Table 5.6.5 were divided by two in order to provide more reasonable representation of these costs for this technology. Hence, DOE used the following percent additions: 11.7% for standa rd-size refrigerato r-freezers, 14.2% for standard-size freezers, and 19.6% for compact refrigerators.

5.8.3 Improved Compressor Efficiency

DOE considered the substitution of higher efficiency compressors for all product classes. This design option was often applie d in two stages if there was a large gap between the baseline energy efficiency rati o (EER) and the maximum available EER for a given compressor capacity. DOE acquire d compressor performance data from compressor vendors for use in the energy analys is, including capacity and power input for the applicable range of combin ations of suction and discharg e pressure conditions. As an

5-450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 200 400 600 800 1000 E E R ( B t u / h W )

Capacity (Btu/h) Single Speed

Variable Speed at Lowest Speed

Variable Speed at 3000 rpm example of the potential for improvement, st andard-size baseline refrigerator-freezers typically use compressors with a rated EER of 5.0 to 5.5 Btu/h-W. DOE considered improved EERs of 5.75 through 6.25 Btu/h-W.

Currently the highest EER compressor commercially available is rated near 6.25 Btu/h-W for standard- size refrigerator-fr eezers. The range of available compressor
efficiencies is illustrated in Figure 5.8.1 below. The peak av ailable efficiency level does not vary significantly for the range of capaci ties typical for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers (600 to 800 Btu/h). However, efficiency level drops off considerably for smaller capacity compressors that are generally us ed in compact refrigerators and freezers.

‐

Figure 5.8.1 Compressor Efficiency Data

Estimates for increased cost of higher-e fficiency compressors used for standardsize refrigerator-freezers and standard-si ze freezers were received from compressor
vendors. These estimates were also disc ussed with manufacturers. Based on this information, DOE developed a curve for th e cost premium associated with higher efficiency compressors. This curve is shown in Figure 5.8.2 below.

5-46Figure 5.8.2 Incremental Cost for Single-Speed Compressors for Standard-Size
Products

When considering compressor efficiency improvement for standard-size products, DOE used the performance data of specific higher-efficiency compressors in the energy analysis. The alternative compressors were sel ected to have nearly the same capacity as the baseline compressors, in order to assure nearly identical performance except for compressor power input.

In the analysis of compressor efficiency improvements for compact products, an approach was required which addressed the reduction of compressor efficiency as the capacity is reduced. A curve roughly repr esenting the maximum available EER for smaller compressors was developed. This curv e is compared in Figure 5.8.3 below with the data for commercially available compressors.

5-47

## 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 E E R ( B t u / h ‐ W )

Capacity (Btu/h) Compressor Data

Maximum EER Curve

Figure 5.8.3 Efficiency Curve for Low Capacity Compressors

To model energy use of higher efficiency low-capacity compressors, DOE reduced the power input data fo r the baseline compressor by a selected factor so that the
rated EER matches the maximum EER of the a bove curve. The baseline compressors of the products analyzed had EERs typically 0.5 to 1 Btu/h-W lower than the maximum curve shown in the figure above.

DOE received vendor cost estimates for efficiency improvements for lowcapacity compressors. DOE also received info rmation on the typical cost increase during discussions with manufacturers of pr oducts which use these compressors. A representative cost estimate of $10 per 1.0 Btu/h-W efficiency improvement was used in the analysis.

5.8.4 Variable-Speed Compressor

Variable speed compressors (VSC) operate at multiple speeds to allow variation of compressor capacity. They also generally use permanent magnet motors, which can be more efficient than induction motors for the power level required for residential refrigerator compressors. They improve effi ciency by (1) use of the higher-efficiency motor technology, (2) increasing the operating e ffectiveness of heat exchangers because there is lower mass flow being cooled or wa rmed by a fixed-size heat exchanger, and (3) reducing cycling losses by reducing the numbe r of cycles. VSC technology has been

5-48available for many years and a number of refr igerator-freezer products currently use the technology. Currently nearly all of these products use Embraco VSCs. DOE obtained compressor performance data for the range of sizes of Embraco VSCs. This information was used in the energy analysis. DOE selected VSC capacities to nearly match those of the replaced single speed compressors at 3000 rpm. The lowest available speed for the Embraco VSCs is 1,600 rpm. The compressor typically cycles at the low speed to maintain internal setpoints for energy test conditions. DOE primarily used the performance data for 1,600 rpm in the en ergy analyses. The performance of VSC compressors at the lowest speed and at 3,000 rpm is shown in Figure 5.8.1 above.

In order to maximize the energy benefit of VSCs, a design ty pically needs to address the impact that longer run time at lower capacity has on fan energy use. The increase in fan energy use can negate much of the reduction in compressor energy use. As a result, it is typically necessa ry to use brushless DC fan mo tors. In addition, the speed of brushless DC fan motors can be varied, de pending on the design configuration. DOE is
not aware of brushless DC fan motors de signed for 120 VAC power input which allow adjustment of fan speed, although such a design should be vi able. Most designs incorporating fan speed contro l use DC-input power for the fans and require a control system which can provide the DC power and vary it to adjust fan speed. Not all of DOE’s analysis involved optimization of fan sp eed and power with the variable speed compressor system. Some of the analyses i nvolved selection of 50% fan speed, and some of the anlyses involved selection of speed to achieve roughly 50% power input. The cube law for fan power was used to calculate power input, except that at the 1/8 power level associated with the 50% fan sp eed, this power level was doubled.

Cost estimates for the switch to variab le speed compressors were provided by Embraco, and cost estimates were also obtai ned during discussions with manufacturers. An average of cost estimates provided by the manufacturers weight ed by manufacturer market share is very near $50, not including additional changes which might be required to implement a variable speed system. DOE used a $50 cost increas e in the analyses.
Additional costs associated with conversion of a refrigeration system to variable speed operation are associated with a switch to brushless DC fan mo tors and the use of a control system sophisticated enough to provide ade quate or optimized control. The Embraco VSC design includes a control system which can be used with a conventional mechanical thermostat. This system has been implem ented in a commercially available freezer. 12 The Embraco control adjusts speed based on the response of the mechanical thermostat. DOE considers that this approach is suitable for products with manual defrost. For products with automatic defrost and especially adaptive de frost, it is not reasonable to expect that that the Embraco system alone would be su itable. DOE included in cost estimates an additional $25 for addition of an electronic control system for products with automatic defrost. For product classes for which a si gnificant portion of current models already have electronic control (product classes 5 and 7), analysis was conducted for an
electronic control unit and a mechanical control unit. The average results for these product classes were weighted averages based on the distribution of electronic control for the product class. The current electronic per centages were selected based on input from
manufacturers as 50% for side-mounts and 75% for bottom-mounts. The additional cost

5-49associated with conversion to brushless DC fan motors did not generally apply: because
brushless DC fan motors are more cost effec tive than a full conversion to variable speed, the cost of the motors would have already b een applied at a lower efficiency levelwhen a change to variable speed is considered.

5.8.5 Increased Evaporator Surface Area

The evaporator is necessary for transferring heat from the cabinet to the refrigerant. Larger surface area allows the h eat transfer to occur more efficiently. DOE considered an increase in evaporator surface area for all products analyzed. In some cases the size increase was limited by available space. This was true especially for the chest freezers and compact refrigerators. DOE cons idered size increases of up to 20%, except for one of the upright freezer models, for wh ich DOE considered an increase of up to 50%. The size increases were implemented in th e energy analysis through increase of the effective heat exchanger surface areas and re frigerant pressure drops entered into the ERA model. The pressure drop increases as well as the surface area because the refrigerant tube length would be incr eased to maintain fin efficiency.

Treatment of the cost of the evaporator size increase depended on the evaporator type. For forced convention and roll bond evaporators, the baseline costs of the evaporators were adjusted upwards by the size increase factor. For cold wall evaporators, the cost increase was directly calculated in the manufacturin g cost model by increase of the tube lengths and materials associated w ith providing good tube/liner thermal contact.

5.8.6 Increased Condenser Surface Area

The condenser transfers heat from the re frigerant to the ambient air. Larger
surface area allows the heat transfer to o ccur more efficiently. DOE considered an
increase in condenser surface area for all products analyzed. In some cases the size increase was limited by available space. This was true especially for hot wall or static
condensers. DOE considered size increases of up to 20%. The size increases were implemented in the energy analysis through in crease of the effective heat exchanger surface areas and refrigerant pressure drops entered into the ERA model. The pressure drop increases as well as the surface area because the refrigera nt tube length would be increased to maintain fin efficiency.

Treatment of the cost of the condenser size increase depended on the condenser type. For forced convention and static conde nsers, the baseline costs of the condensers were adjusted upwards by the size increase f actor. For hot wall condensers, the cost increase was directly calculated in the manu facturing cost model by increase of the tube lengths and materials associated with providing good tube/shell thermal contact.

5.8.7 Brushless DC Fan Motors

Brushless DC fan motors are more efficient than the shaded pole motors which are often used in baseline model refrigerators.

5-50In the TSD supporting the 1997 refrigerator energy conservation standard final rule, shaded pole fan motor power input ra nging from 8 to 12 W was assumed to be
reduced to 4.5 W when switchi ng to brushless DC motors. 9 This is a reduction in power ranging from 44 to 57%. The cost increase of th at analysis associated with the switch was $6.50 for an evaporator fan and $4.50 for a condenser fan.

The fan power input measured for the teardown products are summarized in Table
5.8.2 below. For the baseline/ENERGY STAR pr oduct pairs, power input is provided for both sets of each applicable fan. The fan motor power reduction associated with the
switch to brushless DC motors based on th is data is in the range 60% to 65%.

Table 5.8.2 Teardown Product Fan Power Input
Product Evaporator Fans Condenser Fans

21 ft 3 Top-Mount** Shaded Pole

5.7, 6.1 Brushless
DC
NA Shaded Pole

9.4 Brushless
DC
3.3
26 ft 3 Side-Mount** 5.6, 5.8 NA 8.5 3.4
25 ft 3 Bottom Mount 1 6.5 NA NA 3.7
18.5 ft 3 Bottom Mount 6.2 NA NA 3.8
25 ft 3 Bottom Mount 2 NA 3.25* NA 2.2*
22 ft 3 Side-Mount NA 3.25* 9.1 NA
20 ft 3 Upright Freezer** 11.5 4.5 NA NA
14 ft 3 Upright Freezer 7.4 NA NA NA *DC-input fan. The listed wattage is nominal. **Data provided for a baselin e/ENERGY STAR product pair.

DOE also obtained information on typical fan motor power reduction associated
with a switch to brushles s DC motors during discussi ons with manufacturers. The responses indicated that the re ductions would be more mode st than suggested by the 1995
TSD values or the measurements of tear down products. DOE selected a compromise power reduction of 50% when the possible re duction was not already clearly illustrated by the measurements of the baseline/ ENERGY STAR teardown product pairs under analysis.

Incremental cost estimates for the switc h to brushless DC motor were obtained through discussion with Matsushita, a key vendor supplying these motors, and through
discussions with manufacturers. DOE used incremental cost estimates of $3.75 for condenser fans and $3.50 for evaporator fans.

5.8.8 Adaptive Defrost

An adaptive defrost system adjusts the time interval between defrosts based on
some indication of the need for defrost. A common indicator is the length of time required to complete the previous defrost. Other indicators could include the number of door openings or a measurement of ambient humidity. DOE considered this design option for product classes which have automatic de frost (product classes 3, 5, 7, and 9). The

5-51ERA model allows input of compressor run ti me between defrost. To model this option, DOE increased the compressor run time between defrosts to 38 hours, as compared to the typical range for baseline products of 10-15 hours. The 38 hours is the default time interval allowed by the test pr ocedure if the mean time between defrost test is not carried out, assuming default values of the minimu m and maximum compressor run intervals of
12 and 84 hours.

Based on discussions with manufacturers, DOE used an incremental cost of $8 in the energy analysis for adaptive defrost. This cost assumes use of a standalone adaptive defrost controller, which could be used if the refrigerator does not al ready have electronic control. Refrigerators which ha ve electronic control can implement adaptive defrost with programming changes which incur no per-unit cost. For some products for which a significant portion of current shipments alrea dy have electronic control, the incremental cost for adaptive defrost was multiplied by th e fraction of products of the product class which do not already have electr onic control, as was done for the electronic control cost addition for variable speed compressors.

In cases where both adaptive defrost and variable speed compressor design options were analyzed, the cost of the ad aptive defrost was eliminated, because the
introduction of electronic controls would ma ke use of a standalone adaptive defrost controller unnecessary.

5.8.9 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Control

Variable anti-sweat heater control adjusts the time-average wattage of an electric anti-sweat heater based on ambient temper ature and humidity conditions so that all surfaces are just above the ambient dew poi nt. DOE considered this option for bottommount French-door refrigerator-freezers (PC 5). These products must use electric antisweat heaters in the region of the seal between the two fresh food doors to control condensation, because warm liquid anti-sweat heating cannot be applied in this region. Most modern refrigeration products use wa rm liquid anti-sweat heating, thus making electric anti-sweat heaters unnecessary, except in such locations. To model the energy use reduction associated with this design opti on, DOE established a curve representing the heater power input as a function of am bient humidity. DOE then calculated annual average electric anti-sweat heater wattage based on th e frequency distribution of humidity levels established in the GE waiver describing a test pro cedure for this control
scheme. 13 The selected DOE curve is based on powe r levels of 0W at 65% RH and 9W at 100% RH. The maximum power was increased as compared with the 6W used for the anti-sweat heater for the baseline product analysis (see th e discussion in Section 5.7.4),
because the variable anti-sweat heater c ontrol minimizes the energy use impact of the higher wattage.

Implementation of variable anti-sweat heater control requires use of a humidity
sensor and an electronic cont roller which can adjust the time-average heater wattage appropriately. For products which already have electronic control, DOE used the cost just of a humidity sensor. DOE used a cost of $9.48 for a Honeywell humidity sensor based

5-52on high-quantity pricing. 14 No product currently exists which provides standalone
variable anti-sweat heater control. However, DOE considers the $8 example of the standalone adaptive defrost controller to be re presentative of the incremental cost of such a product.

5.8.10 Forced Convection Condenser

A forced convection condenser can be more efficient than a hot wall condenser, because it enables more effective heat transfer from the refrigerant to the ambient air. DOE considered this option for upright freezers only (product class 9). This conversion involves the addition of a typi cal wire-tube condenser, a fa n assembly, wiring to power the fan, and a warm liquid anti-sweat heating loop, and the elimination of hot wall tubing on the insulation side of the outer shell. In the case of the upright freezer products examined for the reverse engineering wor k, there was ample space underneath the cabinet for the condenser and fan assembly. In a ddition, these products in corporated hot gas condensate pan heaters. These heaters coul d be eliminated in a forced-convection arrangement, because the condenser heat and air flow of the forced convection arrangement would be sufficient to evaporat e the condensate, as is generally done for refrigerator-freezers. DOE used a net incremen tal cost of $3 for this conversion—most of the cost of the added components would be saved through elimination of the hot wall condenser. DOE analyzed this design opti on both with shaded pole and brushless DC condenser fans. The option provided an en ergy benefit in combined design option analysis only when using the brushless DC fan motor.

5.9 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS

This section shows the incremental cost curves developed by DOE and provides comparison to the data provided by AHAM.

5.9.1 DOE Cost-Efficiency Curves

DOE generated cost-efficiency curves for two product volumes in each of the seven analyzed product classe s based on combinations of individual design options. The curves were normalized by converting to costs at specific efficiency levels (every 5% energy use reduction from 10% to 45%) for simplified downstream analysis.

Conversion of cost curves to the specified efficiency levels was complicated by the characteristics of the design options required to provide further efficiency improvement. Some design options can be pa rtially applied, while others cannot. For instance, for the 21 ft 3 top-mount refrigerator, the second step in the design option path raises the efficiency level from 9.9% to 16.8% by increasing the compressor EER from
5.54 to 6.08 Btu/h-W. The cost for compressor efficiency improvement, illustrated in Figure 5.8.2, varies as the effi ciency varies. Because inte rmediate efficiency level compressors are generally available, the cost to achieve a fraction of the increase to 16.8% would be a fraction of the cost to achieve the full step to 16.8%. Hence, DOE calculated the cost of raising efficiency to the 10% and 15% levels by calculating the

5-53lower cost of partial improvement in compressor EER. In some cases, such as implementation of a variable speed compre ssor, the design option cannot be partially implemented. For these cases, the entire cost of the design option was applied at the intermediate efficiency level, even th ough the design might overshoot the efficiency
level. This causes some of the incremen tal cost curves to have slopes which don’t increase monotonically.

The DOE incremental MSP costs are pres ented in Table 5.9.1 below. While DOE analyzed two sizes of each product, it is not clear that differences in the curves can rightly be attributed to the size differences. Other factors likely ha ve greater influence, for instance for product class 3 the 16 ft 3 product had noticeably thinner insulation than
the 21 ft 3 product. DOE considers the averages of th e MSPs to be representative for each product class. The separate analysis of the slopes of the energy use vs. adjusted volume
curves discussed in section 5.4.2.3 addresses th e issue of adjustments to more accurately reflect the impact that produc t size has on energy use.

Table 5.9.1 DOE Incremental Costs
Product Size* Efficiency Level

Class (ft 3 ) 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
16 $6.52 $11.21 $21 $49 $94 $127 $168 $208
3 21 $0.47 $4.16 $11 $20 $31 $81 $145 $208 Avg $3.50 $7.68 $16 $35 $62 $104 $156 $208

5 18.5 $7.21 $16.34 $26 $36 $58 $119 $177 $243

25 $0.00 $2.27 $9.49 $30 $41 $107 $185 $254 Avg $1.80 $5.79 $14 $31 $45 $110 $183 $251

7 22 $9.92 $23.45 $76 $139 $203 $264 $359 N/A
26 $12.44 $14.46 $32 $73 $131 $194 $262 $345 Avg $11.18 $18.96 $54 $106 $167 $229 $311 N/A

9 14 $6.38 $6.38 $11 $34 $62 $90 $175 $259

20 $6.43 $16.51 $17 $21 $31 $64 $73 $135 Avg $6.41 $11.45 $14 $28 $47 $77 $124 $197

10 15 $0.00 $2.93 $8.90 $14 $18 $45 $51 $106

20 $4.70 $9.16 $39 $45 $52 $104 $104 $168 Avg $2.35 $6.05 $24 $29 $35 $74 $77 $137

11 1.7 $2.44 $4.70 $7.10 $19 $20 $29 $45 $61

4 $4.28 $7.94 $10.61 $22 $23 $24 $33 $53 Avg $3.36 $6.32 $8.85 $21 $22 $27 $39 $57

18 3.4 $5.42 $8.38 $32.54 $46 $63 $63 $63 $87

7 $6.68 $10.93 $35.52 $39 $57 $63 $87 $92 Avg $6.05 $9.65 $34.03 $43 $60 $63 $75 $90 *These are total product volumes based on th e current test proce dure, not adjusted
volumes.

DOE did not attempt to provide distributi ons of costs at each efficiency level. While the MSP curves for the two different sizes for each product class provides some

5-54$ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% I n c r e m e n t a l M a n u f a c t u r e r S e l l i n g P r i c e

Efficiency Level Product Class 3

Product Class 5

Product Class 7 indication of the variation of th e costs, the full range is very likely much greater. There is insufficient information currently availabl e for DOE to confidently calculate cost distributions at each efficiency level. The average curves for incremental manufacturer selling price are plotted in Fi gure 5.9.1 through Figure 5.9.3 below.

‐

Figure 5.9.1 Incremental Manufacturer Sellin g Price for Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers

5-55$ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% I n c r e m e n t a l M a n u f a c t u r e r S e l l i n g P r i c e

Efficiency Level Product Class 9

Product Class 10

‐

Figure 5.9.2 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Pr ice for Standard-Size Freezers

5-56$ $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% I n c r e m e n t a l M a n u f a c t u r e r S e l l i n g P r i c e

Efficiency Level Product Class 11

Product Class 18

‐

Figure 5.9.3 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Pr ice for Compact Refrigerators
and Freezers

5.9.2 AHAM Incremental Cost Data

This section presents the aggregated incremental cost data provided by AHAM
and discusses differences between this da ta and the incremental cost information developed by DOE.

The data request sheets initially provid ed for the AHAM incremental cost data
collection effort are in the framework document as Tables A-7A through A-7F of that
document. The data collection effort was later modified to include a 35% efficiency level and to reduce the 15% efficiency level to 10% in order to provide an intermediate first level. Data was submitted to AHAM by manufacturers and this data was aggregated in preparation for submission to DOE, so that no reported data would represent responses from fewer than three manufacturers.

Sufficient data was collected to allow reporting of incremental costs for product classes 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, although for product cla sses 5 and 11 the reporting was for only one of the product sizes.

After receipt of the data, DOE posed follow-up questions, some through AHAM and some directly with individual manufacturer s, to improve understanding of the results. DOE requested that AHAM provide indication of what percent of shipments within each

5-57product class was represented by reported in formation, so that the results for capital investments and one-time expenditures could mo re accurately be allocated to individual products. DOE also requested clarification re garding whether the ca pital investments and one-time expenditures reported for the two si zes of a product class would be added to provide total costs for the product class, or whether any portion of the cost would overlap. AHAM requested clarification on this question from members, and the response was that there is very little ove rlap in reporting of these costs.

The following sections present the AHAM data and comparisons with DOE results by product class.

5-585.9.2.1 Product Class 3

Incremental cost data for product class 3 refrigerator-freezers provided by AHAM
are summarized in Table 5.9.2 below.

Table 5.9.2 AHAM Incremental Cost Data for Product Class 3 Efficiency Level 10% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Product Class 3—15 ft 3

Incremental
Cost Average (99%)* Material $13.02 $20.32 $90.79 $148.13 $160.19

Labor $0 $0 $4.23 $8.72 $9.13

Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0.04 $0.07CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (99%--4)* $0 $0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (99%--4)* $0 $15.0 $25.2 $120.4 $125.5

R&D (57%--3)* $0 $0 $4.5 $4.5 $17.5

Marketing (57%--3)* $0 $0 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $0.14 $0.14 $0.14 Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $4.58 $6.75 $40.66 $40.69

R&D $0 $0 $0.75 $0.75 $4.72 Marketing $0 $0 $0.68 $0.68 $0.68

Product Class 3—21 ft 3

Incremental
Cost Average (99%)* Material $8.98 $22.09 $92.55 $150.79 $173.83

Labor $0 $0 $4.22 $8.99 $8.99

Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0.04 $0.04

Minimum (57%)* Material $0 $8.27 $34.61 $43.60 $68.30

Labor $0 $0 $0 $0.54 $0.54

Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0.04 $0.04

Maximum (57%)* Material $0.81 $10.18 $36.23 $46.93 Blank
Labor $0 $0 $0 $0.55 $0.56

Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0.04 $0.04CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (99%--4)* $0 $0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (99%--4)* $0 $3.0 $65.5 $125.5 $130.5

R&D (57%--3)* $0.5 $0.5 $2.5 $2.5 $12.5

Marketing (57%--3)* $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $0.01 $0.01 $0.01 Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $0.92 $19.05 $42.27 $42.27

R&D $0.14 $0.14 $0.14 $0.14 $3.19 Marketing $0.68 $0.68 $0.68 $0.68 $0.68 CCE&OTPCE: Conversion Capital Expenditures and One-Time Product Conversion Expenses. Material, Labor, and Overhead are per unit. Blank entries indi cate that there were insufficient responses for AHAM to provide data. *Percent of Product Class 3 shipments represented by these data and number of manufacturers represented (for capital and one-time expenditures).

5-59The AHAM average incremental cost data for product class 3 refrigerator-freezers are compared with the DOE costs in Figure 5.9.4 below. The DOE costs in these curves have the manufacturer markup taken out so th at they can be compared on a consistent
basis. The AHAM curves include material , labor, overhead, and depreciation and onetime expenses.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% $200 AHAM 21cuft AVG

AHAM 15 cuft AVG

AHAM 21 cuft MIN/MAX

DOE 21 cuft

DOE 16 cuft $150

DOE AVG
t s o l C

a t n $100 e
m e r c n I

$50

$

-

Efficiency Level (%)

Figure 5.9.4 Incremental Cost Curves for Product Class 3

Per-product incremental cost associated with capital expenditures and one-time expenses have been calculated as foll ows based on the AHAM data for these cost categories. Total reported industry expenditure s for each of the four categories (building, equipment, R&D, marketing) are divided by th e percent of shipments represented by the data as reported by AHAM to determine th e total industry valu e of each of these expenditures. These values ar e then added to obtain the to tal one-time expenditures for the product class for each of the two product class sizes for which data was provided. The one-time expenditures for the small and larg e size products are a dded to obtain total product class one-time expenditures. For product classes for which data were reported for only one of the sizes (product classes 5 and 11), the total for the size is doubled to represent the total one-time expenditures for th e entire product cla ss. Allocation of the one-time expenditures is based on the projec ted shipments for the product class for the first 10 years of the life of the new standard as determined for the NIA. The expenditures are divided by the total of these shipments to determine the impact of one-time expenditures per unit. This valu e is then added to the incremental costs for the product represented by materials, labor, and overhead.

5-60The data provided for the 21 ft 3 product class 3 refrigerator-freezers includes results for the average, the maximum, and the minimum cost data provided by manufacturers responding to the query for in cremental cost data. Different numbers of responses were obtained for the average than for the minimum and maximum, as
indicated in Table 5.9.2. The results for minimum and maximum, provided by manufacturers representing 57% of shipments for product class 3, are nearly equal. This suggests that the average cost data provided by these same manufacturers is nearly equal to these minimum and maximum values. The cost curve for these manufacturers, shown in Figure 5.9.4 with adjustments for capital and one-time expenditures, agrees very well with DOE results. The average cost data prov ided by the manufacturer(s) representing the remaining 42% of the product class ship ments must have been quite high.

In spite of the apparen tly good agreement between the DOE results and the
AHAM data for the manufacturers who re ported minimum and maximum incremental costs, there still remains a key discrepancy. DOE discussed the data submittals with some manufacturers after AHAM’s aggregation of th e data, and the manufacturers reported that
insulation thickness increases were considered as part of the design options associated
with the data. Since DOE’s results did not consider insulation thickness increases, it would be expected that the DOE resu lts would indicate higher costs.

5-615.9.2.2 Product Class 5

Incremental cost data for product class 5 refrigerator-freezers provided by AHAM
are summarized in Table 5.9.2 below.

Table 5.9.3 AHAM Incremental Cost Data for Product Class 5 Efficiency Level 10% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Product Class 5—19 ft 3

Incremental Cost Average (86%)* Material $2.23 $6.54 $48.82 $56.67 $86.17

Labor $0.20 $0.25 $0.36 $0.71 $1.00

Overhead $0.33 $0.46 $0.49 $0.65 $0.85

Minimum (82%)* Material $1.86 $9.67 $51.24 $56.09 $85.59

Labor $0.13 $0.20 $0.21 $0.26 $0.55

Overhead $0.41 $0.62 $0.65 $0.82 $1.01

Maximum (82%)* Material $1.86 $9.67 $51.24 $56.09 $85.59

Labor $0.13 $0.20 $0.21 $0.26 $0.55

Overhead $0.41 $0.62 $0.65 $0.82 $1.01CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (86%--4)* $0.1 $0.2 $0.5 $0.8 $1.0

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (86%--4)* $0.3 $0.8 $31.0 $31.3 $36.5

R&D (86%--4)* $0.9 $1.7 $3.2 $4.0 $12.3

Marketing (86%--4)* $0.2 $2.7 $2.8 $2.8 $2.8ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $0 $0.01 $0.01 Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $0.01 $7.74 $7.75 $8.00

R&D $0.01 $0.52 $0.54 $0.56 $2.52 Marketing $0 $1.71 $1.71 $1.71 $1.71 CCE&OTPCE: Conversion Capital Expenditures and One-Time Product Conversion Expenses. Material, Labor, and Overhead are per unit. Blank entries indi cate that there were insufficient responses for AHAM to provide data. *Percent of Product Class 5 shipments represented by these data and number of manufacturers represented (for capital and one-time expenditures).

The AHAM incremental cost data for pr oduct class 5 is compared with the calculations carried out by DOE in Figure 5.9.5 below. The DOE costs in these curves have the manufacturer markup taken out so th at they can be compared on a consistent
basis. The AHAM curves include material , labor, overhead, and depreciation and onetime expenses. The AHAM and DOE data are in good agreement, except at the 25% and 30% efficiency levels. However, as with product class 3, the agreement may not be entirely consistent because the DOE resu lts did not consider insulation thickness
increases.

5-62$- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250

I n c r e m e n t a l C o s t AHAM 19 cuft AVG

DOE 18.5 cuft

DOE 25 cuft

DOE AVG

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Efficiency Level (%) Figure 5.9.5 Incremental Cost Curves for Product Class 5

5-635.9.2.3 Product Class 7

Incremental cost data for product class 7 refrigerator-freezers provided by AHAM is
summarized in Table 5.9.4 below.

Table 5.9.4 AHAM Incremental Cost Data for Product Class 7 Efficiency Level 10% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Product Class 7—22 ft 3

Incremental Cost Average (97%)* Material $7.83 $52.26 $70.33 $84.58 $109.23

Labor $0 $1.78 $3.56 $3.68 $3.80

Overhead $0 $0 $0 $0.01 $0.03CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (97%--3)* $6.0 $6.0 $91.0 $91.0 $91.0

R&D Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank

Marketing Blank Blank Blank Blank BlankShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank Tooling/Equipment CAPX $1.32 $1.32 $17.48 $17.48 $17.48

R&D Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank Marketing Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank
Product Class 7—25 ft 3

Incremental Cost Average (97%)* Material $4.48 $11.60 $50.47 $50.62 $53.08

Labor $0.03 $0.06 $1.89 $3.61 $3.65

Overhead $0.07 $0.11 $0.12 $0.15 $0.21

Minimum (80%)* Material $0.25 $1.81 $10.01 $3.55 $5.03

Labor $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 $0.04 $0.05

Overhead $0.05 $0.07 $0.07 $0.11 $0.15

Maximum (80%)* Material $4.39 $37.43 $65.02 $13.94 $15.19

Labor $0.03 $0.04 $0.14 $0.06 $0.07

Overhead $0.09 $0.14 $0.15 $0.18 $0.22CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (80%--4)* $0.1 $0.2 $0.6 $21.0 $21.3

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (97%--5)* $24.3 $25.2 $129.5 $242.4 $250.3

R&D (80%--4)* $1.9 $2.0 $4.5 $8.0 $9.4

Marketing (80%--4)* $2.7 $2.7 $2.8 $2.8 $2.8ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $0.09 $12.12 $12.16 Tooling/Equipment CAPX $5.25 $5.25 $26.70 $66.41 $66.41

R&D $0.45 $0.45 $0.46 $1.51 $1.51 Marketing $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 CCE&OTPCE: Conversion Capital Expenditures and One-Time Product Conversion Expenses. Material, Labor, and Overhead are per unit. Blank entries indi cate that there were insufficient responses for AHAM to provide data. *Percent of the Product Class 7 shipments represented by these data and number of manufacturers represented (for capital and one-time expenditures).

The AHAM incremental cost data for pr oduct class 7 are compared with the calculations carried out by DOE in Figure 5.9.6.The DOE costs in these curves have the

5-64manufacturer markup taken out so that they can be compared on a consistent basis. The AHAM curves include material, labor, overhead, and depreciation and one-time

expenses.

For the 22 ft 3 product 7 size, capital and one-time expenditure data was provided only for tooling/equipment costs. To assure that building, R&D, and marketing costs have been considered, the R&D and marketi ng costs for this product size have been set equal to the equivalent costs for the 26 ft 3 product size. The building capital cost has been assumed to be proportional to tooling/equi pment capital cost for product class 7. For product class 7, the DOE cost estimates ar e higher than the AHAM data at higher efficiency levels. However, the leveling off of the AHAM 25 ft 3 curve is expected to be an anomaly of the reporting and aggregation process—this feature of the curve is not expected to be representative of th e actual cost trend for this product.

$300 AHAM 25 cuft AVG

AHAM 22 cuft AVG

DOE 26 cuft $250 DOE 22 cuft

DOE AVG

$200 t s o l C

a t n $150 e
m e r c n I $100

$50

$

-

Efficiency Level (%) Figure 5.9.6 Incremental Cost Curves for Product Class 7 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

5-655.9.2.4 Product Class 9

Incremental cost data for product class 9 refrigerator-freezers provided by AHAM
is summarized in Table 5.9.5 below.

Table 5.9.5 AHAM Incremental Cost Data for Product Class 9 Efficiency Level 10% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Product Class 9—14 ft 3

Incremental Cost Average (21%)* Material $10.86 $33.20 $21.92 $30.94 $40.86

Labor $1.03 $3.79 $2.27 $3.07 $4.26

Overhead $0.48 $1.28 $1.36 $1.45 $2.16CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (21%--3)* $0.1 $0.1 $3.2 $3.3 $3.5

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (21%--3)* $0.2 $0.5 $5.6 $10.6 $15.9

R&D (21%--3)* $0.3 $0.4 $2.8 $3.1 $3.2

Marketing (21%--3)* $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $1.17 $1.17 $1.17 Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $0 $1.95 $3.90 $5.88

R&D $0 $0 $0.78 $0.79 $0.79 Marketing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Product Class 9—20 ft 3

Incremental Cost Average (21%)* Material $9.72 $32.90 $21.45 $31.55 $40.60

Labor $0.78 $3.55 $2.40 $3.20 $4.21

Overhead $0 $0.80 $1.50 $1.58 $1.98CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX (21%--3)* $0 $0.2 $3.2 $3.4 $4.2

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (21%--3)* $0 $0.5 $8.2 $15.7 $23.4

R&D (21%--3)* $0 $0.3 $3.3 $3.7 $3.9

Marketing (21%--3)* $0 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3ShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX $0 $0 $1.17 $1.17 $1.18 Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $0 $2.96 $5.84 $8.76

R&D $0 $0 $1.17 $1.17 $1.17 Marketing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CCE&OTPCE: Conversion Capital Expenditures and One-Time Product Conversion Expenses. Material, Labor, and Overhead are per unit. Blank entries indi cate that there were insufficient responses for AHAM to provide data. *Percent of the Product Class 9 shipments represented by these data and number of manufacturers represented (for capital and one-time expenditures).

The AHAM incremental cost data for pr oduct class 9 are compared with the calculations carried out by DOE in Figure 5.9.7 below. The DOE costs in these curves have the manufacturer markup taken out so th at they can be compared on a consistent
basis. The AHAM curves include material , labor, overhead, and depreciation and one5-66time expenses. The DOE costs are lower than the AHAM data, especially at the 20% efficiency level, however the discrepancy diminishes at higher efficiency levels.

$- $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225

I n c r e m e n t a l C o s t AHAM 14cuft AVG

AHAM 20 cuft AVG

DOE 14 cuft

DOE 20 cuft

DOE AVG

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Efficiency Level (%) Figure 5.9.7 Incremental Cost Curves for Product Class 9

5-675.9.2.5 Product Class 11

Incremental cost data for product class 11 (compact refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers with manual defrost) provided by AHAM is summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 5.9.6 AHAM Incremental Cost Data for Product Class 11 Efficiency Level 10% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Product Class 11—5.5 ft 3

Incremental
Cost Average (54%)* Material $16.53 $71.17 $120.81 $130.12 $135.40

Labor $0 $3.78 $7.55 $7.55 $7.55

Overhea
d $0 $0 $0 $0 $0CCE & OTPCE ($million)Total Industry Building CAPX Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank

Tooling/Equipment CAPX (54%--3)* $0 $1.1 $1.1 $5.3 $5.5

R&D Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank

Marketing Blank Blank Blank Blank BlankShipmentWeightedAverage Building CAPX Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank Tooling/Equipment
CAPX $0 $0.41 $0.44 $2.04 $2.20

R&D Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank Marketing Blank Blank Blank Blank Blank CCE&OTPCE: Conversion Capital Expenditures and One-Time Product Conversion Expenses. Material, Labor, and Overhead are per unit. Blank entries indi cate that there were insufficient responses for AHAM to provide data. *Percent of the Product Class 11 shipments represented by these data and number of manufacturers represented (for capital and one-time expenditures).

The AHAM incremental cost data for pr oduct class 11 are compared with the calculations carried out by DOE in Figure 5.9.8 below. The DOE costs in these curves have the manufacturer markup taken out so th at they can be compared on a consistent
basis. The AHAM curves include material , labor, overhead, and depreciation and onetime expenses. The discrepancy between the curves is very la rge. The high AHAM estimate for the 20% efficiency level is puzzling, because this is the ENERGY STAR level. DOE considers it unlikely that EN ERGY STAR products of this product class could have $75 higher production cost than baseline efficiency products. Such products
listed in the ENERGY STAR database are s hown in Figure 5.9.9 below. The differences
between the baseline and ENERGY STAR 4 ft 3 refrigerators of the reverse engineering work include a larger evaporator, a differe nt compressor, and slightly thicker walls,
differences that would incur an order of ma gnitude less than $75 in additional production cost. The design option analysis uses a sligh tly different combination to achieve the 20% efficiency level: thicker wa ll, higher compressor efficien cy, and a larger condenser.

5-68$- $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200

I n c r e m e n t a l C o s t AHAM 5.5 cuft AVG

DOE 1.7 cuft

DOE 4 cuft

DOE AVG

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Efficiency Level (%) Figure 5.9.8 Incremental Cost Curves for Product Class 11Energy Use (kWh/year) 400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 DOE Standard

Haier, Mircofridge Samsung, Haier

Samsung

GE Haier Samsung Microfridge

Samsung Microfridge

2 3 4 5
Adjusted Volume (cuft) 40% 45%

6 7

Figure 5.9.9 Product Class 11 Refrigerators lis ted in the ENERGY STAR Database

5-69REFERENCES

1 “ERA 1.2E, EPA Refrigerator Analysis Program, User’s Manual, Report to the Environmental Protection Agency Atmosphe ric Pollution Prevention Division,” Arthur
D. Little, Inc., February 1997

2 "Engineering Computer Models for Refrig erators, Freezers, Furnaces, Water Heaters, Room and Central Air Conditioners," Report to U.S. DOE, by Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
November 1982.

3 McLinden, M., "Theoretic al Vapor Compression Cycl e, CYCLE7," unpublished.

4 Morrison, G., and McLinden, M., "Application of a Hard Sphere Equation of State to Refrigerants and Refrigerant Mixtures," National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 1218, 1986.

5 "NIST Standard Reference Database 23: NIST Thermodynamic Properties of Refrigerants and Refrigeran t Mixtures Database, Versi on 3.0," NIST, December 1991.

6 EPA Refrigerator Analysis (ERA) Program: User’s Manual, Version 1.0. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EP A-430-R-93-007. June 1993. with Version 1.2 Update, November 1994.

7 M. T. Holtzapple and R. G. Carranza, “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Spined Pipe
in Cross-Flow – Part I: Pressure Dr op Studies”, ASHRAE Transactions, 1990.

8 Holtzapple, M.T., A.L.Allen, and K.Lin, “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Spined Pipe in Cross-Flow – Part II: Heat Transfer Studies, AHSRAE Transactions, 1990.

9 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and Standards. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards fo r Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. DOE/EE-0064.

10 Va-q-plus data sheet, http://www.va-q-tec.com/produkt e/en/pplus/prod/va-qplus_pdb_en.pdf

5-7011 “Electrolux's New Vacuum Insulated Freezer Technology,” Appliance Magazine

, August 2003.

< http://www.appliancemagazine.com/new_produc ts.php?article=4971& zone=204&first=1 >

12 Personal communication with Embraco, March 2009.

13 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to the General Electric Company From the Department of Energy Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedure, Notice of decision and order, February 27, 2008. 73 FR 10425.

14 http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkS earch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=480-3168-2-ND

5-71APPENDIX 5-A. ENGINEERING DATA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5-A.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................5-A-1
5-A.2 ERA INPUTS.........................................................................................................5-A-1
5-A.3 INCREMENTAL COST DETAIL ......................................................................5-A-29
5-A.4 ENGINEERING QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................5-A-44

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-A.2.1: ERA Inputs for Top-Mount Re frigerator-Freezers (Product Class 3) .........5-A-2 Table 5-A.2.2: ERA Inputs for Bottom-Mount Re frigerator-Freezers (Product Class 5)....5-A-6 Table 5-A.2.3: ERA Inputs for Bottom- Mount Refrigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice (Product Class 5A).....................................................................................5-A-10 Table 5-A.2.4: ERA Inputs for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers (Product Classes 4 and 7) .........................................................................................................5-A-14 Table 5-A.2.5: ERA Inputs for Upright Freezers with Automatic Defrost (Product Class 9).......................................................................................................5-A-18 Table 5-A.2.6: ERA Inputs for Chest Freezers with Manual Defrost (Product Class 10) .5-A-21 Table 5-A.2.7: ERA Inputs for Compact Refrigerators (Produc t Class 11).......................5-A-23 Table 5-A.2.8: ERA Inputs for Compact Chest Freezers (Product Class 18)....................5-A-26
Table 5-A.3.1: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 16 ft 3 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer (Product Class 3)........................................................................................5-A-30
Table 5-A.3.2: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 21 ft 3 Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer (Product Class 3)........................................................................................5-A-31
Table 5-A.3.3: Incremental Cost Deta il for 18.5 ft3 Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer (Product Class 5)...........................................................................5-A-32
Table 5-A.3.4: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 25 ft 3 Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer (Product Class 5)........................................................................................5-A-33
Table 5-A.3.5: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 22 ft 3 Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer with TTD Ice (Product Class 7) .........................................................................5-A-34
Table 5-A.3.6: Incremental Cost Detail for 26 ft 3 Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer with TTD Ice (Product Class 7) .........................................................................5-A-35
Table 5-A.3.7: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 14 ft 3 Upright Freezer with Auto Defrost (Product Class 9)........................................................................................5-A-36
Table 5-A.3.8: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 20 ft 3 Upright Freezer with Auto Defrost (Product Class 9)........................................................................................5-A-37
Table 5-A.3.9: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 15 ft 3 Chest Freezer (Product Class 10)........5-A-38
Table 5-A.3.10: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 20 ft 3 Chest Freezer (Product Class 10)........5-A-39
Table 5-A.3.11: Incremental Cost Detail for 1.7 ft 3 Compact Refrigerator (Product Class 11) ..............................................................................................................5-A-40

5-A-iTable 5-A.3.12: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 4.0 ft 3 Compact Refrigerator (Product Class 11) ..............................................................................................................5-A-41
Table 5-A.3.13: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 3.4 ft 3 Compact Chest Freezer (Product Class 18).....................................................................................................5-A-42
Table 5-A.3.14: Incremen tal Cost Detail for 7.0 ft 3 Compact Chest Freezer (Product Class 18).....................................................................................................5-A-43

5-A-iiAPPENDIX 5-A. ENGINEERING DATA

5-A.1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy-efficient Refrigerator Analysis Program (ERA) was used to calculate energy use for baseline and energy-saving configurations for the various product cl asses of refrigeration products. Inputs to this program were generated from reverse-e ngineering teardowns of select refrigerator and refrigerator-freeze r models currently available. Th e values for the input variables
are shown in tabular format in section 5-A.2. The input is provided to th e extent possible in the format required for the Windows version of ERA. Because analysis was carried out with the
DOE version of ERA for most of the products, in some cases the input format may not translate directly, and the output values may not match exactly.

The incremental cost curves describing costs to attain each analyzed efficiency level are based on the energy use output from the ERA program . Development of costs for these curves is described in chapter 5. The tables in section 5-A.3 show these incr emental cost curves in tabular format, with identification of the design options required to reach each efficiency level shown.

As part of the engineering analysis, DOE solicited input from manufacturers on a range of technical topics affecting energy use in refrigeration products. The questionnaire used to
facilitate these interviews is shown in section 5-A.4.

5-A.2 ERA INPUTS

The ERA inputs for each of the units selected for reverse-engineeri ng analysis are shown below. Some general notes regard ing the data include the following:

1. Compressor compartment insulation thickness is specified directly in Windows ERA,
while DOS ERA used bottom wall thickness.

2. The ERA input for door openi ngs is not provided, sin ce DOE conducted analysis
based on closed doors.

3. Windows ERA includes separate input for the air in the compressor compartment. DOS ERA used the air temperature underneath the cabinet for this region.

4. DOE conducted all analyses using single ev aporator system configuration with HFC134a refrigerant.

5. The tube and fin heat exchanger configur ation implies forced convection air flow.

6. See the Windows ERA program for definitions of air flow directions for forced
convection wire fin condensers.

5-A-17. Some products analyzed had spine fin eva porators, which are not supported by ERA. Input for a separate spine fin analysis spr eadsheet calculation is pr ovided in the tables below for these products.

8. Windows ERA does not allow superh eat or subcooling input of 0  ̊ C, although DOS ERA does. Suggested input is 0.5  ̊ C in cases where input of 0  ̊ C is indicated.

Table 5-A.2.1: ERA Inputs for Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers (Product Class 3) Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 16 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 E*
General Data Fresh Food Volume (ft 3 ) 11.6 15.3 15.3 Freezer Volume (ft 3 ) 4.1 5.3 5.3 Total Volume (ft 3 ) 15.7 20.6 20.6 Adjusted Volume (ft 3 ) 18.3 23.9 23.9 Rated Energy Use (kWh/yr) 455 509 408 Calculated Max. Energy Use (kWh/yr) 455 511 511 Rated Energy Use Below Maximum (%) 0.0 0.3 20.1
Cabinet Dimensions Cabinet Height (cm) 146.7 165.6 165.6 Cabinet Width (cm) 70.8 75.3 75.3 Depth, from Door Flange (cm) 62.6 74.3 74.3 Depth, from Door Outer Surface (cm) 71.1 80.7 80.7 Liner Properties Outer Liner Thickness (mm) 0.4 0.4 0.4 Outer Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 44.7 44.7 44.7 Inner Liner Thickness (mm) 1.0 1.5 2.0 Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 0.16 0.16 0.16 Compressor Compartment Dimensions Top Depth (cm) 12.7 12.4 12.4 Bottom Depth (cm) 21.6 25.8 25.8 Height (cm) 26.0 16.0 16.0 Wall (vertical) (cm) 4.3 5.1 5.1 Wall (horizontal) (cm) 4.3 5.1 5.1
Freezer Section
Insulation Thickness Top Wall (cm) 5.3 7.1 7.1 Side Wall (cm) 5.5 7.5 7.5 Back Wall (cm) 7.0 7.9 7.9 Door (cm) 6.2 7.2 7.2 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.50

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Freezer Wedge Depth (cm) 7.6 7.0 7.0

5-A-2Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 16 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 E* Freezer Flange Width (cm) 3.8 3.8 3.8
Heat Paths Freezer Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.0 9.0 9.0 Fzr Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 1.5 0.0 0.0
Fresh Food Section
Insulation Thickness Side Wall (cm) 3.8 4.8 4.8 Back Wall (cm) 5.0 4.9 4.9 Bottom Wall (cm) 4.3 5.1 5.1 Door (cm) 4.1 4.7 4.7 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.50

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Fresh Food Wedge Depth (cm) 0.1 7.6 7.6 Fresh Food Flange Width (cm) 3.8 3.8 3.8
Heat Paths FF Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.0 9.0 9.0 FF Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 1.5 0.0 0.0
Mullion Distance to Top (cm) 44.5 50.8 50.8 Thickness w/Liners (cm) 5.7 7.1 7.1 Resistivity w/Liners (m2-C/W-cm) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Air and Cabinet Temperatures Room Air (°C) 32.2 32.2 32.2 Freezer Section (°C) -15 -15 -15 Fresh Food Section (°C) 7.2 7.2 7.2 Air Under Cabinet (°C) 35.0 35.0 35.0 Compressor Compartment (  ̊ C) 35.0 35.0 35.0 Air Entering Condenser (°C) 32.2 33.0 33.0 Defrost and Controls Energy Defrost Type (Automatic, Manual) Automatic Automatic Automatic Timer Interval (Hr) 14.0 10.5 10.5 Heater On-Time (Min) 8.0 4.8 4.8 Defrost Power (W) 390 413 413 Other Cycle-Dependent Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 0 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Outside Cabinet (W) 0 0 0
Constant Electrical Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 0 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0 0 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0 0 0 Liquid Refrigerant Line Anti-Sweat

5-A-3Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 16 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 E* Freezer Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 4 3.8 3.8 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0.5 0.3 0.3 Fresh Food Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 0 0 0 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0 0 0
Mullion Cycle Average Energy (W) 1.5 1.3 1.3 Heat Leak to Freezer (0-1) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Heat Leak to Fresh Food (0-1) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Evaporator Design Exit Superheat 2 2 0 Fin Type (flat, wavy, herringbone) Spine Flat Flat

Fan Motor Type AC-Input
BLDC Shaded Pole Shaded Pole

Fan Power (W) 3.5 6.1 5.7 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 16.6 21.3 21.3
Tube Characteristics
Width of Tube Row 52.1 45.7 45.7 Tube OD (mm) 9.4 7.9 7.9 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.76 0.6 0.6 # of Tubes Deep 7 4 4 Tube Pitch (cm) 2.5 3.8 3.8
# of Tubes Normal to Airflow 2 6 6 Normal Tube Pitch (cm) 2.5 1.9 1.9
Fin Characteristics Fin Thickness (mm) 0.25 0.13 0.13 Fin Pitch (mm) 9.5 6.3 6.3 Fin Conductivity (W/m-K) 190 190 190 Fraction Finned (0-1) 0.93 0.89 0.89 Spine Fin Input Data Spine Height (mm) 10.5 NA NA Spine Width (mm) 0.79 NA NA Condenser Design a a Exit Subcooling (°C) 2 0 0 Configuration (Static, Hot-wall, Tube & Fin, Microchannel) Tube & Fin Tube & Fin Tube & Fin

Air-side Confi guration (wire, plain, smooth wavy, herringbone, slit, louver) Wire Wire Wire

a Surface areas calculated by the co ndenser routine were increased by a factor of 2.56 for the 21 ft 3 top-mount refrigerators to calibrate with test data for condensing temperatures. 5-A-4Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 16 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 Baseline 21 ft 3 E*

Fan Motor Type Shaded Pole Shaded Pole AC-input
BLDC Fan Power (W) 11.2 9.4 3.3 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 30.0 26.0 31.2
Tube Characteristics Airflow Direction (W, L, H) W W W Tube OD (mm) 4.8 4.8 4.8 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.8 0.6 0.6 Length of Tube in “L” Direction 59.6 20.1 20.1
# of Tubes in H Direction 1 8 8 Tube Pitch (cm) 2.5 2.5 2.5
# of Tubes in W Direction 14 6 6 Tube Pitch (cm) 2.5 2.5 2.5 Fraction Air through Exchanger (0-1) 0.6 0.9 0.9
Fin Characteristics Wire OD (mm) 1.5 1.1 1.1 # of Wires on 1-side per layer 95 29 29 Wire Mounting (1-side, 2-sides) 2-sides 2-sides 2-sides Wire Fin Pitch (mm) 5.1 5.1 5.1 Wire Length (cm) 34.9 14.0 14.0 Wire Conductivity (W/m-K) 44.7 44.7 44.7 Compressor Data
Manufacturer Matsus hita Matsushita Matsushita
Model # DGS57C84RAU SF51C97RAU6 DHS57C85RAU Cycles per hour 1.0 1.0 1.0 Interchanger Effectiveness (0-1) 0.9 0.95 0.95

5-A-5Table 5-A.2.2: ERA Inputs for Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers (Product Class 5) Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 18.5 ft 3 25 ft 3 E*, #1 25 ft 3 E*, #2
General Data Fresh Food Volume (ft 3 ) 13.1 17.8 17.6 Freezer Volume (ft 3 ) 5.4 7.3 7.7 Total Volume (ft 3 ) 18.5 25.1 25.3 Adjusted Volume (ft 3 ) 21.9 29.6 30.2 Rated Energy Use (kWh/yr) 476 475 478 Calculated Max. Energy Use (kWh/yr) 560 595 598 Rated Energy Use Below Maximum (%) 15.0 20.2 20.0
Cabinet Dimensions Cabinet Height (cm) 160.7 168.3 168.0 Cabinet Width (cm) 75.3 90.5 90.8 Depth, from Door Flange (cm) 69.2 72.4 71.3 Depth, from Door Outer Surface (cm) 76.8 79.4 78.3 Liner Properties Outer Liner Thickness (mm) 0.5 0.6 0.5 Outer Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 44.7 43.3 44.7 Inner Liner Thickness (mm) 1.3 1.9 1.4 Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 0.16 0.16 0.16 Compressor Compartment Dimensions Top Depth (cm) 16.5 17.1 12.7 Bottom Depth (cm) 27.0 27.3 25.4 Height (cm) 24.5 24.1 22.9 Wall (vertical) (cm) 7.0 6.9 6.6 Wall (horizontal) (cm) 7.0 6.9 6.6
Freezer Cabinet
Insulation Thickness Side Wall (cm) 6.9 7.5 6.8 Back Wall (cm) 7.9 6.5 7.6 Bottom (cm) 7.0 6.9 6.6 Door (cm) 6.3 6.0 6.9 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.53

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Freezer Wedge Depth (cm) 5.1 6.4 5.1 Freezer Flange Width (cm) 3.8 3.8 5.4
Heat Paths Freezer Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.5 8.0 8.0 Fzr Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 0 3 0
Fresh Food Cabinet
Insulation Thickness Top Wall (cm) 5.2 3.9 4.2 Side Wall (cm) 4.2 5.1 3.5

5-A-6Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 18.5 ft 3 25 ft 3 E*, #1 25 ft 3 E*, #2 Back Wall (cm) 5.7 6.8 4.1 Door (cm) 4.3 4.9 6.9 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.53

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Fresh Food Wedge Depth (cm) 10.2 11.4 0.0 Fresh Food Flange Width (cm) 3.8 3.8 3.4
Heat Paths FF Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.5 8.0 8.0 FF Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 0.0 3.0 0.0
Mullion Distance to Top (cm) 92.7 100.0 94.3 Thickness w/Liners (cm) 5.4 5.4 7.3 Resistivity w/Liners (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.51 0.5 Air and Cabinet Temperatures Room Air (°C) 32.2 32.2 32.2 Freezer Section (°C) -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 Fresh Food Section (°C) 7.2 7.2 7.2 Air Under Cabinet (°C) 36.6 35.0 35.0 Compressor Compartment (  ̊ C) 36.6 35.0 35.0 Air Entering Condenser (°C) 32.2 33.0 34.5 Defrost and Controls Energy Defrost Type (Automatic, Manual) Automatic Automatic Automatic Timer Interval (Hr) 7.5 38.0 38.0 Heater On-Time (Min) 7.0 7.0 24.0 Defrost Power (W) 375 450 440 Other Cycle-Dependent Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 0 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 3 0 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0 0 0
Constant Electrical Loads Freezer Section (W) 0.7 0.0 4.2 Fresh Food Section (W) 0.0 0.4 0.0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0.0 0.0 1.5 Liquid Refrigerant Line Anti-Sweat Freezer Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 1.0 3.8 3.0 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0.75 0.5 0.75 Fresh Food Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 0 0 0
Mullion Cycle Average Energy (W) 2 1.3 1.0 Heat Leak to Freezer (0-1) 0.75 0.5 0.5

5-A-7Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 18.5 ft 3 25 ft 3 E*, #1 25 ft 3 E*, #2 Heat Leak to Fresh Food (0-1) 0.15 0.25 0.25 Evaporator Design Exit Superheat (°C) 0.8 4.0 1.0 Fin Type (flat, wavy, herringbone) Flat Flat Spine Fin Fan Motor Type (Shaded Pole, AC-Input BLDC, DC-Input BLDC) Shaded Pole Shaded Pole DC-Input
BLDC Fan Power (W) 6.2 6.5 3.8 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 20 30 16.6
Tube Characteristics
Width of Tube Row 48.9 b 71.1 c 76.2 Tube OD (mm) 7.9 7.9 9.7 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.5 0.5 1.1 # of Tubes Deep 4.5 b 4.5 c 7 Tube Pitch (cm) 3.8 3.6 2.5
# of Tubes Normal to Airflow 4 4 2 Normal Tube Pitch (cm) 1.9 1.9 2.5
Fin Characteristics Fin Thickness (mm) 0.13 0.13 0.25 Fin Pitch (mm) 5.1 5.1 9.5 Fin Conductivity (W/m-K) 190 190 190 Fraction Finned (0-1) 0.98 0.89 1.0 Spine Fin Input Data Spine Height (mm) NA NA 10.5 Spine Width (mm) NA NA 0.8 Condenser Design Exit Subcooling (°C) 0.7 1.0 1.5 Configuration (Static, Hot-wall, Tube & Fin, Microchannel) Tube & Fin Tube & Fin Tube & Fin

Air-side Confi guration (wire, plain, smooth wavy, herringbone, slit, louver) Wire Wire Wire

Fan Motor Type (Shaded Pole, AC-Input BLDC, DC-Input BLDC) AC-Input
BLDC AC-Input
BLDC DC-Input
BLDC Fan Power (W) 3.8 3.7 2.6 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 30 30.8 23.7
Tube Characteristics Airflow Direction (W, L, H) L L H Tube OD (mm) 4.8 4.8 5.0 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.5 0.6 0.64

b Number of tubes in the air flow direction alternate 4 and 5, averaging 4.5. ERA analysis was conducted by selecting 4 rows deep and increasing the tube row width to 55.0 cm to compensate for the missing tubes.

c Number of tubes in the air flow direction alternate 4 and 5, averaging 4.5. ERA analysis was conducted by selecting 4 rows deep and increasing the tube row width to 80.0 cm to compensate for the missing tubes. 5-A-8Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 18.5 ft 3 25 ft 3 E*, #1 25 ft 3 E*, #2 Length of Tube in “L” Direction (cm) 34.9 34.9 52.4
# of Tubes in H Direction 2 2 3 Tube Pitch (cm) 2.2 3.8 0.8
# of Tubes in W Direction 26 30 10 Tube Pitch (cm) 2.2 2.2 2.5 Fraction Air through Exchanger (0-1) 0.8 1.0 1
Fin Characteristics Wire OD (mm) 1.3 1.3 1.4
# of Wires on 1-side 55 51 206 Wire Mounting (1-side, 2-sides) 2-sides 2-sides 2-sides Wire Fin Pitch (mm) 4.8 4.8 2.5 Wire Length (cm) 57.1 66.7 23.5 Wire Conductivity (W/m-K) 44.7 44.7 44.7 Compressor Data

Manufacturer Embraco Tecumseh Embraco

Model EMX70HSC TPG1370YXA VEGY 8H Cycles per hour 1.0 1.5 0.45 Interchanger Effectiveness (0-1) NA 0.95 0.98 Compressor Shell Inlet Temper ature (°C) 33.3 Unspecified Unspecified

5-A-9Table 5-A.2.3: ERA Inputs for Bottom-Mount Re frigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice (Product Class 5A) Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice
General Data 25 ft 3

Fresh Food Volume (ft 3 ) 17.6 Freezer Volume (ft 3 ) 7.1 Total Volume (ft 3 ) 24.7 Adjusted Volume (ft 3 ) 29.2 Rated Energy Use (kWh/yr) 547 Calculated Max. Energy Use (kWh/yr) 685 % Rated Energy Use Below Maximum (%) 20.0
Cabinet Dimensions Cabinet Height (cm) 171.1 Cabinet Width (cm) 91.4 Depth, from Door Flange (cm) 68.6 Depth, from Door Outer Surface (cm) 76.2 Liner Properties Outer Liner Thickness (mm) 0.5 Outer Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 44.7 Inner Liner Thickness (mm) 1.4 Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 0.16 Compressor Compartment Dimensions Top Depth (cm) 13.5 Bottom Depth (cm) 26.7 Height (cm) 24.5 Wall (vertical) (cm) 6.8 Wall (horizontal) (cm) 6.8
Freezer Cabinet
Insulation Thickness Side Wall (cm) 6.8 Back Wall (cm) 7.9 Bottom (cm) 6.8 Door (cm) 7.1 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.48 d

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Freezer Wedge Depth (cm) 2.5 Freezer Flange Width (cm) 4.5
Heat Paths Freezer Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 8 e

d Product has insulation using cyclopentane blowing agent.

e The heat leak parameter entered into ERA was increased to 12.63 to account for additional gasket length, since the freezer compartment of this product has two drawers. 5-A-10Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice 25 ft 3
Freezer Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 0
Fresh Food Cabinet
Insulation Thickness Top Wall (cm) 5.2 Side Wall (cm) 5.1 Back Wall (cm) 4.7 Door (cm) 5.1 Insulation Resistivity All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.48

Wedge/Flange Dimensions Fresh Food Wedge Depth (cm) 11.4 Fresh Food Flange Width (cm) 4.8
Heat Paths Fresh Food Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 8 f

Fresh Food Cabinet Pe netration Heat Leak (W) 3.0
Mullion Distance to Top (cm) 102.2 Thickness w/Liners (cm) 5.1 Resistivity w/Liners (m2-C/W-cm) 0.47 Air and Cabinet Temperatures Room Air (°C) 32.2 Freezer Section (°C) -15.0 Fresh Food Section (°C) 7.2 Air Under Cabinet (°C) 35.0 Compressor Compartment (  ̊ C) 35.0 Air Entering Condenser (°C) 32.2 Defrost and Controls Energy Defrost Type (Automatic, Manual) Automatic Timer Interval (Hr) 38.0 Heater On-Time (Min) 12.7 Defrost Power (W) 396 Other Cycle-Dependent Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0
Constant Electrical Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 4.0 Liquid Refrigerant Line Anti-Sweat

f The heat leak parameter entered into ERA was increased to 12.3 to account for additional gasket length, since the fresh food compartment of this product has French doors. 5-A-11Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice 25 ft 3 Freezer Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 3.8 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0.5 Fresh Food Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 0 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0
Mullion Cycle Average Energy (W) 1.3 Heat Leak to Freezer (0-1) .5 Heat Leak to Fresh Food (0-1) .25 Evaporator Design Exit Superheat (°C) 0.8 Fin Type (flat, wavy, herringbone) Flat Fan Motor Type (Shaded Pole, AC-Input BLDC, DC-Input BLDC) DC-Input BLDC Fan Power (W) 1.5 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 16.0
Tube Characteristics
Width of Tube Row 70.5 g Tube OD (mm) 7.9 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.7 # of Tubes Deep 4.5 g Tube Pitch (cm) 3.8
# of Tubes Normal to Airflow 4 Normal Tube Pitch (cm) 2.5
Fin Characteristics Fin Thickness (mm) 0.15 Fin Pitch (mm) 5.1 Fin Conductivity (W/m-K) 190 Fraction Finned (0-1) 0.90 Condenser Design Exit Subcooling (°C) 0.7 Configuration (Static, Hot-wall, Tube & Fin, Microchannel) Tube & Fin Air-side Configur ation (wire, plain, smoot h wavy, herringbone, slit, louver) Wire

Fan Motor Type (Shaded Pole, AC-Input BLDC, DC-Input BLDC) DC-Input BLDC Fan Power (W) 1.6 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 24.0
Tube Characteristics Airflow Direction (W, L, H) W Tube OD (mm) 5.0

g Number of tubes in the air flow direction alternate 4 and 5, averaging 4.5. ERA analysis was conducted by selecting 4 rows deep and increasing the tube row width to 79.3 cm to compensate for the missing tubes. 5-A-120.64
15.2

12
2.2
10
2.5
0.9 Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers w/TTD Ice 25 ft 3
Tube Wall Thickness (mm) Length of Tube in “L” Direction (cm)
# of Tubes in H Direction Tube Pitch (cm)
# of Tubes in W Direction Tube Pitch (cm) Fraction Air through Exchanger (0-1)
Fin Characteristics Wire OD (mm)
# of Wires on 1-side Wire Mounting (1-side, 2-sides) Wire Fin Pitch (mm) Wire Length (cm) Wire Conductivity (W/m-K) Compressor Data

Manufacturer

Model # Cycles per Hour Interchanger Effectiveness (0-1) 1.4
22
2-sides
6.4
18.0
44.7

Embraco

EGX90HLC
1.0

5-A-13 0.95Table 5-A.2.4: ERA Inputs for Side-Mount Refrig erator-Freezers (Product Classes 4 and 7) Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers PC7 26 ft 3 PC7 26 ft 3 E* PC4 22 ft 3

General Data Fresh Food Volume (ft 3 ) 16.5 16.5 14.8 Freezer Volume (ft 3 ) 9.5 9.5 7.0 Total Volume (ft 3 ) 26.0 26.0 Adjusted Volume (ft 3 ) 32.0 32.0 26.3 Rated Energy Use (ft 3 ) 728 582 635 Calculated Max. Energy Use (kWh/yr) 729 729 637 % Rated Energy Use Below Maximum (%) 0.2 20.2 0.3

Cabinet Dimensions Cabinet Height (cm) 165.9 165.9 162.6 Cabinet Width (cm) 90.2 90.2 85.1 Depth, from Door Flange (cm) 72.0 72.0 69.3 Depth, from Door Outer Surface (cm) 80.3 80.3 77.8 Liner Properties Outer Shell Thickness (mm) 0.5 1 0.4 Shell Conductivity (W/m-C) 44.7 44.7 44.7 Inner Liner Thickness (mm) 0.5 1 0.4 Liner Conductivity (W/m-C) 0.16 0.16 44.7 Compressor Compartment Dimensions Top Depth (cm) 15.9 15.9 24.1 Bottom Depth (cm) 27.9 27.9 30.5 Height (cm) 23.5 23.5 25.1 Wall (vertical) (cm) 8.3 8.3 5.8 Wall (horizontal) (cm) 8.3 8.3 5.8
Freezer Cabinet
Insulation Thickness – Freezer Top Wall (cm) 7.2 7.2 6.2 Side Wall (cm) 5.7 5.7 7.3 Back Wall (cm) 7.8 7.8 5.7 Bottom (cm) 8.3 8.3 5.8 Door (cm) 6.4 6.4 5.7 Insulation Resistivity - Freezer All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.5 Wedge/Flange Dimensions Freezer Wedge Depth (cm) 0.1 0.1 7.0 Freezer Flange Width (cm) 5.7 5.7 3.8
Heat Paths Fzr Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.0 9.0 9.0 Fzr Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 11.0 11.0 8.0
Fresh Food Cabinet

5-A-14Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers PC7 26 ft 3 PC7 26 ft 3 E* PC4 22 ft 3

Insulation Thickness – Fresh Food Top Wall (cm) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Side Wall (cm) 3.6 3.6 3.8 Back Wall (cm) 3.6 3.6 4.8 Bottom (cm) 6.2 6.2 4.7 Door (cm) 6.4 6.4 5.7 Insulation Resistivity – Fresh Food All Walls (m2-C/W-cm) 0.50 0.50 0.5 Wedge/Flange Dimensions Fresh Food Wedge Depth (cm) 0.1 0.1 11.4 Fresh Food Flange Width (cm) 3.6 3.6 3.8
Heat Paths FF Gasket Heat Leak (W/m-100C) 9.0 9.0 9.0 FF Cabinet Penetration Heat Leak (W) 8.0 8.0 5.0
Mullion Distance to Right Side Wall (cm) 49.2 49.2 49.4 Thickness w/Liners (cm) 3.5 3.5 3.7 Resistivity w/Liners (m2-C/W-cm) 0.53 0.53 0.52 Air and Cabinet Temperatures Room Air (°C) 32.3 32.2 32.3 Freezer Section (°C) -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 Fresh Food Section (°C) 7.2 7.2 7.2 Air Under Cabinet (°C) 35.0 35.0 35.0 Compressor Compartment (  ̊ C) 35.0 35.0 35.0 Air Entering Condenser (°C) 33.0 33.0 33.0 Defrost and Controls Energy Defrost Type (Automatic, Manual) Automatic Automatic Automatic Timer Interval (Hr) 10.0 10.0 38.0 Heater On-Time (Min) 5.0 5.0 18.0 Defrost Power (W) 500 500 535 Other Cycle-Dependent Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 0 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0 0 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0 0 0
Constant Electrical Loads Freezer Section (W) 0 0 0 Fresh Food Section (W) 0.5 0.4 0 Outside Cabinet (W) 0 0 1.3
Electric Anti-Sweat Heat Freezer Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 2.1 2.1 0 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Liquid Refrigerant Line Anti-Sweat

5-A-15Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers PC7 26 ft 3 PC7 26 ft 3 E* PC4 22 ft 3 Freezer Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 3.0 3.0 3.8 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Fresh Food Door Flange Cycle Average Energy (W) 0 0 0 Fraction Heat Leak (0-1) 0 0 0
Mullion Cycle Average Energy (W) 3.0 3.0 1.3 Heat Leak to Freezer (0-1) 0.5 0.5 0.25 Heat Leak to Fresh Food (0-1) 0.25 0.25 0.25 Evaporator Design Exit Superheat (°C) 4.0 4.0 2.0 Fin Type (flat, wavy, herringbone) Flat Flat Spine FinFan Motor Type (Shaded Pole, ACInput BLDC, DC-Input BLDC) Shaded Pole Shaded Pole DC-Input BLDC

Fan Power (W) 5.8 5.8 3.3 Air Flow Rate (Liter/s) 21.3 21.3 21.3
Tube Characteristics
Width of Tube Row 27.9 h 27.9 h 24.1 Tube OD (mm) 7.9 7.9 9.3 Tube Wall Thickness (mm) 0.7 0.7 0.8 # of Tubes Deep 7.5 h 7.5 h 16 Tube Pitch (cm) 3.8 3.8 2.9
# of Tubes Normal to Airflow 8 8 2 Normal Tube Pitch (cm) 1.3 1.3 5.1
Fin Characteristics Fin Thickness (mm) 0.2 0.2 0.25 Fin Pitch (mm) 5.1 5.1 9.5 Fin Conductivity (W/m-K) 190 190 190 Fraction Finned (0-1) 0.77 0.77 1 Spine Fin Input Data Spine Height (mm) NA NA 10.5 Spine Width (mm) NA NA 0.8 Condenser Design i i j
Exit Subcooling (°C) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Configuration (Static, Hot-wall, Tube & Tube & Fin Tube & Fin Tube & Fin

h Number of tubes in the air flow direction alternate 7 and 8, averaging 7.5. ERA analysis was conducted by selecting 8 rows deep and decreasing the tube row width to 26.2 cm to compensate for the added tubes.

i Surface areas calculated by the co ndenser routine were increased by a factor of 2.63 for the 26 ft 3 side-mount refrigerators to calibrate with test data for condensing temperatures.

j Surface area calculated by the condenser routin e was increased by a factor of 1.4 for the 22 ft 3 side-mount refrigerator to calibrate with test data for condensing temperatures. 5-A-16