5-i 

CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED .......................................................................... 5-1

5.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW..................................................................................... 5-3

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS ................................................................................................... 5-4

5.4.1 Batch Ice Makers ................................................................................................. 5-4

5.4.1.1 Baseline: Existing DOE Standards .......................................................... 5-4

5.4.1.2 Maximum Available Efficiency Levels .................................................... 5-5

5.4.1.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels ................................................................. 5-6

5.4.1.4 Efficiency Levels for Extended Harvest Capacity Air-Cooled Ice-Making 

Head Batch Ice Makers ........................................................................................ 5-7

5.4.1.5 Maximum Technology Level ................................................................... 5-8

5.4.1.6 Efficiency Levels for Remote Condensing Unit Ice Makers ................... 5-9

5.4.2 Continuous Ice Makers ...................................................................................... 5-11

5.4.2.1 Energy Use Metric Incorporating Ice Hardness ..................................... 5-11

5.4.2.2 Baseline Efficiency Levels .................................................................... 5-11

5.4.2.3 Maximum Available Efficiency Levels .................................................. 5-12

5.4.2.4 Incremental Efficiency Levels ............................................................... 5-13

5.4.2.5 Maximum Technology Level ................................................................. 5-14

5.5 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................... 5-15

5.5.1 Component Vendor Data .................................................................................... 5-15

5.5.2 Reverse Engineering .......................................................................................... 5-15

5.5.2.1 Selection of Products for Reverse Engineering ..................................... 5-16

5.5.2.2 Collection of Energy Modeling Data ..................................................... 5-16

5.5.3 Manufacturer Interviews .................................................................................... 5-17

5.5.4 Energy Testing ................................................................................................... 5-18

5.6 MANUFACTURING COST MODELING ................................................................... 5-18

5.6.1 Generation of Bills of Materials ........................................................................ 5-18

5.6.2 Cost Structure of the Spreadsheet Models ......................................................... 5-19

5.6.3 Cost Model and Definitions ............................................................................... 5-19

5.6.3.1 Cost Definitions ..................................................................................... 5-19

5.6.4 Cost Model Assumptions Overview .................................................................. 5-20

5.6.4.1 Fabrication Estimates ............................................................................. 5-21

5.6.4.2 Factory Parameters Assumptions ........................................................... 5-21

5.6.4.3 Material Cost Assumptions .................................................................... 5-22

5.6.5 Manufacturing Production Cost ......................................................................... 5-22

5.6.6 Incremental Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 5-23

5.6.6.1 G&A and Profit ...................................................................................... 5-24

5.7 MANUFACTURER MARKUP ..................................................................................... 5-24

5.8 ENERGY MODELING ................................................................................................. 5-24

5.8.1 FREEZE Model Overview ................................................................................. 5-25

5.9 DESIGN OPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 5-27

5.9.1 Improved Compressor Efficiency ...................................................................... 5-28
5-ii

5.9.1.1 Compressor Cost Data ........................................................................... 5-29

5.9.2 Increased Air-Cooled Condenser Surface Area ................................................. 5-30

5.9.3 Evaporator Size Increase for Continuous Ice Makers........................................ 5-31

5.9.4 Condenser Fan Motors ....................................................................................... 5-31

5.9.5 Auger Motors ..................................................................................................... 5-32

5.9.6 Pump Motors ...................................................................................................... 5-32

5.10 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS ...................................................................... 5-33

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 5-37

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.2.1 Batch Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis ............................ 5-2

Table 5.2.2 Continuous Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis ................... 5-3

Table 5.4.1 Existing DOE Standards for Batch Ice Makers ........................................................ 5-5

Table 5.4.2 Batch Ice Maker Maximum Available Levels ........................................................... 5-6

Table 5.4.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Batch Ice Maker Equipment Classes ................. 5-7

Table 5.4.4 Maximum Technology Levels for Batch Ice Maker Equipment Classes .................. 5-9

Table 5.4.5 Impact of Suction Line Pressure Drop for Remote Compressor Ice Makers* ........ 5-10

Table 5.4.6 Trial Baseline Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes ... 5-12

Table 5.4.7 Continuous Ice Maker Maximum Available Efficiency Levels .............................. 5-13

Table 5.4.8 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes ...... 5-14

Table 5.4.9 Maximum Technology Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes ....... 5-14

Table 5.5.1 Component Vendors Contacted by DOE during Engineering Analysis .................. 5-15

Table 5.5.2 Selected Units for Reverse-Engineering and Energy Testing ................................. 5-16

Table 5.6.1 Cost Model In-House Manufacturing Operation Assumptions ............................... 5-21

Table 5.6.2 ACIM Factory Parameter Assumptions .................................................................. 5-21

Table 5.9.1 Design Options by Equipment Class ...................................................................... 5-28

Table 5.9.2 AHRI 540 Medium Temperature Operating Test Conditions ................................. 5-28

Table 5.9.3 Expected Shaft Power Output Range and Efficiencies for Different Types of Motors

.................................................................................................................................................... 5-32

Table 5.9.4 Motor Cost Information Use for Preliminary Engineering Analysis ...................... 5-32

Table 5.10.1 Batch Ice Maker Baseline Characteristics and Extrapolation Approach .............. 5-33

Table 5.10.2 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Price Results for Batch Ice makers ................ 5-34

Table 5.10.3 Continuous Ice Maker Baseline Characteristics and Extrapolation Approach ..... 5-35

Table 5.10.4 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Price Results for Continuous Ice Makers....... 5-36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.3.1 Flow Diagram of Engineering Analysis Methodology ............................................ 5-4

Figure 5.4.1 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Extended Harvest Capacity Air-Cooled IceMaking Head Ice Makers ............................................................................................................. 5-8

Figure 5.6.1 Full Production Costs ............................................................................................ 5-23

Figure 5.9.1 Efficiency Curve for Typical Compressor Capacities Used in Commercial Ice 

Makers........................................................................................................................................ 5-29

Figure 5.9.2 Cost Curves for Medium Temperature Compressors Used in Commercial Ice 

Makers........................................................................................................................................ 5-30
5-1 

CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between manufacturer production 

cost (MPC) and energy consumption for the automatic commercial ice makers covered in this 

rulemaking. The “cost-efficiency” relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations in 

terms of individual customers, manufacturers, and the Nation, from which the most economically 

justified, technologically feasible standard level is ultimately determined.

The inputs to the engineering analysis include baseline characteristics for each equipment 

class addressed in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of the preliminary technical 

support document (TSD)), the design options from the screening analysis (chapter 4), as well as 

cost and energy use data collected from manufacturers, component vendors, reverse engineering, 

and energy testing. The output of the engineering analysis is the cost-efficiency relationship for 

each equipment class, which will be used in the life-cycle cost and payback period analyses 

(chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD) as well as the net present value analysis. 

This chapter covers the equipment classes the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

analyzed and the methodology used by DOE to develop manufacturing costs and energy 

consumption for the preliminary analysis phase of the rulemaking, as well as the results of these 

analyses. 

During the course of this work, DOE recognized the need to restructure the analyses to 

consider the cost-effectiveness associated with changing condenser water flow. This issue is 

discussed in more detail in chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD. The modified analysis structure 

described in chapter 2 to address this issue will be implemented during the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) phase of the rulemaking, and is not described in detail in this chapter. 

Additionally, some information obtained prior to publication of this preliminary TSD also is not 

reflected in this chapter, such as adjustments to the analysis based on discussions with 

manufacturers. Such additional information will also be incorporated in the analysis during the 

NOPR phase of the rulemaking. 

5.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

In the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE directly analyzed 10 of the 22 proposed 

equipment classes for batch and continuous ice-making machines. This means that DOE 

developed representative analyses for specific existing products of these equipment classes, 

conducting energy testing, reverse engineering, and cost-efficiency analyses based on energy use 

and manufacturing cost models based on the products acquired for reverse engineering. DOE 

extended the results of the direct analyses to other equipment classes based on similarity of 

classes.
5-2 

Table 5.2.1 summarizes the batch ice-making machine equipment classes analyzed in the 

preliminary engineering analysis and Table 5.2.2 lists the continuous ice-making machine 

equipment classes analyzed.

a These equipment classes represent close to 100 percent of the 

shipments of automatic commercial ice makers. To perform the analysis as efficiently as 

possible, DOE did not directly analyze all covered equipment classes. DOE extrapolated energy 

standards to the remaining equipment classes as described in section 5.10. DOE did not conduct 

full separate analyses for remote condensing unit ice makers with and without remote 

compressors. DOE considered analyses for the remote condensing unit equipment to be 

representative of equipment classes both with and without remote compressors. This is discussed 

in greater detail in section 5.4.1.6. 

Table 5.2.1 Batch Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis

Equipment 

Type

Type of 

Cooling

Harvest Capacity 

Rate 

lb/24 hours

Equipment Class 

Abbreviation*

Reverse Engineering 

Unit, Directly Analyzed 

Equipment Class

Ice-Making 

Head

Water

Small (<500) IMH-W-Small-B

Medium (≥500 and 

<1,436) IMH-W-Med-B 

Large (≥1,436) IMH-W-Large-B 

Air Small (<450) IMH-A-Small-B 

Large (≥450) IMH-A-Large-B 

Remote 

Condensing 

(but not 

remote 

compressor)

Air

Small (<1,000) RCU-NRC-Small-B 

Large (≥1,000) RCU-NRC-Large-B 

Remote 

Condensing 

and Remote 

Compressor**

Air

Small (<1,000) RCU-RC-Small-B 

Large (≥1,000) RCU-RC-Large-B 

SelfContained 

Unit

Water Small (<200) SCU-W-Small-B

Large (≥200) SCU-W-Large-B 

Air Small (<175) SCU-A-Small-B 

Large (≥175) SCU-A-Large-B

* Abbreviation notation: system type (batch (B) or continuous (C)). Equipment type (ice-making head (IMH), remote condenser unit 

(RCU), self-contained unit (SCU)). Condenser cooling (air (A) or water (W)) or compressor location for RCUs (remote compressor 

(RC), non-remote compressor (NRC)). 

** Includes units designed for connection to a compressor rack system.

 

a See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for descriptions of batch and continuous ice maker categories.
5-3 

Table 5.2.2 Continuous Equipment Classes Analyzed in the Engineering Analysis 

Equipment Type Type of 

Cooling

Harvest Capacity Rate 

lb/24 hours

Equipment Class 

Abbreviation

Reverse Engineering 

Unit, Directly 

Analyzed Equipment 

Class

Ice-Making Head

Water Small (<1,000) IMH-W-Small-C

Large (≥1,000) IMH-W-Large-C

Air Small (<1,000) IMH-A-Small-C 

Large (≥1,000) IMH-A-Large-C

Remote Condensing 

(but not remote 

compressor)

Air Small (<1,000) RCU-NRC-Small-C 

Large (≥1,000) RCU-NRC-Large-C *

Self-Contained Unit

Water Small (<175) SCU-W-Small-C **

Large (≥175) SCU-W-Large-C

Air Small (<175) SCU-A-Small-C

Large (≥175) SCU-A-Large-C 

* DOE acquired a product of this equipment class, but did not complete direct analysis for it for the preliminary analysis.

** DOE was not able to identify any existing products of this equipment class in ice maker databases. Hence, this equipment class 

was not analyzed, directly or by extrapolation.

5.3 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

This section describes the analytical methodology DOE used in the engineering analysis. 

In this rulemaking, DOE has adopted a combined efficiency level/design option/reverse 

engineering approach to developing cost-efficiency curves. DOE established efficiency levels 

defined as percent energy use lower than that of baseline efficiency products. DOE’s analysis is 

based on the efficiency improvements associated with groups of design options. Also, DOE 

developed manufacturing cost models based heavily on reverse engineering of products to 

develop a baseline MPC and to support calculation of the incremental costs associated with 

improvement of efficiency. 

Figure 5.3.1 presents the steps in the analysis and illustrates how they contributed to 

developing the cost-efficiency curves. The process began with data collection and ended with the 

incremental cost curve results.

To develop the analytically derived cost-efficiency curves, DOE collected information 

from various sources on the manufacturing cost and energy use reduction characteristics of each 

of the design options. DOE reviewed product literature, conducted reverse engineering of current 

products, and interviewed component vendors of compressors and fan motors. DOE also 

conducted interviews with manufacturers during the preliminary analysis. The engineering 

questionnaire associated with this discussion is reproduced in appendix 12A. 
5-4 

Figure 5.3.1 Flow Diagram of Engineering Analysis Methodology 

Cost information from the vendor interviews and engineering questionnaires provided 

input to the manufacturing cost model. DOE determined incremental costs associated with 

specific design options both from vendor information and using the cost model. DOE modeled 

energy use reduction using the FREEZE program, which was developed in the 1990s and 

upgraded as part of the preliminary analysis. The reverse engineering, vendor interviews, and 

manufacturer interviews provided input for the energy analysis. The incremental cost estimates 

and the energy modeling results together constitute the energy efficiency curves presented in this 

chapter.

5.4 EFFICIENCY LEVELS

5.4.1 Batch Ice Makers

This section discusses the baseline, incremental, and maximum technology efficiency 

levels that DOE used in its preliminary analysis for automatic commercial ice makers of the 

batch equipment classes.

5.4.1.1 Baseline: Existing DOE Standards

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, prescribed the following standards for batch ice makers, shown in Table 5.4.1, effective 

January 1, 2010. 42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1) These efficiency levels will represent the baseline 

efficiency levels for batch ice makers. DOE will also adopt these baseline efficiency levels for 
5-5 

ice makers with ice harvest capacities of up to 4,000 pounds of ice per 24 hours,b except that 

DOE may adopt a more complicated approach for large air-cooled ice-making head ice makers 

with harvest capacities larger than 1,600 lb/24 hours. This approach is described in section

5.4.1.4. 

Table 5.4.1 Existing DOE Standards for Batch Ice Makers

Equipment Type Type of 

Cooling

Harvest Capacity Rate

lb/24 hours

Maximum Energy 

Use kWh/100 lb ice* 

Maximum Condenser 

Water Use*, **

gal/100 lb ice

Ice-Making Head

Water

Small (<500) 7.80–0.0055H 200–0.022H

Medium (≥500 and 

<1,436) 5.58–0.0011H 200–0.022H

Large (≥1,436) 4.0 200–0.022H

Air Small (<450) 10.26–0.0086H N/A

Large (≥450) 6.89–0.0011H N/A

Remote Condensing 

(but not remote compressor) Air Small (<1,000) 8.85–0.0038H N/A

Large (≥1,000) 5.1 N/A

Remote Condensing and 

Remote Compressor Air Small (<934) 8.85–0.0038H N/A

Large (≥934) 5.3 N/A

Self-Contained Unit

Water Small (<200) 11. 40–0.019H 191–0.0315H

Large (≥200) 7.6 191–0.0315H

Air Small (<175) 18.0–0.0469H N/A

Large (≥175) 9.8 N/A

kWh = kilowatt-hours.

* H = Harvest rate in pounds per 24 hours.

** Water use is for the condenser only and does not include potable water used to make ice.

5.4.1.2 Maximum Available Efficiency Levels

Maximum available efficiency levels for the analyzed equipment classes are tabulated in

Table 5.4.2. This information is based on a survey of product databases and manufacturer 

websites (also see data in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD). The maximum available efficiency 

levels are represented by percentage energy use less than the energy use of baseline-efficiency 

equipment, which has been selected as equal to the current DOE energy standard for batch ice 

makers. DOE used the maximum available efficiency levels to select appropriate ranges of 

incremental efficiency levels.

 

b For brevity, pounds of ice per 24 hours will be referred to herein as lb/24 hours.
5-6 

Table 5.4.2 Batch Ice Maker Maximum Available Levels 

Equipment 

Type

Type of 

Cooling

Harvest 

Capacity Rate

lb/24 hours

Max 

Available 

Efficiency 

Level*

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

Brand & Model Number

Ice-Making 

Head

Water

Small (<500) 25% 382 Hoshizaki KMD-410MWH

Medium (≥500 

and <1,436) 22% 6621,323

Hoshizaki KM-650MWH,

KM-1301SWH

Large (≥1,436) 23% 1,850 Hoshizaki KM-1900SWH

Air Small (<450) 24% 280 Scotsman C0330MA-1#, -32#

Large (≥450) 21% 1,530 Hoshizaki KM-1900SAH

Remote 

Condensing 

(but not remote 

compressor)

Air Small (<1,000) 20%

554,

589

780

Hoshizaki KM-650MRH,

KML-631MRH

Scotsman C0830MR-3#, -32#

Large (≥1,000) 27% 1,675 Hoshizaki KMH-2000SRH3

Remote 

Condensing 

and Remote 

Compressor

Air

Small (<934) 12% 800 Manitowoc SD-1072C

Large (≥934) 15%

1,500

1,550

1,235

Manitowoc SD-1872C,

Manitowoc SY-1874C,

Manitowoc SY-1474C

Self-Contained 

Unit

Water Small (<200) 25% 186 Hoshizaki KM-201BWH

Large (≥200) 28%** 439 Hoshizaki DKM-500BWH

Air Small (<175) 32% 55 Hoshizaki AM-50BAE

Large (≥175) 31% 406 Hoshizaki DKM-500BAH

* Percent energy use lower than the baseline efficiency level (i.e., the current DOE standard).

** Maximum available for under-counter model.

5.4.1.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels

For each of the 13 analyzed batch ice equipment classes, DOE established a series of 

incremental efficiency levels, for which it has developed incremental cost data and quantified the 

cost-efficiency relationship. DOE established the highest incremental efficiency levels based on 

a review of the maximum efficiency levels of available products, as discussed in section 5.4.1.2. 

Table 5.4.3 shows the selected incremental efficiency levels.
5-7 

Table 5.4.3 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Batch Ice Maker Equipment Classes 

Equipment Type* Harvest Capacity Rate

lb/24 hours EL2** EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

IMH-W-Small-B Small (<500) 10% 15% 20%

IMH-W-Med-B Medium (≥500 and <1,436) 10% 15% 20%

IMH-W-Large-B Large (≥1,436) 10% 15% 20%

IMH-A-Small-B Small (<450) 10%

(E-STAR) 15% 20%

IMH-A-Large-B Large (≥450 and <1,600) 10%

(E-STAR) 15% 20%

IMH-A-E-B Extended (≥1,600) See section 5.4.1.4

RCU-NRC-Small-B Small (<1,000) 9%

(E-STAR) 15% 20% 25%

RCU-NRC-Large-B Large (≥1,000) 9%

(E-STAR) 15% 20% 25%

RCU-RC-B 

Small (<934) 9%

(E-STAR) 15% 

Large (≥934) 9%

(E-STAR) 15% 

SCU-W-Small-B Small (<200) 7% 15% 20% 25%

SCU-W-Large-B Large (≥200) 7% 15% 20% 25%

SCU-A-Small-B Small (<175) 7%

(E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 30%

SCU-A-Large-B Large (≥175) 7%

(E-STAR) 15% 20% 25% 30%

* See Table 5.2.1 for a description of these abbreviations.

** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the base line efficiency level, while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.

5.4.1.4 Efficiency Levels for Extended Harvest Capacity Air-Cooled Ice-Making 

Head Batch Ice Makers

The current DOE energy conservation standard for large air-cooled ice-making head 

batch ice makers decreases with harvest capacity well beyond the harvest capacity of existing 

products. At the current maximum harvest capacity for this equipment class, the standard may 

not be practical to achieve. When the harvest capacity range for ice makers extends to 4,000 

lb/24 hours, this issue would be further exacerbated. Even though no ice makers of this 

equipment class are currently produced in this capacity range, DOE is considering adopting 

incremental efficiency levels in the analysis for this equipment class that do not further 

exacerbate this issue. The incremental efficiency levels would, to the extent possible, level out 

the standard so that it is independent of harvest capacity, as is the case for all other high harvest 

capacity equipment classes. The leveling of the standard is subject to the EPCA anti-backsliding 

provisions; so for some part of the harvest capacity range, some of the incremental efficiency 

levels are equal to the current standard. 

This is illustrated in Figure 5.4.1 for Efficiency Level 2, which follows the current 

ENERGY STAR requirement up to 1,600 lb/24 hours harvest capacity, after which it levels out, 

except for the range of harvest capacity for which it must follow the current DOE standard to 

avoid backsliding. Efficiency Level 3 would be constructed similarly, leveling out at 1,600 lb/24 

hours and 4.4 kWh/100 lb and intersecting the existing standard line at a harvest capacity of 
5-8 

2,260 lb/24 hours. Efficiency Level 4 would level out at 1,600 lb/24 hours and 4.1 kWh/100 lb 

and would remain at this level up to 4,000 lb/24 hours. DOE realizes that adopting incremental 

efficiency levels as described may not impact any existing products, and that very few, if any, 

products may fall in this harvest capacity range in the future. However, this approach will avoid 

adopting unreasonably stringent standards for this harvest capacity range as part of this 

rulemaking. The capacity range above 1,600 lb/24 hours has been designated the “extended” 

range to distinguish it from the current “large” class of the current energy standards.

Figure 5.4.1 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Extended Harvest Capacity Air-Cooled IceMaking Head Ice Makers

5.4.1.5 Maximum Technology Level 

DOE defines maximum technology levels for each equipment class to represent the 

maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are incorporated. The maximum 

technology level is not necessarily the same as the maximum available level, which is the highest 

efficiency unit currently available on the market. In some cases, the maximum technology level 

is not commercially available because it is not economically feasible. In other cases, the 

maximum available efficiency products use design options that have been screened out because 

they may be proprietary and/or because they may reduce equipment utility (e.g., larger physical 

size in order to allow use of larger heat exchangers). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Energy Consumption (kWh/100lbs)

Harvest Rate (lbs/day)

DOE Standard

Incremental Efficiency Level 2

Ice Maker Performance Data

1,600 lb/day

4.6 kWh/100 lbs 2,080 lb/day

4.6 kWh/100 lbs 2,500 lb/day

4.1 kWh/100 lbs
5-9 

DOE determined maximum technology levels using energy modeling. The energy models 

for the maximum technology levels were based on use of all design options applicable for the 

specific equipment classes. The maximum technology efficiency levels for the analyzed batch 

ice maker equipment classes are presented in Table 5.4.4. The design options considered in the 

analysis are listed for each equipment class in section 5.9. 

For some equipment classes, the table shows two maximum technology levels. For these 

cases, the two levels are representative of analyses conducted for two very different harvest 

capacities.

Also, the table does not show maximum technology levels separately for remote 

condenser units with and without remote compressors. DOE did not consider remote compressor 

and non-remote compressor units separately in the analysis. This is discussed in more detail in 

section 5.4.1.6. 

Table 5.4.4 Maximum Technology Levels for Batch Ice Maker Equipment Classes

Equipment Class Energy Use Lower than Baseline

IMH-W-Small-B 14%

IMH-W-Med-B 10%

IMH-W-Large-B 11% (at 1,500 lb/24 hours)

3% (at 2,600 lb/24 hours)

IMH-A-Small-B 20%

IMH-A-Large-B 20% (at 800 lb/24 hours)

15% (at 1,500 lb/24 hours)

RCU-Small-B 16.5%

RCU-Large-B 16.5% (at 1,500 lb/24 hours)

14% (at 2,400 lb/24 hours)

SCU-W-Small-B 24%

SCU-W-Large-B 39%

SCU-A-Small-B 28%

SCU-A-Large-B 25%

5.4.1.6 Efficiency Levels for Remote Condensing Unit Ice Makers

Remote condensing unit ice makers may have compressors in the same package as the 

evaporator, or their compressors may be housed with the condenser. The latter approach is used 

to remove from the interior space the noise associated with the compressor, which can be a 

distinct market advantage in some applications. Moving the compressor to the condenser 

package of a remote condenser ice maker (with a remote compressor) adds complexity to the 

refrigeration system design, particular for batch ice makers, in which the refrigeration system 

alternates between freeze and harvest cycles. Remote compressor units also have significantly 

longer suction lines, since the compressor is no longer in the same equipment package as the 

evaporator. Interconnecting refrigerant line sets can be as long as 100 feet or more. However, 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 810-2007 requires 

testing with line sets that are at least 25 feet long. It is well known that pressure drop in the 

suction line can reduce the efficiency of refrigeration systems because refrigerant pressure at the 

compressor inlet is lower. The system efficiency can also be affected by heat gain to the 

refrigerant in the suction line, although this effect is mitigated in most ice makers through the use 

of insulation and suction line heat exchangers located near the evaporators. 
5-10

The existing DOE energy conservation standards for large harvest capacity remote 

condenser cube ice makers take into account the potential losses associated with the suction line 

of remote compressor units. The standard for ice makers with remote compressors is 5.3 

kWh/100 lb, as compared with 5.1 kWh/100 lb for remote condenser ice makers without remote 

compressors (see Table 5.4.1). 

DOE considered whether separate equipment classes for remote condenser ice makers are 

justified and whether the costs required to achieve higher efficiency levels would be higher for 

remote compressor equipment than they are for non-remote compressor equipment. 

DOE calculated suction line pressure drop and its expected impact on compressor 

efficiency during the freeze cycle for two large-harvest-capacity batch ice makers, using 

compressor performance data for the compressors used in these products. Based on discussions 

with manufacturers and ice maker test data, DOE selected representative operating conditions for 

this analysis, reviewing the impact of the suction line pressure drop for evaporating temperatures 

of 20 °F and 10 °F, because the batch ice maker evaporating temperature varies as ice builds up 

on the evaporator. The analysis, summarized in Table 5.4.5, shows that the 0.2 kWh/100 lb 

differential of the current DOE standard is appropriate for the two types of remote condenser ice 

makers.

Table 5.4.5 Impact of Suction Line Pressure Drop for Remote Compressor Ice Makers* 

Ice Maker 1 Ice Maker 2

Harvest Capacity (lb/24 hours) 1,500 2,400

Suction Line Description One 3⁄4 inch OD line Two 3⁄4 inch OD lines

Evaporating Temperature (°F) 10 20 10 20

Suction Temperature (°F) 50 55 50 55

Suction Line Pressure Drop (psi) 2.6 3.6 1.3 1.6

Increase in Energy Use (kWh/100 lb) 0.22 0.26 0.08 0.09

OD = outer diameter.

* Condensing temperature 110 °F

DOE considered whether the efficiency improvements associated with the design options 

used in the engineering analysis would be significantly different for remote compressor ice 

makers as compared with non-remote compressor models. DOE concluded that there would be 

few differences in the magnitudes or costs of these improvements as the design options are 

applied to these two types of ice makers. Hence, DOE considered that the relationship between 

incremental cost and efficiency for one of the types would provide an accurate representation of 

this trend for the other type. Consequently, the results for RCU ice makers are not separately 

presented for remote compressor and non-remote compressor ice makers, and they are 

representative of both types. The percent reductions associated with the efficiency levels would 

be applied to the 5.1 and 5.3 kWh/100 lb baseline energy use levels of the large-harvest-capacity 

remote condenser ice makers to determine the energy use associated with the efficiency level. 

For instance, the 9 percent Efficiency Level 1 (equivalent to ENERGY STAR) for these ice 

makers would represent 4.6 kWh/100 lb for non-remote compressor ice makers and 4.8 kWh/100 

lb for remote compressor units. 
5-11

5.4.2 Continuous Ice Makers

5.4.2.1 Energy Use Metric Incorporating Ice Hardness

Continuous type ice makers typically produce ice that is not completely frozen, leaving 

some liquid water content in the total mass of ice produced. The ice hardness (for a 32 °F ice 

product, the percentage of frozen ice) is directly related to the measured energy consumption of 

these machines. To account for this impact on energy use, the DOE test procedure final rule

requires that the measured energy use of continuous machines be adjusted based on the ice 

hardness. 77 FR 1591, 1597 (Jan. 11, 2012). 

The new test procedure calls for use of a calorimeter to determine ice hardness, and 

calculation of an ice hardness adjustment factor based on the calorimeter test results as follows:

Ice Hardness Adjustment Factor = � 144 Btu

lb � + 38 Btulb �

144 Btu

lb � × �Ice Hardness Factor

100 � � + 38 Btu

lb �

�

The measured energy consumption per 100 lb of ice and the measured condenser water 

consumption, as determined using American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 29-2009, are multiplied by the ice hardness 

adjustment factor to yield the adjusted energy and condenser water consumption values, 

respectively.

DOE’s consideration of continuous ice maker efficiency levels and its rulemaking 

analysis in general are based on use of the adjusted energy and condenser use values. 

5.4.2.2 Baseline Efficiency Levels

Currently there are no DOE energy standards for continuous ice makers. The Framework 

document and Framework public meeting presentation discussed two options for development of 

baseline efficiency levels:

1. Use of the Canadian standard levels.

2. Development of efficiency levels based on examination of the ice maker energy use data 

and fitting of baseline efficiency level curves to the data to represent the relationship of

energy use as a function of harvest capacity.

DOE chose to develop efficiency levels based on the ice maker data because (a) the 

Canadian standard levels do not take into consideration the adjustment of measured energy use 

as a function of ice hardness and (b) the Canadian standard levels do not consider differences in 

equipment type (i.e., ice-making head, remote condenser unit, or self-contained unit). 

DOE developed baseline efficiency levels using energy use data available from several 

sources, as discussed in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD. DOE chose baseline efficiency levels 

that would be met by nearly all ice makers represented in the databases. These baselines are 

preliminarily referred to as “trial baselines”—DOE may consider alternative baseline efficiency 
5-12

levels depending on comments from interested parties and on the availability of additional data.

Also, because data regarding ice hardness were not available, DOE used assumptions of 0.7 ice 

hardness for flake ice makers and 0.85 for nugget ice makers to adjust the energy use data. 

Adjustment of the baseline efficiency levels may be warranted later if many ice makers exhibit 

ice hardness significantly different from these levels. DOE selected harvest capacity break points 

(harvest capacities at which the slopes of the trial baseline efficiency levels change) for all but 

the self-contained equipment classes consistent with those selected by the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency (CEE) for their new Tier 2 efficiency level for flake ice makers.1 Note that DOE did 

not also adopt the CEE energy use levels for any of its incremental efficiency levels because the 

CEE energy use levels do not incorporate adjustment of the measured energy use based on ice 

hardness. 

The baseline efficiency levels are tabulated in Table 5.4.6, and they are plotted with the 

ice maker energy use data in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD. Note that the remote condensing 

equipment classes have not been separated into remote compressor and non-remote compressor 

classes. This is because the available data provide little evidence that the energy use of remote

compressor continuous ice makers is higher than that of non-remote compressor ice makers.

Table 5.4.6 Trial Baseline Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes

Equipment Type Type of Cooling Harvest Capacity Rate 

lb/24 hours

Energy Use

kWh/100 lb ice*

Ice-Making Head

Water Small (<1,000) 8.1–0.003H

Large (≥1,000) 5.1

Air Small (<1,000) 10.3–0.004H

Large (≥1,000) 6.3

Remote Condensing Air Small (<1,000) 9.5–0.004H 

Large (≥1,000) 5.5

Self-Contained Unit

Water Small (<175) 9.5–0.0183H

Large (≥175) 6.3

Air Small (<175) 18.0–0.0469H

Large (≥175) 9.8

* H = Harvest capacity in lb/24 hours

5.4.2.3 Maximum Available Efficiency Levels

Maximum available efficiency levels for the analyzed equipment classes are tabulated in

Table 5.4.7. This information is based on a survey of product databases and manufacturer 

websites (also see data in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD). The maximum available efficiency 

levels are represented by percentage energy use less than the energy use of baseline-efficiency 

equipment. DOE used the maximum available efficiency levels to select appropriate ranges of 

incremental efficiency levels.
5-13

Table 5.4.7 Continuous Ice Maker Maximum Available Efficiency Levels 

Equipment 

Type

Type of 

Cooling

Harvest 

Capacity Range

Max Available

Efficiency level

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

Brand & Model Number

Ice-Making 

Head

Water Small 35% 877 Ice-O-Matic GEM0956W

Large 20% 1,040 Scotsman F1222W

Air

Small 37% 753 Ice-O-Matic GEM0956A

Large 32% 2,000

1,800

Ice-O-Matic MFI2400

Scotsman FME2404AS

Remote 

Condensing 

(but not remote 

compressor)

Air

Small 26% 835 Scotsman N0922R

Large 42% 1,780 Scotsman FME2404RS

Remote 

Condensing 

and Remote 

Compressor

Air All Capacities 9% 771 Follett HCC1000R***

Remote 

Condenser and 

Compressor 

Rack

Air All Capacities 88% 1,730 Hoshizaki F-2000MLH(-C)

Self-Contained 

Unit

Water Small None

Large 15% 495 Hoshizaki DCM-500BWH

Air Small 11% 64 Hoshizaki C-100BAE-AD

Large 39% 403 Ice-O-Matic EF800A**S

Note: This information is based on data available prior to the recent posting on AHRI’s website of ratings for 

continuous machines.

5.4.2.4 Incremental Efficiency Levels

For each of the 10 analyzed continuous ice maker equipment classes, DOE established a 

series of incremental efficiency levels, for which it has developed incremental cost data and 

quantified the cost-efficiency relationship. DOE established the highest incremental efficiency 

levels based on a review of the maximum efficiency levels of available equipment, as discussed 

in section 5.4.2.3. Table 5.4.8 shows the selected incremental efficiency levels. The efficiency 

levels are defined by the percent energy use less than the trial baseline energy use, or other 

energy use levels as indicated in the table.

DOE selected the efficiency levels for the RCU and SCU continuous ice makers to match 

efficiency levels of batch ice makers. This potentially will allow some of these batch and 

continuous ice maker equipment classes to be combined, if the cost-effective efficiency levels 

are the same for both types of equipment. This approach was not feasible for the ice-making 

head equipment classes because of the very different capacities at which the efficiency level 

slopes change for batch and continuous ice makers of these types. 
5-14

Table 5.4.8 Incremental Efficiency Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes 

Equipment 

Type* 

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

EL2** EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

IMH-W-Small-C <1,000 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% IMH-W-Large-C ≥1,000

IMH-A-Small-C <1,000 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% IMH-A-Large-C ≥1,000

RCU-Small-C <1,000 batch baseline 10% less

than EL1

15% less

than EL1

20% less

than EL1

25% less

than EL1

RCU-Large-C ≥1,000 7% 17% 21% 26% 30%

SCU-W-Small-C <175 20% less than 

batch baseline

25% less than 

batch baseline

30% less than 

batch baseline

SCU-W-Large-C ≥175 3% 10% 16%

SCU-A-Small-C <175 7% 15% 20% 25%

SCU-A-Large-C ≥175 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%

* See Table 5.2.2 for a description of these abbreviations.

** EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the base line efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.

5.4.2.5 Maximum Technology Level

The maximum technology efficiency levels for the analyzed batch ice maker equipment 

classes are presented in Table 5.4.9. The design options considered in the analysis are listed for 

each equipment class in section 5.9. 

For one equipment class, the table shows two maximum technology levels. For these 

cases, the two levels are representative of analyses conducted for two very different harvest 

capacities.

For another equipment class, SCU-W-Small-C, the table shows no maximum technology 

efficiency level. Ice maker databases indicated that there is no equipment in this class. Hence, 

DOE did not conduct analysis of this equipment class. DOE expects to set energy standards for 

this equipment class at the level indicated in Table 5.4.8 that ensures continuity with the 

standards for the SCU-W-Large-C class.

Table 5.4.9 Maximum Technology Levels for Continuous Ice Maker Equipment Classes

Equipment Class Energy Use Lower than Baseline

IMH-W-Small-C 33%

IMH-W-Large-C 24%

IMH-A-Small-C 30% (at 310 lb/24 hours)

42% (at 820 lb/24 hours)

IMH-A-Large-C 35%

RCU-NRC-Small-C 16.5%

RCU-NRC-Large-C 16.5%

SCU-W-Small-C *

SCU-W-Large-C 18%

SCU-A-Small-C 18%

SCU-A-Large-C 36%

* DOE was not able to identify any products of this equipment class in 

ice maker databases. Hence, DOE did not conduct analysis to determine 

maximum technology level for this class.
5-15

5.5 DATA COLLECTION

5.5.1 Component Vendor Data

DOE contacted major suppliers of key commercial ice maker components to obtain 

performance and cost data to support its design option analysis. This effort consisted of phone 

interviews and email correspondence. Table 5.5.1 lists the vendors contacted. 

DOE also obtained from the compressor vendors or their websites complete performance 

data for compressors used in the energy analyses, including analyses for baseline and improvedefficiency configurations.

Table 5.5.1 Component Vendors Contacted by DOE during Engineering Analysis

Component Type Vendors

Compressors Bristol

Copeland

Danfoss

Embraco

Tecumseh

Condenser Fan Motors A.O. Smith

Bohn

EBM Papst

Emerson Climate Technologies 

Fasco 

Marathon Electric

Morrill Motors

Regal Beloit Electric Motors

Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motors

Auger Motors Brother International

Emerson Industrial Automation

Bison Gear Motors

Pump Motors Fasco

Hartell 

Morrill Motors

Sanso Electric

5.5.2 Reverse Engineering

DOE purchased a number of representative automatic commercial ice makers as part of 

the engineering analysis in order to examine design and fabrication details. This reverse

engineering included detailed measurement of dimensions, system and component-level power 

measurements, measurement of air flows for products with forced convection heat exchangers, 

and physical teardowns. The results of the reverse engineering process were used as input to the 

manufacturing cost modeling and the energy use modeling. This section describes the selection 

of products for reverse engineering as well as some of the measurements made to support 

subsequent modeling. Section 5.6 more thoroughly describes the physical teardown process used 

to support manufacturing cost modeling. 
5-16

5.5.2.1 Selection of Products for Reverse Engineering

Table 5.5.2 describes the products selected for reverse engineering and identifies the

products for which DOE conducted energy tests (see section 5.5.4 for more on energy testing). 

DOE aimed to select a range of models that would cover a broad spectrum of equipment classes 

and capacities based on the CEC, ENERGY STAR, and AHRI databases, as well as 

manufacturer websites. 

Table 5.5.2 Selected Units for Reverse-Engineering and Energy Testing

Type Equipment Class

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

Energy 

Use 

kWh/

100 lb

Potable 

Water Use

gal/100 lb

Energy 

Test

Physical 

Teardown

Energy 

Use 

Model

Batch IMH-A-Small-B 270 7.70 20.0   

IMH-A-Small-B 324 5.80 22.6   

IMH-A-Large-B 780 5.70 20.5  

IMH-A-Large-B 844 5.00 18.4  

IMH-A-Large-B 1,460 4.95 20.0  

IMH-A-Large-B 1,560 4.10 18.8   

IMH-W-Large-B 851 4.40 19.7  

IMH-W-Large-B 2,820 3.60 19.7   

RCU-A-Large-B 1,510 4.59 20.0  

RCU-A-Large-B 1,694 3.80 18.1   

RCU-A-Large-B 2,350 4.64 19.7  

SCU-A-Small-B 121 8.40 17.8   

SCU-A-Small-B 112 11.80 34.0  

SCU-W-Large-B 285 5.50 18.0   

Continuous IMH-A-Small-C 310 6.31 12.0  

IMH-A-Small-C 822 5.51 13.6  

IMH-A-Small-C 845 3.40 12.0   

RCU-A-Large-C 1780 3.40 12.0   

SCU-A-Large-C 280 6.00 19.0   

5.5.2.2 Collection of Energy Modeling Data 

DOE examined each unit prior to teardown to record details to be used as input for the 

energy modeling. The key measurements are described in this section. 

The rated capacity and energy use for each product were based on the AHRI database or 

on product literature. 

DOE contracted with Intertek Testing Services, Inc. (Intertek) in Cortland, New York for 

testing. The test laboratory measured the harvest capacity and energy use of the tested ice makers 

in accordance with AHRI Standard 810-2007. For batch ice makers with multiple purge water 

settings, Intertek tested the units in both the “standard” purge water setting and the highest purge 

water setting to evaluate the water use and energy use impacts of adjusting the purge water 
5-17

quantity. Only one of the tested ice makers had adjustable purge water control. DOE also had 

Intertek conduct calorimeter tests for the continuous ice makers that were tested, and bin 

effectiveness tests in accordance with AHRI Standard 820-2000, Standard for Ice Storage Bins,

for the self-contained units that were tested.

DOE measured component-level power input for fans, water pumps, and air pumps for 

the products that had these components. For some of the continuous ice makers, DOE measured 

augur motor power input while the ice maker was making ice. In some cases, DOE also 

measured the energy use associated with solenoid valves and the control boards. 

DOE made air flow measurements for all air-cooled condensers using a hot wire 

anemometer. The location of these measurements varied depending on the heat exchanger type 

and configuration. The determination of air flows based on these measurements is not very 

reliable, so this measurement was used as an indication of air flow trends more than an exact 

indication of air flow for the various products. 

Details of the cabinet size, heat exchanger dimensions, insulation thickness, etc. were 

based on direct physical measurements, made during the teardown process. DOE noted 

condenser details including type, configuration, numbers of tubes and fins, dimensions, etc. The 

details of evaporators and suction line heat exchangers were similarly determined during 

teardown. 

DOE recorded component manufacturer and model data for key components such as 

compressors, fans, and controls. 

5.5.3 Manufacturer Interviews

DOE’s contractor discussed engineering issues with manufacturers during the 

preliminary analysis interviews. The engineering questions were consolidated into an 

engineering questionnaire, which guided the interview process for all of these discussions. The 

engineering questionnaire is shown in appendix 12A. Key technical topics addressed during 

these discussions include the following: 

• Typical characteristics of components and typical design details (i.e., evaporator 

configuration) used for key equipment classes

• Typical design differences between baseline and ENERGY STAR products 

• Differences in design pathways and incremental costs across different equipment classes 

• Viability of technology options and their typical costs 

All of these interviews were conducted under non-disclosure agreements with the 

manufacturers. Hence, none of the individual responses can be reported. However, values for 

many of the parameters and costs used in the engineering analysis were based on aggregated 

input from these discussions. 
5-18

5.5.4 Energy Testing

DOE conducted energy testing to verify energy use of several of the ice makers obtained 

for reverse engineering, and to provide information about refrigeration system operating 

conditions during different phases of operation to support energy use modeling. Ten ice makers 

were tested, as indicated in Table 5.5.2. During the tests, the following data were recorded: 

• Potable water use

• Refrigeration circuit temperatures

• Refrigerant pressures

• Potable water circuit temperatures 

• Air temperatures, including the evaporator compartment, compressor/condenser 

compartment, condenser fan air outlet (for air-cooled and remote air-cooled machines)

• Cooling water inlet and outlet temperatures

• Machine power input raw data and accumulated energy use

5.6 MANUFACTURING COST MODELING

5.6.1 Generation of Bills of Materials

Each teardown resulted in a structured bill of materials (BOM). Structured BOMs 

describe each product part and its relationship to the other parts in the estimated order in which 

manufacturers assembled them. The BOMs describe each fabrication and assembly operation in 

detail, including the type of equipment needed (e.g., presses, drills), the process cycle times, and 

the labor associated with each manufacturing step. The result is a thorough and explicit model of 

the production process, which includes space, conveyor, and equipment requirements by planned 

production level. 

The BOMs incorporate all materials, components, and fasteners classified as either raw 

materials or purchased parts and assemblies. The classifications into raw materials or purchased 

parts were based on DOE’s previous industry experience, recent information in trade 

publications, and discussions with high- and low-volume original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs). DOE also visited manufacturing plants to reinforce its understanding of the industry’s 

current manufacturing practices. 

For purchased parts, the purchase price is estimated based on volume-variable price 

quotations and detailed discussions with manufacturers and component suppliers. For fabricated 

parts, the prices of “raw” metals (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are estimated based on 5-year averages 

(see section 5.6.4.3), while all other materials and purchased parts reflect current market costs. 

The cost of transforming the intermediate materials into finished parts is estimated based on 

current industry pricing. 
5-19

5.6.2 Cost Structure of the Spreadsheet Models

The manufacturing cost assessment methodology used is a detailed, component-focused

technique for calculating the manufacturing cost of a product (direct materials, direct labor, and 

the overhead costs associated with production). The first step in the manufacturing cost 

assessment was the creation of a complete and structured BOM from the disassembly of the units 

selected for teardown. The units were dismantled, and each part was characterized according to 

weight, manufacturing processes used, dimensions, material, and quantity. The BOM 

incorporated all materials, components, and fasteners with estimates of raw material costs and 

purchased part costs. Assumptions about the sourcing of parts and in-house fabrication were 

based on industry experience, information in trade publications, and discussions with 

manufacturers. Interview and plant visits were conducted with manufacturers to add industry 

experience on the methodology and pricing. 

The last step was to convert this information into dollar values. To perform this task, 

DOE collected information on labor rates, tooling costs, raw material prices, and other factors. 

DOE assumed values for these parameters using internal expertise and confidential information 

available to DOE contractors. Although most of the assumptions are manufacturer specific and 

cannot be revealed, section 5.6.4.2 discusses the values used for each assumption. 

In summary, DOE assigned costs of labor, materials, and overhead to each part, whether 

purchased or produced in-house. DOE then aggregated single-part costs into major assemblies 

(e.g., heat exchanger assembly, potable water system, packaging, controls, fan/motor assembly,

refrigerant circuit, wiring harnesses) and summarized these costs in a worksheet. 

5.6.3 Cost Model and Definitions

Once DOE disassembled selected units, gathered information from manufacturer catalogs 

on additional products, and identified technologies, DOE created an appropriate manufacturing 

cost model that could translate physical information into MPCs. The cost model is based on 

production activities and divides factory costs into the following categories: 

• Materials: Purchased parts (i.e., compressor, fan motors, control boards, etc.), raw 

materials (i.e., cold rolled steel, copper tube, etc.), and indirect materials that are used for 

processing and fabrication. 

• Labor: Fabrication, assembly, indirect, and supervisor labor. Fabrication and assembly 

labor costs are burdened with benefits and supervisory costs. 

• Overhead: Equipment, tooling, and building depreciation, as well as utilities, equipment 

and tooling maintenance, insurance, and property taxes. 

5.6.3.1 Cost Definitions

Because there are many different accounting systems and methods to monitor costs, DOE 

defined the above terms as follows: 
5-20

• Direct material: Purchased parts (out-sourced) plus manufactured parts (made in-house 

from raw materials).

• Indirect material: Material used during manufacturing (e.g., welding rods, adhesives). 

• Fabrication labor: Labor associated with in-house piece manufacturing.

• Assembly labor: Labor associated with final assembly.

• Indirect labor: Labor costs that scaled with fabrication and assembly labor. This included 

the cost of technicians, manufacturing engineering support, stocking, etc. that were 

assigned on a span basis.

• Equipment and plant depreciation: Money allocated to pay for initial equipment 

installation and replacement as the production equipment wears out. 

• Tooling depreciation: Cost for initial tooling (including nonrecurring engineering and 

debugging of the tools) and tooling replacement as tools wear out.

• Building depreciation: Money allocated to pay for the building space and the conveyors 

that feed and/or make up the assembly line.

• Utilities: Electricity, gas, telephones, etc.

• Maintenance: Money spent annually on maintaining tooling and equipment. 

• Insurance: Appropriated as a function of unit cost. 

• Property Tax: Appropriated as a function of unit cost. 

5.6.4 Cost Model Assumptions Overview

As discussed in the previous section, assumptions about manufacturer practices and cost 

structure were important to the final product cost estimate. 

In converting physical information about the product into cost information, DOE 

reconstructed manufacturing processes for each component using internal expertise and 

knowledge of the methods used by the industry. DOE used assumptions regarding the 

manufacturing process parameters (e.g., equipment use, labor rates, tooling depreciation, and 

cost of purchased raw materials) to determine the value of each component. DOE then summed 

the values of the components into assembly costs and, finally, the total product cost. The product 

cost included the material, labor, and overhead costs associated with the manufacturing facility. 

The material costs included both direct and indirect materials. The labor costs included 

assembly, fabrication, supervisor, and indirect labor. Overhead costs included equipment 

depreciation, tooling depreciation, building depreciation, utilities, equipment, tooling 

maintenance, insurance, property, and taxes. 
5-21

DOE used the information gathered from manufacturer interviews and factory visits to 

help in development of the cost model. 

The following sections discuss specific assumptions about outsourcing, factory 

parameters, production volumes, and material prices. Manufacturer-specific assumptions are 

presented as industry averages to prevent disclosure of confidential information. 

5.6.4.1 Fabrication Estimates

DOE characterized parts based on whether manufacturers purchased them from outside 

suppliers or fabricated them in-house. For purchased parts, DOE estimated the purchase price. 

For fabricated parts, DOE estimated the price of raw materials (e.g., tube, sheet metal) and the 

cost of transforming them into finished parts. Whenever possible, DOE obtained price quotes 

directly from the manufacturers’ suppliers.

DOE based the manufacturing operations assumptions on internal expertise, interviews 

with manufacturers, and manufacturing facilities site visits. The major manufacturer processes 

identified and developed for the spreadsheet model are listed in Table 5.6.1. Fabrication process 

cycle times were estimated and entered into the BOM. 

Table 5.6.1 Cost Model In-House Manufacturing Operation Assumptions

Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining Quality Control

Fixturing

Stamping/Pressing

Turret Punch

Tube Forming

Machine

Cutting & Shearing

T-Drill

Tube/Wire Bending

Brazing

Vacuum Forming

Blow Molding

Washing

Painting

Powder Coating

De-burring

Polishing

Refrigerant Charging 

Adhesive Bonding

Spot Welding

Seam Welding

Packaging

Inspecting & Testing

5.6.4.2 Factory Parameters Assumptions

DOE used information gathered from publicly available literature, manufacturer 

interviews, and analysis of common industry practices to formulate factory parameters for each 

type of manufacturer. DOE first made assumptions about a set of preliminary factory parameters 

before the manufacturer interviews. DOE then revised the assumptions using comments and 

information gathered during the interviews. Table 5.6.2 lists DOE’s assumptions for ice maker

manufacturers. 

Table 5.6.2 ACIM Factory Parameter Assumptions

Parameter Batch Continuous

Plant Capacity (units/yr) 25,000 6,000

Actual Annual Production Volume (units/yr) 12,000 3,000

Fabrication Labor Wages ($/hr) 16.00 16.00

Fringe Benefits Ratio 50% 50%
5-22

5.6.4.3 Material Cost Assumptions

DOE determined the cost of raw materials using publicly available information such as 

the American Metals Market,

2

 interviews with manufacturers, and direct discussions with 

material suppliers. Common metals used in the fabrication of ice makers include cold rolled 

steel, stainless steel, copper tubing, and aluminum. There have been large fluctuations in metal 

prices over the last few years. To account for these fluctuations, DOE used a 5-year average of 

metal prices from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Indices (PPIs) spanning from 

2006 to 2011 with an adjustment to 2011 dollars (2011$).3 DOE used the PPIs for copper rolling, 

drawing, and extruding and steel mill products, and made the adjustments to 2011$ using the 

gross domestic product implicit price deflator.4 For resins used in the fabrication of these 

refrigeration products, DOE used current resin prices gathered from industry research, 

publications such as Plastics News,5 and interviews with manufacturers. 

5.6.5 Manufacturing Production Cost

After finalizing the cost estimate for each teardown unit, DOE prepared a detailed 

summary for relevant components, subassemblies, and processes. The BOM thus details all 

aspects of product costs. DOE totaled the cost of materials, labor, and direct overhead used to 

manufacture a product in order to calculate the manufacturing production cost.c Figure 5.6.1

shows the general breakdown of costs associated with manufacturing a product. 

 

c When viewed from the companywide perspective, the sum of all material, labor, and overhead costs equals the 

company’s sales cost, also referred to as the cost of goods sold.
5-23

Figure 5.6.1 Full Production Costs

The full cost of the product is equal to the manufacturer selling price (MSP) minus 

profits. The full cost includes the MPC and the non-production cost. 

5.6.6 Incremental Cost Estimates

Incremental costs were determined for design options and are applied to the estimated 

cost of the baseline-efficiency ice makers. The approach for estimating the incremental costs 

varied depending on the design option. Details in this calculation that are specific to individual 

design options are discussed in section 5.9. Aspects of the incremental cost calculation that were 

generally applied to multiple design options are discussed in this section. 

Many of the design options involve replacement of a current component with a higherefficiency component. For these design options, the increased price paid by the OEM for the new 

component represents the manufacturing cost increase—other elements of product cost such as 

overhead and capital expenditures would be insignificantly affected by these design changes. 

The appropriate price increases are discussed in section 5.9 by design option. 

For some design changes, calculating the cost impact of the design change required direct 

use of the manufacturing cost model to determine changes to a number of parts. The baseline 

manufacturing cost was subtracted from the manufacturing cost of the modified design to 

determine the incremental cost of the design option. This approach was used in particular for 

condenser size increases.

Manufacturer 

Selling Price

Full Cost of 

Product

Manufacturer 

Production Cost

Direct 

Labor

Direct 

Material Overhead

Indirect Labor

Indirect Material

Maintenance

Depreciation

Taxes

Insurance related 

to assets

Non-Production 

Cost

Selling

Market 

Research

Advertising

POS Promotion

Salesperson 

Comp & Travel

Logistics 

(Warehousing, 

Delivery, RecordKeeping, Order 

Processing)

General & 

Admin.

Costs of 

Service & 

Staff Units

General 

Corporate 

Costs 

(Comp, etc)

R & D

Costs associated 

with finding new 

and improved 

products or 

processes

Code 

Compliance

Modernization

Interest

Cost of 

borrowing 

funds

Profit
5-24

5.6.6.1 G&A and Profit 

DOE estimated the further addition to the MSP associated with general and 

administrative costs (G&A) and profit for the appliance industry as 25 percent of MPC. This 

adder was applied to all of the MPC estimates in order to determine MSP numbers. This markup 

is described in more detail in section 5.7. 

5.7 MANUFACTURER MARKUP

Manufacturers and dealers apply a markup to cover their operating costs and profit 

margins in manufacturing and distribution. In the engineering analysis, DOE determined a 

manufacturer markup and applied it to the MPC to arrive at the MSP. 

For the preliminary analysis, DOE usually develops this manufacturer markup multiplier 

by examining the annual reports and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K filings of 

several major manufacturers. Because the 10-K reports do not provide gross margin information 

at the subsidiary or business unit level, the gross margin as taken from the 10-K reports 

represents the average markups that parent companies apply over their entire range of product 

offerings. Each company considered may manufacture equipment other than commercial ice 

makers, and as such the parent company’s gross margins could differ significantly from those of 

the subsidiary or business unit dedicated to the manufacturing of automatic commercial ice 

makers. Hence, DOE modified its usual approach for this rulemaking. 

For this analysis, DOE used the gross margins of a single manufacturer whose total 

operations are most closely tied to the production of automatic commercial ice makers as the 

basis for its estimate of manufacturer markup because the other manufacturers examined derive 

most of their revenue from business units unrelated to ice maker manufacturing and/or have a 

very small market share. Considering this manufacturer’s unique position of having an integrated 

dealer network, DOE corrected for their gross-margin-based markup by splitting it, assigning 

equal markup factors to the manufacturing and dealer units of the business, and arriving at an 

estimated 1.25 manufacturer markup factor. DOE intends to investigate this value during 

confidential interviews with manufacturers and will adjust its preliminary estimate accordingly.

5.8 ENERGY MODELING

DOE carried out detailed energy modeling of representative ice makers, and on design 

variations of these products that included one or more of the design options considered for the 

engineering analysis. This energy modeling work served as the basis for estimates of energy 

savings potential associated with the design options. The products selected for reverse 

engineering provided the basis for the energy modeling. Energy model input was determined for 

these products from the data collected during the reverse engineering work, described in section 

5.5.2. Additional data, used both as input and for calibration of individual product energy 

models, was provided by energy testing as described in section 5.5.4. Using the energy modeling 

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.
5-25

DOE carried out energy modeling during this rulemaking using an improved version of 

the FREEZE simulation program. Section 5.8.1 describes this model briefly. A more detailed 

description of the program and its recent development is presented in appendix 5A. 

5.8.1 FREEZE Model Overview

FREEZE is an energy model that simulates the performance of both batch and continuous 

ice makers. As applied to batch ice makers, FREEZE is a transient model that can calculate 

changes in operating conditions as a function of time. This feature is important for batch type 

machines for which refrigerant temperatures and pressures undergo large changes during the 

freeze cycle due to ice buildup on the evaporator. 

The original version of FREEZE, developed by Anthony Varone in 1995 to operate in an 

MSDOS environment, has been upgraded to operate in a Windows environment. The model can 

simulate systems with a variety of configurations that include:

• batch or continuous ice making; 

• air-cooled or water-cooled condensers, with a variety of air-cooled condenser 

configurations; 

• water makeup for batch ice makers (a) entirely before the freeze cycle, (b) continuous fill 

as would be the case using a float valve, or (c) a hybrid combining these approaches; 

• liquid-line/suction-line heat exchanger; 

• choice of compressor; and

• choice of common refrigerants. 

The FREEZE process is modeled using energy balances on the evaporator mass, ice 

mass, sump water, and water system. The evaporator plate, ice mass, sump water, and water 

system are each treated as lumped bodies, each at their own uniform temperature to calculate 

transient heat transfer between components. The energy balances account for heat transfer into 

and out of each component, energy storage, and enthalpy fluxes associated with refrigerant flow 

in and out, the freezing process, and makeup water. External heat transfer into the system 

includes ambient heat leak and the electrical energy associated with the water pump.

A major challenge to modeling batch type machines is calculating the overall evaporator 

thermal conductance, which varies throughout the cycle due to ice buildup on the evaporator. 

This is accomplished using user-defined curves for heat transfer versus ice mass on the 

evaporator that account for conduction heat transfer from the water, through the ice, and through 

the evaporator. The evaporator thermal conductance (evaporator UA) curves are generated by a 

separate spreadsheet-based conduction heat transfer analysis and depend on the specific 

evaporator design. Sixth-order best-fit polynomial curve fits for evaporator thermal conductance 

as a function of ice mass on the evaporator are determined based on this separate analysis—these 

curve fits are used in the FREEZE model to represent the evaporator thermal conductance. The 

evaporator UA (the product of the overall heat transfer coefficient and the heat transfer surface 

area) curves were developed for the two most common evaporator types. Refrigerant heat 

transfer coefficients are calculated within the program and are used along with the evaporator 

thermal conductance to calculate the overall thermal conductance from the water to the 

refrigerant. 
5-26

The refrigerant cycle model is a descendant of the National Institute of Science and 

Technology (NIST) CYCLE7 model that has been modified to incorporate the transient effects 

associated with ice buildup on the evaporator plate. There is a choice of six refrigerants, 

including R-404A, the most common refrigerant used in ice-making applications. Refrigerant 

thermodynamic and thermophysical properties are calculated using REFPROP 8.0. 

Continuous ice makers operate at steady-state. Thus, conditions do not change with time. 

Program output includes ice production rate, energy consumption, and refrigerant cycle 

conditions. As with the modeling of batch type machines, evaporator thermal performance is a 

user-defined parameter and is not calculated within the program. Additional inputs include ice 

hardness of the output ice, auger motor power and efficiency, and heat leak from the ambient 

into the evaporator. 

Compressor performance is determined from user-created data files based on compressor 

maps provided by compressor manufacturers. Compressor capacity and power are adjusted at 

each point in the calculation to reflect suction, discharge, and liquid conditions different from 

rating conditions.

Machines with either air-cooled or water-cooled condensers can be modeled. For aircooled condensers, refrigerant and air side heat transfer coefficients and pressure drop are 

calculated within the program using models developed recently for the Efficient Refrigerator 

Analysis (ERA) program as part of the residential refrigeration product rulemaking. 76 FR 

57516, 57531 (Sept. 15, 2011). Required heat exchanger input data include tube diameter and 

wall thickness, number of tubes, tube spacing, fin type, fin spacing, fin material and thickness, 

air flow rate and inlet temperature, fan power, and refrigerant outlet subcooling. 

Water-cooled condenser operation is based on maintaining a constant condensing 

pressure and therefore temperature, and is thus modeled based on maintaining a constant 

condensing bubble-point temperature as defined by the user. User inputs include condensing 

temperature, refrigerant subcooling, and pressure drop. 

The expansion device (e.g., thermostatic expansion valve) is not modeled explicitly.

Instead, it is simulated in the model as maintaining a constant evaporator superheat throughout 

the freeze cycle as specified by the user. 

The FREEZE program can model systems with a liquid-line/suction-line heat exchanger 

and accounts for suction line heat gain from the ambient and refrigerant pressure drop in the 

suction line. User inputs include heat exchanger effectiveness, suction line heat transfer, and 

pressure drop. 

Each freeze cycle requires a flow of water necessary to flush out impurities from the 

system and to provide water to make up for the water harvested as ice. Generally, there are two

strategies for providing makeup water. The first, referred to as a batch fill strategy, involves 

filling the sump with the water needed to dilute impurities and to produce a batch of ice. The 

second strategy, referred to as a continuous fill strategy, involves supplying a flow of makeup 

water corresponding to the rate at which ice is frozen on the evaporator plate. Both strategies can 

be modeled. The continuous fill approach allows initiation of filling at sump levels other than 
5-27

100 percent—this is a hybrid batch/continuous fill approach in which the water level drops as ice 

freezes until the water level reaches the predetermined level.

Evaporator cold compartment configurations vary widely and thus are not amenable to 

general analytical treatment. Some designs enclose the evaporator in a fully insulated cabinet 

with a plastic liner, while for others the evaporator cold compartment is formed by cabinet sheet 

metal with Styrofoam or batt insulation attached. Some designs may have parts of walls or entire 

walls that are uninsulated. Some place the sump entirely inside the cold compartment while 

others have the sump straddling the cold compartment and the compressor compartment.

Because of the wide variety of designs, the model does not calculate the heat leak into the cold 

compartment from basic cabinet design parameters. Instead, it is modeled using a user-defined 

evaporator cold compartment thermal conductance parameter.

The harvest process involves bypassing the condenser to allow hot refrigerant to flow 

directly from the compressor to the evaporator to provide the heat input to free the ice from the 

plate. A number of manufacturers also assist the harvest process either by mechanical means or 

by using the heat contained in the makeup water. In FREEZE, the effects of harvest on 

performance are determined based on input data for the harvest time, ice meltage, and harvest 

energy consumption. 

Parasitic power consumption of components such as control circuit boards, solenoid 

valves, and harvest assist devices are modeled by entering the power consumption of each 

component. 

5.9 DESIGN OPTIONS

After conducting the screening analysis described in chapter 4, DOE considered the 

remaining technologies in the design option analysis. Table 5.9.1 lists the design options DOE 

considered for each equipment class. Some design options are applicable only to certain types of 

equipment. Following the table is a description of how DOE applied each of the design options 

during the engineering analysis. See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for background 

descriptions of the technologies. 
5-28

Table 5.9.1 Design Options by Equipment Class

Ice Maker Type Equipment Class

Compressor UpgradeCondenser Fan MotorsPump MotorsAuger MotorsAir-Cooled CondensersHarvest AssistBatch Fill

Batch

IMH-W-B  

* * 

IMH-A-B    

RCU-B    

SCU-W-B  

SCU-A-B    

Continuous

IMH-W-C  

IMH-A-C    

RCU-C    

SCU-W-C  

SCU-A-C    

* Used in a few limited cases where this design option was applicable.

5.9.1 Improved Compressor Efficiency

DOE considered the substitution of higher-efficiency compressors for all equipment 

classes. DOE acquired compressor performance data from compressor manufacturers for use in 

the energy analysis, including capacity and power input for scroll and reciprocating compressors 

with capacities of 1,000 to 36,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) rated at AHRI 540 

Medium Temperature testing conditions. Table 5.9.2 lists the AHRI 540 Medium Temperature 

operating test conditions. Not all compressor vendors provided compressor performance data at 

these operating conditions. DOE adjusted the obtained data if necessary to represent performance 

at these standard conditions. The nominal energy efficiency ratio (EER)d for the available 

compressors is summarized as a function of compressor capacity in Figure 5.9.1 . 

Table 5.9.2 AHRI 540 Medium Temperature Operating Test Conditions

Condensing Temperature 120 oF

Evaporating Temperature 20 oF

Suction Temperature 40 oF

Subcooling 0 oF

 

d EER is equal to compressor capacity in British thermal units per hour divided by compressor input power in watts.
5-29

Figure 5.9.1 Efficiency Curve for Typical Compressor Capacities Used in Commercial Ice 

Makers 

DOE considered higher-efficiency replacement compressors, identified through 

discussions with compressor suppliers or review of compressor supplier websites, with a 

capacity within 10 percent of the replaced compressor. The energy model accounted for the 

impact on ice maker energy use of both the EER improvement and the capacity change in the 

analysis.

5.9.1.1 Compressor Cost Data

DOE developed a cost correlation for medium temperature compressors as part of the 

commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE) rulemaking, relating the compressor cost to its 

capacity. DOE also adopted an approach for evaluating the potential for efficiency improvement 

and the cost associated with higher efficiency as part of the CRE rulemaking, in which DOE

assumed that a 10 percent compressor EER improvement was possible for all equipment, and 

that this would increase compressor cost by 5 percent.

6 DOE adopted a slightly modified 

approach for the current rulemaking. DOE assigned the cost derived using the cost correlation to 

median-EER compressors of a given capacity. Further, DOE applied an exponential cost 

relationship for higher-EER compressors that is consistent with a 5 percent cost increase for 10

percent EER improvement. However, DOE based the potential for compressor efficiency 

improvement on the available compressor data, rather than assuming a fixed 10 percent EER

improvement. The cost curve applicable for median-EER compressors is shown in Figure 5.9.2. 

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

EER (Btu / W-h)

Compressor Capacity (Btu / h)

Reciprocating Compressors

Scroll Compressors
5-30

The cost curve is based on capacity at modified operating conditions, at 15 °F evaporating

temperature and 95 °F condensing temperature. On average, the capacity for these conditions is 

1.29 times the capacity at the AHRI 540 rating conditions. 

Figure 5.9.2 Cost Curves for Medium Temperature Compressors Used in Commercial Ice 

Makers 

When considering compressor efficiency improvement for standard-size products, DOE 

used the performance data of specific higher-efficiency compressors in the energy analysis. DOE

selected the alternative compressors to have nearly the same capacity as the baseline 

compressors to ensure nearly identical performance except for compressor power input. 

DOE used the following exponential relationship to determine the cost increase 

associated with higher-EER compressors: 

NNN CCCC = BB BBB CCCC × 1.05�

log(New EER ÷Old EER)

log(1.1) �

For a 10 percent increase in EER, this relationship yields a 5 percent increase in cost, 

consistent with the approach used for the CRE rulemaking. 

5.9.2 Increased Air-Cooled Condenser Surface Area

The condenser transfers heat from the refrigerant to the ambient air. A larger surface area 

allows the heat transfer to occur more efficiently, allowing the refrigerant circuit to operate with 

a lower condensing temperature. DOE considered an increase in condenser surface area for all 

air-cooled products analyzed. For IMH and SCU ice makers, the size increase was limited by 

available space. DOE reviewed the space available in the teardown products that served as the 

basis for the energy modeling to determine how much size increase would be possible without 

requiring an increase in the overall equipment size. In some cases, DOE determined that no size 

y = 59.542ln(x) - 329.14

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Cost ($)

Capacity at Modified Operating Conditions (Btu / h)

Compressor Cost

Compressor Cost Curve Fit
5-31

increase was possible. For RCU ice makers, DOE considered condenser size increases that 

required an increase in remote condenser size.

Condenser size increases were implemented in the energy analysis through direct 

adjustment of the input parameters describing the condenser geometry. DOE increased either the 

number or length of tube rows as appropriate for the space available for size increase, increasing 

air flow to maintain a constant face velocity, or maintaining constant air flow, depending on 

which approach was most effective in reducing overall energy use. DOE accounted for the 

impact of condenser size increase and air flow changes on condenser fan power input, assuming 

that for the initial design (1) three-quarters of the total condenser air flow system pressure drop is 

associated with pressure drop through the condenser itself; (2) pressure drop is proportional to 

condenser face velocity; and (3) fan power input is proportional to air flow times pressure drop. 

The cost associated with the condenser size increase was calculated using the 

manufacturing cost model with model inputs adjusted for condenser geometric details. During 

the NOPR phase, DOE expects to evaluate the need to also consider when an increase in 

condenser size necessitates addition of a receiver, or an increase in size of an existing receiver, in 

order to ensure that the increased refrigerant charge will be properly managed for all ice maker 

operating modes. 

5.9.3 Evaporator Size Increase for Continuous Ice Makers

The evaporator transfers heat from the freezing liquid water to the refrigerant. Larger 

surface area allows the heat transfer to occur more efficiently, allowing the refrigeration system 

to transfer the same amount of heat with a higher evaporating temperature. DOE considered an 

increase in evaporator surface area for some continuous ice makers analyzed. In these cases, 

DOE assumed that the cost for the evaporator assembly would be 10 percent higher for a 50 

percent increase in surface area. DOE implemented these changes in the energy model by 

increasing the model input UA value (heat transfer coefficient times effective evaporator surface 

area, with overall units of Btu/h-°F) consistent with the surface area increase.

5.9.4 Condenser Fan Motors

A condenser fan in a commercial ice maker draws in ambient air and circulates it through 

the condenser coils and over the compressor shell, thereby cooling the condensing refrigerant 

and the compressor. The motors used to run these fans are typically shaded pole (SP) or 

permanent split capacitor (PSC) motors with shaft power outputs ranging from 3 to 750 W, 

depending on the ice maker’s harvest capacity. DOE analyzed the efficiencies of these motors 

through and found that permanent magnet DC (PMDC) fan motors are more efficient than SP or 

PSC motors currently used in baseline commercial ice makers. 

Table 5.9.3 lists the shaft output power range and efficiency ranges of different types of 

motors suitable for use in condenser fans. This information was obtained through supplier 

interviews, motor literature, and examination of the motors used in the reverse engineering ice 

makers. In the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE assumed that the efficiencies of the three 

motor types are 25 percent for SP, 45 percent for standard-efficiency PSC, 65 percent for 

highest-efficiency PSC, and 75 percent for PMDC. While these efficiencies may apply only for a 
5-32

specific shaft power level, DOE assumed that the efficiencies at different shaft power output 

levels scale similarly. For example, at a lower shaft power level a shaded power motor may have 

an efficiency of 15 percent. DOE then calculated the efficiency of a replacement standardefficiency PSC motor as 15% × 45 ÷ 25 = 27%. 

Table 5.9.3 Expected Shaft Power Output Range and Efficiencies for Different Types of 

Motors

Motor Type Output Power Range Efficiency Range

Shaded Pole (SP) 3 to 60 W 14 to 25%

Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) 9 to 750 W 50 to 70%

Permanent Magnet Direct Current (PMDC) 3 to 750 W 75 to 83%

Based on the information obtained from the sources mentioned above, DOE developed a 

matrix of costs of different motor types as a function of shaft output power. This information, 

which was used for the preliminary engineering analysis, is summarized in Table 5.9.4. 

Table 5.9.4 Motor Cost Information Use for Preliminary Engineering Analysis 

Shaft Power

W Horsepower Shaded Pole StandardEfficiency PSC

HighestEfficiency PSCPermanent 

Magnet DC

6 0.008 $10 $14 $16

9 0.012 $12 $18 $22

12 0.016 $14 $20 $24

25 0.034 $26 $32 $41 $36

37 0.050 $28 $53 $66 $93

60 0.080 $30 $70 $89 $110

100 0.134 $90 $115 $132

200 0.268 $108 $141 $155

373 0.500 $128 $166 $173

560 0.750 $143 $184 $190

746 1.000 $155 $200 $205

5.9.5 Auger Motors

Augers are integrated into the evaporators of continuous commercial ice makers, as 

discussed in chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD. Auger assemblies incorporate a motor and a gear 

drive to reduce the motor speed to that of the auger. The motors typically used for augers in ice 

makers using single-phase power are PSC or capacitor start induction run (CSIR) motors with 

shaft power output between 200 and 400 W. 

For the preliminary engineering analysis, DOE used the performance and cost 

information obtained for condenser fan motors to estimate both the efficiency improvement and 

the cost impact of switching to other motor types. DOE assumed for this analysis that CSIR 

motor performance and cost are equivalent to the performance and cost of standard-efficiency 

PSC motors. DOE will collect additional information to allow adjustment of this approach in the 

NOPR phase as appropriate.

5.9.6 Pump Motors

Water pumps are used in batch commercial ice makers to transport water from the water 

sump to the ice tray where water is frozen. The motors used for these pumps are exclusively SP 
5-33

motors with shaft power outputs between 6 and 15 W. As with auger motors, DOE used the 

information collected for condenser fan motors to evaluate pump motor design options in the 

preliminary engineering analysis, assuming that this information is also representative of the 

potential for performance improvement and cost increase for pump motors. 

5.10 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS

This section presents the engineering analysis results, including the incremental cost 

curves. DOE generated cost-efficiency curves for ice maker equipment classes, based on 

combinations of individual design options. DOE normalized the curves by converting to costs at 

specific efficiency levels, as previously defined for each equipment class (see section 5.4) for 

simplified downstream analysis.

Table 5.10.1 presents MPC, MSP, and water use characteristics for baseline batch ice 

makers. The table also indicates which equipment classes were used for extrapolation of results 

for equipment classes that were not directly analyzed. 

Table 5.10.2 presents incremental MSP for the evaluated efficiency levels for batch ice 

makers. The representative harvest capacities indicated in the tables are those of the products 

analyzed—they indicate the variation of baseline equipment characteristics and incremental MSP 

as a function of harvest capacity within given equipment classes.

Table 5.10.1 Batch Ice Maker Baseline Characteristics and Extrapolation Approach 

Equipment 

Class

Representative 

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

MPC MSP 

Potable 

Water Use

gal/

100 lb

Condenser 

Water Use 

gal/

100 lb

Extrapolation: Results 

for this equipment 

class based on 

extrapolation from the 

following equipment 

class

IMH-W

Small 300 $1,668 $2,085 22 156 IMH-A-Small-B

Medium 850 $2,762 $3,453 21 148 Direct Analysis

Large 1,500 $4,055 $5,069 20 137 IMH-A-Large-B

2,600 $6,571 $8,214 Direct Analysis

IMH-A

Small 300 $1,671 $2,089 22

NA

Direct Analysis

Large 800 $2,447 $3,059 20 Direct Analysis

1,500 $4,035 $5,044 Direct Analysis

RCU

Small 700 $2,882 $3,602 21

NA

RCU-Large-B

Large 1,500 $5,097 $6,371 20 Direct Analysis

2,400 $6,205 $7,756 Direct Analysis

SCU-W

Small 110 $1,806 $2,258 29 165 SCU-A-Small-B

Large 300 $1,815 $2,269 28 165 Direct Analysis

SCU-A

Small 110 $1,806 $2,258 30 NA Direct Analysis

Large 200 $1,810 $2,263 26 SCU-A-Small-B
5-34

Table 5.10.2 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Price Results for Batch Ice makers 

Equipment 

Class

Max 

Available

Representative 

Harvest 

Capacity 

lb/24 hours

EL2* EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Max Tech

Level Cost

IMH-W 10% 15% 20%

Small 25% 300 $32 14% $38

Medium 22% 850 $25 10% $25

Large 23% 1,500 $12 11% $18

8% 2,600 3% $12

IMH-A 10% 15% 20%

Small 24% 300 $10 $24 $55 20% $55 

Large 21% 800 $10 $29 $126 20% $126 

1,500 $12 $90 15% $90 

RCU 9% 15% 20% 25%

Small 20% 700 $12 $50 16.5% $68

Large 40% 1,500 $16 $81 16.5% $103

27% 2,400 $147 14% $204

SCU-W 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 25% 110 $10 $27 $41 24% $55

Large 28% 300 $10 $20 $27 $34 $43 39% $67

SCU-A 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 32% 110 $10 $31 $45 $56 28% $62

Large 31% 200 $17 $35 $46 $60 25% $60

* EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the base line efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.

Table 5.10.3 and Table 5.10.4 present the engineering analysis results for continuous ice 

makers. Table 5.10.3 does not present potable water use, since this is assumed to be 12 gal/100 

lb for all continuous ice makers. The table presents baseline ice maker condenser water use with

adjustment for ice hardness as established in the test procedure final rule. 77 FR at 1597 (Jan. 11, 

2012). The efficiency levels for RCU and SCU-W continuous ice makers in Table 5.10.4 are 

represented both in comparison with the batch ice maker efficiency levels and how these levels 

would compare with the continuous ice maker equipment class trial baseline. 
5-35

Table 5.10.3 Continuous Ice Maker Baseline Characteristics and Extrapolation Approach

Equipment 

Class

Representative 

Harvest 

Capacity

lb/24 hours

MPC MSP 

Condenser 

Water Use 

gal/

100 lb

Extrapolation: Results for this 

equipment class based on 

extrapolation from the 

following equipment class

IMH-W

Small 800 $2,748 $3,435 110 IMH-A-Small-C

Large 1,000 $3,125 $3,906 110 IMH-A-Small-C

1,800 $4,633 $5,791 IMH-A-Small-C

IMH-A

Small 310 $1,825 $2,281

NA

Direct Analysis

820 $2,786 $3,483 Direct Analysis

Large 1,000 $3,125 $3,906 IMH-A-Small-C

1,800 $4,633 $5,791 IMH-A-Small-C

RCU

Small 700 $3,055 $3,819 NA RCU-Large-B

Large 1,500 $4,563 $5,704 Direct Analysis

SCU-W

Small 110 No Analysis*

Large 300 $1,778 $2,223 110 SCU-W-Large-B

SCU-A

Small 110 $1,769 $2,211 NA SCU-W-Small-B

Large 300 $1,778 $2,223 IMH-A-Small-C

670 $2,503 $3,129 IMH-A-Small-C

* No products of this equipment class were identified in product databases.
5-36

Table 5.10.4 Incremental Manufacturer Selling Price Results for Continuous Ice Makers 

Equipment 

Class

Max 

Available

Representative 

Harvest 

Capacity 

lb/24 hours

EL2* EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 

Max Tech

Level Cost

IMH-W 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 35% 800 $5 $12 $20 $27 $78 33% $78

Large 20% 1,000 $16 $24 $38 24% $75

1,800 $18 $28 $50 24% $125

IMH-A 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 37% 310 $21 $35 $49 $63 $162 30% $162

820 $10 $20 $28 $36 $44 42% $138

Medium 32% 1,000 $18 $25 $33 $41 $94 35% $136

1,800 $25 $34 $43 $52 $126 35% $216

RCU

Batch 

Std.

(7%)

EL1

-10%

(17%)

EL1

-15%

(22%)

EL1

-20%

(26%)

EL1

-25%

(30%)

Small 26% 700 $9 $68 16.5% $68

Large 42% 1,500 $10 $103 16.5% $103

SCU-W 

Batch 

Std.

-20%

(3%)

Batch 

Std.

-25%

(10%)

Batch 

Std.

-30%

(16%)

Small NA**

Large 15% 300 $4 $12 $20 18% $22

SCU-A 7% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Small 11% 110 $24 $46 18% $51

Large 39% 300 $- $17 $30 $46 $62 36% $162

670 $- $37 $65 $98 $135 36% $335

* EL = efficiency level; EL1 is the base line efficiency level while EL2 through EL6 represent increased efficiency levels.

** No products of this equipment class were identified in product databases.
5-37

REFERENCES

1. Consortium for Energy Efficiency. High Efficiency Specifications for Commercial Ice 

Makers. July 2011. Boston, MA. <www.cee1.org/com/comkit/files/IceSpecification01Jul2011.pdf> 

2. American Metals Market. (Last accessed in 2011.) <www.amm.com>

3. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Producer Price Indices. (Last 

accessed in 2011.) <www.bls.gov/ppi> 

4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic Product 

Implicit Price Deflator. (Last accessed in 2011.) 

<https://bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid> 

5. Plastic News. Resin Pricing. (Last accessed in 2011.) 

<www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/headlines.phtml> 

6. U.S. Department of Energy–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

Preliminary Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Conservation Program for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment. March 2011. 

Chapter 5, Table 5.6.18, pp. 5–26. Washington, D.C. 

<www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/cre_pa_tsd_ch5_e

ngineering.pdf.>