# <icLr 1ma.1111/ldlar11_1• RIJJll1.11111

l

..

### This report has been reprocluced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE andDOE contractors from the Office ofScientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices availablefrom (423) 576-8401,FTS626-8401. Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Report is also available on the internet at address: www.energystar.gov.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency ofthe United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Governmentorany agency thereof.

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is operated by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp. for the U.S. Department ofEnergy underContractNo. DE-AC05-960R22464.

- ii -

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge Karen Aeschliman, Melvin Ahlquist, the Lik-Home Apartments, Wilfred Strahm, Jeff and Kim Baumgartner, John and Lori Baumgartner, Jay and Heidi Baumgartner, the Bern Meat Plant, Mr. and Ms. Ralph Bucher, Phillip Cepuran, Ron and

.Linda Creed, Pauline Curless, Ferne Cutshall, Julia and Richard Dawdy, Jocelyn Dunmire, Judith Edelman, Elizabeth Ehrsam, Tom Eisenbarth, Lois Enneking, Arlene Esslinger, Dennis and Gerty Esslinger, Jan and Jay Fankhauser, Theresa Feldkamp, Randy and Cindy Frey, Jim and Kay Frey, Robert Griffith, Joyce Grose, Betty Grossenbacher, Steve and K'Lynne Gugelman, Ben J. Hall, Roger Hanni, Steve and Lois Hartter, Neil and Evelyn Hartter, Chris Hartter, Jeffand Melinda Hass, Leon Haverkamp, Franci Haverkamp, Alan and Ronda Haverkamp, Marie Heiniger, Mavis Heiniger, Ken and Karla Hildebrand, James Huls, John Hundley, Harold A. Hunzeker, Roger and Rowena Kaster, Eldon Kaster, David and Lulu Korber, Tim and Yvonne Krehbiel, Leata Kuenzi, Ardena Kuenzi, Joyce and Dale Dorsch, Pearl Lear, Loyd Lockhart, Mike Lockhart, David and Marjorie Lortscher, Gary and Betty Lortscher, Theodore and Marci Rottinghaus, Robert Marthaler, Robert and Mary Haverkamp, Jr., Sara Meier, Robert and Janet Meyer, Larry Meyer, Holly Meyer, Jim and Kristin Meyer, Steve and Kaye Meyer, Dennis Meyer, Ms. Keith Meyer, Earl and Darlene Meyer, Terry and Nancy Miller, Steve Montgomery, Leon and Karen Mosteller, EleanorMosteller, Robert and Cindy Myers, KathyNissen, Lyn and Dean Parkinson, Nita Peretti, Dema Ralston, Roy Ralston, Jeannie Rosengarten, Valerie A. Rick, Mr. and Ms. Bill Saville, the Bern High School, Sheila Huls, Manager ofthe Bern Hair Shack, James and Margie Sheik, Bill and Terry Sheik, Randy and Sondra Badertscher, Donald Young, Sr., Dan Stallbaumer, Wilfred and Verona Strahm, Mr. and Ms. Elwin Strahm, Lynette and Ed Strathman, Marvin and Sherri Streit, Arnold Streit Ill, Jim and Betty Sudbeck, Eugenia Swart, Patty Thomason, the BernSabethaVet Clinic, Orville Walker, Pamela Walker, Mary Weaver, Darryl and Lori Wetzel, Gary Wilson, and Laurie Wilson for their participation in the study. Without their commitment to gathering data on each load of laundry done through this 5-month data collection period, this study could not have been possible. Three Bern residents Betty Lortscher, Diane Fitzgarrald, and Tim Krehbiel deserve special recognition, for they provided an important liaison between the project managers and the study participants. We would also like to thankthe Kansas Rural Water Association and its executive director, Mr. Elmer Ronnebaum for suggesting Bern as an appropriate site for the field study and for working with the project principals on many occasions to make the project a success. The authors would also like to express gratitude to Maytag Appliances for providing the horizontal-axis washers (Neptune models) for use in phase II ofthe study. Maytag contributed these washers along with other items needed for the field study as part ofa Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Maytag and Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation, manager ofOak RidgeNational Laboratory. · The authors would also like to thank Marc Lafrance and Bill Noel ofthe U.S. Department of Energy for their help and support in this project. Finally, we would like to thank the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation, in particular CliffPugh and Joe Lyons for helping with the design of the experiment, providing some of the instrumentation needed by the participants, and for metering and evaluating Bern's water use during the two SuperWash Saturdays. Withoutthe help and assistance ofthese organizations and individuals, the project would not have been possible.

- iii

-CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
........................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES
........................................................................................................................vii LIST OFTABLES
....................................................................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT
....................................................................................................................................xi GLOSSARY
...................................................................................................................................xii I. OVERVIEWANDOBJECTIVE OFTHEFIELD STUDY
.............................................. 1 2. HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED
.........................................................................3 3. INITIATING THE PROJECT
............................................................................................5 3.1 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
.............................................................................5 3.2 SITE SELECTION PROCESS
..............................................................................6 3.3 BERN, KANSAS
...................................................................................................6 3.4 PARTICIPANT SELECTION
............................................................................. 10 3.5 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
................................................................................ 13 3.5.I Instrumentation
....................................................................................... 14 3.5.2 Schedule
.................................................................................................. 16 3.6 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
.................................. 16 4. OVERALLFINDINGS AND IMPACTS
......................................................................... 19 4.1 IMPACTS ON LOAD SIZE
................................................................................ 19 4.2 WATERCONSUMPTION
..................................................................................20 4.3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
................................................................................22 4.4 DETERGENT USE AND CONSUMPTION
......................................................26 4.5 IMPACTS ON USE OF OTHERADDITIVES
..................................................29 4.6 IMPACTS ON LAUNDRY HABITS
..................................................................29 4.7 IMPACTS ON WASHER SETTINGS
................................................................29 4.8 CLEANING PERFORMANCE
..........................................................................30 4.9 IMPACTS ON LOAD DAMPNESS
..................................................................31 4.10 IMPACTS ON DRYING HABITS
......................................................................33 4.11 MUNICIPAL UTILITY IMPACTS
.....................................................................33 5. ANALYSES OF FINDINGS AND IMPACTS
................................................................39 5.1 WATERCONSUMPTION
..................................................................................39 5.2 CLEANING PERFORMANCE
...........................................................................42 5.3 MOISTURE REMOVAL PERFORMANCE
......................................................48 6. CONCLUSIONS
...............................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A. WATER METERMODIFICATION
.................................................................A.I APPENDIX B. EXAMPLES OF REPORTS TO PARTICIPANTS
...........................................A.2 Initial Phase I Report
.............................................................................................................A.3 Interim Phase II Report
..........................................................................................................A.5 Phase Iand II Comparison Report (third page ot)
.................................................................A.7 Letter AccompanyingComparison Report
............................................................................A.8 APPENDIX C. INTEGRITY AND QUALITY OF DATA
.......................................................A-11

- v -

### FIGURES 3.1 Panorama view ofBern, Kansas (from grain elevator)
............................................................. 7 3.2 H-axis washerwith study participantJill Meyer
....................................................................... 8 3.3 Washer manufacturerrepresentative: Mike Cox
....................................................................... 8 3.4 Bern study liaison team: Betty Lortscher, Tim Krehbiel, Diane Fitzgarrald
............................ 8 3.5 Downtown areaand local industries in Bern
............................................................................ 9 3.6 Dependence ofloads washed perweek on household size (pre-study estimates)
................... 11 3.7 Clothes washer market in the U.S. and in Bern
...................................................................... 12 3.8 Typical clothes washer ages.................................................................................................... 13 3.9 Datasheets for phase I(in background) and phase II (foreground) ofthe study
..................... 15 4.1 Distribution ofload weights in phase I and 11
......................................................................... 19 4.2 Average waterconsumption by participantfor phases I and 11
............................................... 21 4.3 ,Distribution ofwater use in phases Iand 11..
........................................................................... 22 4.4 Average washerenergy use by participantfor phases Iand 11
................................................ 24 4.5 Distribution ofenergy use in phases Iand 11...
........................................................................ 25 4.6 Average waterand energy consumed by phase I and II washers
............................................ 25 4.7 Distribution ofdetergent brands A-F and Tide HE in phases Iand 11...
.................................. 27 4.8 Detergent use by load
.............................................................................................................. 28 4.9 Changes in detergent concentration
........................................................................................ 28 4.10 Distribution ofwash loads through the week
.......................................................................... 30 4.11 Temperature utilization factors for phases I and II
................................................................. 30 4.12 Overall satisfaction with cleaning performance
...................................................................... 32 4.13 Overall satisfaction with dampness
......................................................................................... 32 4.14 How loads were dried
.............................................................................................................. 33 4.15 Bern's 50,000-gallon tank
....................................................................................................... 34 4.16 Rural waterdistrict standpipe (NemahaCounty)
......................................................,............. 34 4.17 Water utilization in Bern during first superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for phase Iwashers
....... 36 4.18 Water utilization in Bern and RWD during first superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for phase I washers
........................................................................................................................,........... 36 4.19 Collective waterconsumption ofparticipants' washers duringboth SWSs
............................ 37 5.1 Washing factors that determine waterconsumption
...............................................................40 5.2 Impact ofload weight on waterconsumption and savings produced
......................................41 5.3 Impact ofdetergenttype/concentration on average wateruse ................................................ 41 5.4 Washing factors that affect customer satisfaction
................................................................... 42 5.5 Dependence ofcleaning satisfaction ofphase Iwasheron its vintage
....................................44 5.6 Dependence ofcleaning satisfaction ofphase I Iwasherbased on experiencewith phase I washer (by vintage)
.................................................................................................................44 5.7 Relative cleaningperformance ofphase Iwashers versus initial soiled level oflaundry
....... 46 5.8 Relative cleaning performance ofphase II washers versus initial soiled level oflaundry
...... 47 5.9 Dependence ofcleaning satisfaction on detergent in phase II
................................................48 5.I0 Changes in satisfaction with cleaningperformance ofphase I and II washers
.......................49 5.11 Washing factors that affectcustomer satisfaction
................................................................... 49 5.12 Dependence ofdampness satisfaction with load weightfor phase 11
...................................... 50 5.13 Dependence ofdampness satisfaction with load weightfor phase 1
....................................... 50 5.14 Dependence ofdampness satisfaction on max. extract and extrarinse cycles (phase II washers)
.................................................................................................................................. 51 5.15 Dependence ofremaining moisture contenton load weight
................................................... 52 6.1 Projected impactofwasherreplacement on waterconsumption
............................................ 54 6.2 Projected impactofwasherreplacement on energy consumption
.......................................... 55

- VII

-

### TABLES 3.5.2 Project Schedulefor Bern Study
........................................................................................ 16 4.1 Average Energy and WaterConsumption in Phases Iand 11
............................................. 26 C.1 CompletenessofPhase Iand II Data Records
................................................................A.12 C.2 Quality(percent oftotal records) ofPhase Iand II Hotand Cold WaterCalculations
...A.14 C.3 Quality (percent oftotal records) ofPhase Iand II Pre-Wash and Post-Wash Weight Calculations
.....................................................................................................................A.14 0.1 Hot and Cold WaterTemperatures Measured at Each Participant's Washer
..................A.15

- viii -

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It comes as a surprise to manythat conventional domestic clothes washers use about40 gallons of water
- water weighing more than 300 pounds

- to wash a load ofclothes which typically may weigh only 7 pounds. This fact combined with knowledge that, on average, U.S. homes wash

,about one wash load each day, makes automatic clothes washers one ofthe highest end-uses of

water in today's homes. About 35 billion loads oflaundry are washed annually in the U.S. and this consumes 2.6% ofthe total residential energy use 1• Only a relatively small amount ofenergy is used by the clothes washer itselfto operate the motor and controls. A much larger component is in the energy needed to heat the water used by the washer and in the energy needed to dry clothes once they have been washed. Consequently, washers that have low hot water requirements and have effective spin cycles to remove moisture from the clothing thereby reducing the energy needed by the dryer, tend to be efficient and as long as the laundry throughput (load size) is not compromised, will use less waterand energy. Most clothes washers produced for the U.S. consumer are vertical axis (v-axis) washers with a central agitator. While there are variations, most v-axis washers suspend the clothes in a tub of water for washing and rinsing. As an alternative, the horizontal axis (h-axis) washer tumbles the wash load repeatedly through a small pool ofwater atthe bottom ofthe tub to produce the needed agitation. This tends to reduce the need for both hot and cold water. The h-axis washer, popular in Europe, has a very limited market share in the U.S. at present. Yet, estimates have shown that a large quantity ofenergy and water could be saved through the replacement ofconventional vaxis washers with the h-axis design. The objectives ofthis projectwere:
• to evaluate the energy and water savings ofhigh-efficiency, h-axis washers in a community which has been converted to the new design, • todemonstrate the findings, and • to develop information helpful to utilities (energy and water) and others with an eye towards moving the current clothes washer market to higher efficiency options. This project is a key element under the DOE ENERGY STAR® market transformation program. The small town of Bern, Kansas (population approximately 200) was· selected for this project. During phase I of the study, I03 clothes washers in the town and surrounding Rural Water District were instrumented so that data on customer profiles, laundry habits, laundry throughput (loads and load weight), and energy and water consumption could be measured. Following a two-month data collection period, all of the washers were replaced by new, h-axis clothes washers, and the experiment continued for an additional three-month period. Overall, detailed data were collected and analyzed on more than 20,000 loads and nearly 70 tons ofwash done by all ofthe participants overa wide range ofreal-world conditions. Overall, it was found that the changeover to the h-axis washer reduced the average water consumption from 41.5 gallons/load to 25.8 gallons/load - a water savings ofabout 38%. The haxis washer'senergyconsumption including washer energy and hot water energy fell by 58% due to hot water savings and the impact of a highly efficient motor in the h-axis. The remaining moisture contentofdamp loads removed from the h-axis washers was, on average, 7% lowerthan for loads removed from participants' phase I v-axis washers, and this would tend to improve the energy savings from the changeover still further.
1"Revolution, Not Agitation: A New Spin on Clothes Washing", Home Energy, Vol. 13, No. 6, November/December 1996, pp. 7-8.

- IX

-The data and subsequent analyses also showed that across all loads, temperature settings, use of detergent and other additives, participants found the cleaning performance of the h-axis technology to be generally superior to their phase I v-axis washer irrespective of its age. Participants seemed to adapteasilytothe h-axis design, and laundry habits (average load weights, detergent use, how loads were dried, when loads were washed during the week, wash/rinse temperatures and otherfactors) remained largely unchanged from phase Ito phase II. These findings demonstrate convincingly that the tumble-action technology (h-axis design) is much more energy and water-efficientthan the technology present in clothes washers found in the field today. Taken together, these findings suggest that a changeover to h-axis technology delivers large savings in energy and water to the customer with an improvement in cleaning performance and utility.

- x -ABSTRACT The U.S. market for domestic clothes washers is currently dominated by conventional, vertical axis washers, which typically require about 40 gallons ofwaterfor each load. Although small for an individual load, the fact that 35 billion loads oflaundry are washed annually in the U.S. results in a substantial quantity ofwater and energy use. Although much smaller, today's market for high-efficiency clothes washers which use much less water and energy is growing albeit slowly as manufacturers are making washers based around tumble-action, horizontal axis designs available, information about their performance and benefits is being developed, and consumers are made aware ofthese benefits. To help build awareness ofthese benefits and to accelerate markets for high-efficiency washers, DOE, under its Energy Star Program and in cooperation with Maytag Appliances, conducted a field-evaluation ofhigh-efficiency washers using Bern, Kansas (population approximately 200) as a test bed. Baseline washer performance data as well as customer washing behavior were obtained from data collected on the existing washers of more than 100 participants in this instrumented study. Following a 2-month initial study period, all conventional washers were replaced by high-efficiency, tumble action washers, and the experiment continued for another 3- month period. Based on measured data from over 20,000 loads of laundry, the impact ofthe washer replacement on (I) individual customers' energy and water consumption, (2) customers' laundry habits and perceptions, and (3) the community's water supply and waste water systems were determined and are reported.

- xi

-GLOSSARY



### _**b~~---·-·---·-·--·-·-----·------l-~E\!}~_!1_!~~!:.!!!~L':l_!:l_!!._Q~_}~§-~i** 

### __**!l_~'?_i:ij.Q!:.1.1_~~'?..f_~.!:1-':'..~gy**

### ________________________________ CIC 

### ! Temperature settingofwasher set on cold waterwash and cold water rinse

-----·-----·-··--·-··---..-·-·-·-·-·-·-------· --------·-·-·-·-·-------·-----·-----------·--------···----·-·-----------·----·---·--·--·-·---·-----·--·--··--·-·------·-·-·--·

Cold old water use ofwasher

## ~:~~ii~-~~~-~~~~~:~~~=~~~~~~~~[Q~?~~!i!1Y!:·;;~~~~i~~=~~~-~~Y~9.J?~~~~!~si~~~~ii!~~~~~~~~~=~=~~=~-~-~~~~=~~ DOE 

## I U.S. Department ofEnergy

# ~~~~-:~~-~~~~~--~----~--~--~:-.-.-~~----=~I~~~~~~~1-t~~~;~~;J~:~;~~:~:~~~~:~~~~:~~~:~~t;~~~~-~~;.~~--~~~~: gal orgals 

## I A measure ofwater use in gallons. One gallon is equivalentto 

## l 3.7854 liters**·---·---------~--·-···-·--·----------+--------·----------·-------~---------·-··--·-------------·-···-----·--·--·-···-·------·------·--·--·-·**



### __**Q.~!!_<>.!!.~!~~.!:\_«!** 

### __________________ 

## I**_Q'!!!'?!:l~--Qf_ W~!~~~-~~_p-~!__°-_y_~-~-~!._.Qf** 

### __**!C?._<:!_~-~-!?_Y._**

### __**!h~~~h~!.-···-·-··-------··-···---·--·-** gpm Gallons perminuterefersto the rate ofwater use (gallons) overa H/C H-axis 

### m**~1_1_':1_~~---!!~-~ R~~!Q9.________________________________________________**  

### -------·---------·-------------·--····-·--·-· Temperature settingofwasher set on hot water wash and cold water rmse

·-·-·-·----·-·---------··--·-----·-·-·-·---·----·-....·-·-·----···--·-·--·-·----·---------·-·--------·-·---·------··-·-·--·--·--·-·-· , Horizontal-axis washerdesign in which the axis ofrotation ofthe 

## Iwasherdrum is horizontal to the floor on which the washer sits

### __!!~!-·-·-----··---·-------··-·-------.J._

### _l::!~!--~~t~!.-**U5-~-~f ~~s_li_~~----·----·-·-----·--··-·---------·--·--·--·-·-·-·--·-·---·-··-**  ..···-···-····-··--·-·· 

### I.D. 

## I Identification numberorcustomernumberassigned to each

### ----·-·-·--·--·-·---·-·-·--·-·-··---·-·-·-·----.JJ~.~!.!Lc_~e~!:l!_.!.!1_~~-~!.l:.1~r.___________________________________________________________________________**·--~~!!_**

### _______..________________________**J_~.!.!~~-'1.!!~-~Q.l:.1.1.:_~f.~_t.!~~gy_!:.1.~~-~9.l:.1!Y~!~!1_!1<?.}_~1-~-~-!y_**

### ________________________________ Lb orlbs 

## I A pound which is a measurementofweight equal to 2.2046

----·-·---------

## L~i_l9graf1:!_S--·-·-------·------·-····--·-----------------------·------

Load orload 

### cycle or 

## IA complete wash/rinse/spin cycle ofa washer or a complete cleaning

### --~x.~!~---·-·--------·---·------·--L<?.f~!.t.Y._.~!Q.!h':'..5-

### ______________________________________________________________________________________ ORNL 

## !Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, managed by

### ·····-···---·-···-·------------·--·--·-----------··--L.!:_'?£._~E_~~q-~_1!!:!~!1--~-!1-~!.ro.'._B:.~~~~~~~--gQ_IP:_f<?.!...

### !h~.-!:l_:_~:_!?_Q~---·-··--·---·------- oz 

## ! Ounce ora unitofweight equal to one-sixteenth ofa pound or



# ------··-·-·--·-·----··-·---·-------------- l**_l!E.P..~9-~_i:!:i_i_t!~!Y.** __

## ~_~_:_3-_?.__g_!._'1._'!1_5-:.____ -------···--·------------------·----------··-····--·-··-·-··· Phase I Firsttwo months ofthe Bern Washer Study usingconventional vaxis washers

--·-·---·----·--·-·-·------·-·-·--··-·-·-·-·-·- -·--·---·------·-·-·---------·--------·-·----·-··-·-·-·-------·-·-·-------·-·----·-----·-·-------·--·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-··---·----

PhaseII astthree months ofthe Bern Washer Study using new h-axis ashers -·-·---------·----·-·--··-···--·-··---·-·-·-·-·-·--·;·--····--··-·-·-·----·--··-·-·-·-·-··--·----·-·-·-·----·-·--·-·-·-·----·--··---·-·--·--·---·-··----··-·-·---···---·---------·--·-··---·-·--·-··-··-·-·-·-·-

RMC emaining moisture content ormoisture remaining in the cleaned



### -----··-·--·-·--·-·-··--- _____ -·-----------

### ~~1_1-~ry**1__1f.!~~-~-()~~J~!!'.!g__!~-~-~!!5.~-~E~~-fl~11._!._s._R}_i:i_.~2'£.!~---·--·-·-····-··**..-·- ·--·--·----· RWD Rural water district -·--·-·-·-·----·--·-·--·--·--·-·-·-·-.-----····-·--·-..---**-·-·-·-·---·-·-·-----·-·-·-··---·-·-----·--··-·-·---·---·--··-··------·--------·-·~-·-···-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·--·--·-·---·-·-··-·-·-·-----·**

SWS · Superwash Saturdays which were two high impact wash days


### --------·..-·-·-------·---·-·-·-----··-·-------

## -~'?_~~-~-~.!~~.'?'.!.!.~.'.!~--~~'.:!.<?.!._E~l__l~~---!-~!:1-~--~-~P!~~-~~!._..

## !l~~f'?_!:._P._~~-5-~}_!_____

_

### !.~!~!-~~!~E·---·---·------·-···-··-!:!9.!_E.!!:1_S_£~J~_\_\'_'1.!_~!:._!:1_5.~ __

### ?..f.~1__15-_b~!._£_~!!!~i!!~~-----·-·---·-··-------·-·--·----·-----·--··-·-·-·-·-·--· TUF 

## ITemperature utilization factor which refers to the percent ofloads

## --··---·---·-·----··--------·--··-----·----·-·-·J-~_'1.~~-':'.~ __

## '1.!_Y~!.ig_.l:.1.~--~!!~~[!.J_i:i.5-~-~-'1._5._~-~~---!~'!1.E.~!.~_t_y!.~.-~~!!i!!g~-----·---·-----·---··--- V-axis 

## I Vertical axis (conventional washer design) in which the axis of

### ----···----·-·--·--·-···---·---·-···--·-·------------L!:.'?..!~!!g_1_1 __

### '?f!b_~--~~s.-~-~!:._1__1_gi!_1!!9.T_!~.-~~!:!i£~!_!9._!h~_flg_C>E______________________........_.______ W/C 

## i Temperature setting ofwasher set on warm water wash and cold : waterrinse

·-·-·-·-·--·-·-----·--·-·----·-·---····--·-·--·-·-·-·--**····--·-·-·---~-** ..------···-----·-·---·-·-·----·-..·-·-··-·-----.......

### --..-·-·-·-·--·--·-·-··--..-·...-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·"·-·-·-·-·-·-

..-·--·-··---·-·--··

W/W Temperature setting ofwasher set on warm waterwash and warm waterrinse

- XII

-1. 

### OVERVIEWAND OBJECTIVE OFTHEFIELD STUDY Some U.S. appliance manufacturers are beginning to produce high-efficiency residential clothes washers designed for the U.S. market. These machines are based on a horizontal axis or h-axis design in which the clothing is tumbled through a small bath ofwater rather than being immersed in a tub ofwater as is conventionally done with most washers made and sold in the United States. Estimates have shown that these machines should use about 40% ofthe energy needed for a conventional clothes washer and have about 60% ofthe water consumption of a conventional, vertical axis washer. Further, information suggests that the high spin speed ofhaxis models tends to leave the clothes with less moisture, and this reduces the time needed to dry the clothes in the dryer. Consequently, the dryer -gas orelectric

- consumes less energy. The extent to which these savings in energy and water which have been demonstrated in the laboratory, can be realized in a real-world field setting will have a large influence on the market for these machines. 

### Market Cllallenges

- High-efficiency washing machines face challenges to wide-scale adoption by consumers. First, these machines tend to cost more than the conventional machines. Increased sales will foster higher production volumes and better, more efficient plant assembly line utilization, and, combined with increased competition between manufacturers for market share, will tend to reduce first costs to the consumer. However, indications from manufacturers are that a price premium for high-efficiency washers will remain even in a fully developed market. The ultimate market for high-efficiency washers will depend largely on the extent to which performance advantages ofthese machines can be made known tojustifythe higher price. Accordiryg to a survey conducted through a consortium ofutilities and DOE, 17% ofhouseholds who own a washing machine intend to purchase a new machine in the next two years. Ofthis number, only 0.4% reported that they will probably buy a horizontal-axis, high-efficiency washer in this time period. These results are not surprising in view ofthe fact that only 

### 2%ofthe current U.S. clothes washer market is for horizontal-axis, high efficiency washers. The survey found that a major reason for consumers' not opting for the high-efficiency machine is due to awareness: consumers were simply not aware of the technology and its benefits in terms of cleaning performance, reduced operating cost, less water use, and lowered energy consumption. This lack ofawareness extends from consumers shopping for a clothes washer, to electric and gas utilities who manage energy efficiency and customer service programs, and to water utilities looking at ways to encourage water conservation. The survey also showed that only 25% ofrespondents were aware ofhorizontal-axis washers in residential settings, and in focus groups held as part of the study, very few participants mentioned this type of machine when asked to describe the different types of washers currently available. Other work has confirmed that increased awareness ofthe benefits ofhigh-efficiency washers is the key to transformingthe market. 

### Tiie Bern Wasller Study

- To (I) evaluate the real-world performance ofh-axis washers and (2) to help bring about increased awareness ofthe benefits ofh-axis washers, a small town, Bern, Kansas was located and used as a test bed for evaluating the performance and acceptability ofh-axis washers. The 5-month study consisted of(A) gathering water consumption data on the existing washing machines in Bern to establish a baseline against which the water use pattern of high-efficiency washers can be measured, and (B) switching out these washers with highefficiency h-axis models, and (C) determining the savings in water, energy consumption and changes in laundry habits other impacts experienced by the town and its residents from a changeoverto theh-axis machines.

- 1 -- 2 -

### 2. HOW THE STUDYWAS CONDUCTED The study was conducted through a CRADA between Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation and Maytag Appliances with additional participation by the Kansas Rural Water Association, and the U.S. Bureau ofReclamation (providing municipal water metering and onsite personnel to help monitor Bern'scommunitywater systems). The study involved:

• establishing criteriafor the field test site, • locating the site (community) which best fulfilled the criteria, • conductingthefield study, and • reportingthefindings as through this report. Furtherdissemination ofprojectresults to target audiences remains an important objective.

- 3 -**------------~-----------------**

-4-

### 3. INITIATINGTHE PROJECT 3.1. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA It was anticipated that much ofthe success ofthe field study depended on (I) developing a set of desirable characteristics for the test site to possess, and (2) finding a site which had these characteristics and whose residents were willing to participate in the study. The principal attributes to be possessed by thetown included the following:


### • A small size. The available resources (funds, equipment, instrumentation and personnel) limited the number ofparticipants in the study to about 80 to I00. This represents the numberofclothes washer sites (e.g. homes) which could be instrumented and used to evaluatethe performance ofthe existing washer as well as the h-axis model. It was also importantthat a large fraction ofthe total number ofwashers in the town be included in the study so that the impact of clothes washers on the entire town's water consumption and waste water generation could be evaluated. Estimates have shown that the penetration ofclothes washers in homes is about 78% nationally.2 By assuming that the chosen town would have the same penetration of clothes washers as found nationally, the selected town would need to have I00 to 130 homes and have a population in the range of200 to 300 persons. This estimate was based on the assumption that most homeowners with washers would qualify and become participants in the study. 

### •Presence of community water utilities. An objective ofthe study was to determine the impact ofclothes washers on municipal utilities, that is, the impact on a town's water supply and wastewater disposal systems. To meet this objective, the study needed to take place in a town which had a central water utility which metered the water sold to each customer, and a sewer system for collecting and treating waste water. While they may have a community water supply, many smaller, rural towns would tend to rely on subsurface waste disposal (septic tanks). A much smaller number of towns were expected to have centralized water and sewage disposal facilities, yet it was deemed essential thatthetown selected for the study have these features.


### • Presence ofa waterproblem. It was felt that interest and participation would be enhanced by conducting the study in a community which either had experienced a water problem orwas currently plagued with a water-related problem, and to evaluate the degree to which h-axis washers could contribute to the solution. The communities "water problem" could have taken many forms such as: chronic seasonal droughts, inadequate waste water treatment facilities, a population growth which is outstrippingthe capacity ofthe waterproviders, or lack ofavailability offresh water
- all were candidate considerations in the site selection.


### • Participant willingness andenthusiasm. The conventional approach to field studies of this type involves instrumentation and data collection that does not involve the participant and does not require assistance by participants. In this study, it was essential that the participants be willing to help gather the data from instrumentation placed on their washer and to provide information on each load oflaundry washed. This approach was taken because the expense of distributed automatic data acquisition systems was far beyond the study's resources, and because some ofthe information needed for the study required inputfrom the participants.

2

### ApplianceMagazine, 44th Annual Report, Statistical Review, April 1997, p. 86.
- 5 -

### 3.2. SITE SELECTIONPROCESS Anticipating that small, rural towns would be likely to satisfy the criteria for the study, we contacted the National Rural Water Association to get their assistance in identifying candidate sites, communities ortowns. Through this association and with the assistance ofothergroups, we contacted all ofthe state rural water associations and/or state environmental agencies requesting a listing of sites, which met the criteria for the study. A list ofpotential sites was screened, and where information was missing, calls to the appropriate state agency ortown official were made. In some cases, site visits were made. The town ofBern, Kansas was selected based on a high ranking ofall ofthe criteria mentioned. 

### 3.3. BERNKANSAS Located about 75 miles west ofSt. Joseph, Missouri and 4 miles south from the Nebraska state line, Bern is a thriving, mostly farming community producing com, sorghum and wheat. Figures 3.1 through 3.5 provide a view ofthe town, its industries, and some ofthe key players in the study. A survey of the town indicated that the primary occupation of 40% of the head of household is farming. Before 1954, the residents ofBern obtained theirwaterfrom individual wells. However, in 1954, Bern elected to drill several community water wells, erect a 50,000-gallon watertower and install underground watermains to serve the town. Subsequently, Bern installed three sewage treatment lagoons (cells) to handle wastewater generated by the town. Further, a Rural Water District (RWD) was formed, wells sunk and more than 70 miles ofpiping was installed to provide water to the residents livingjustoutside ofthecity ofBern. Periodically, Bern and the surrounding areas have experienced problems with water availability. In the mid 1980's Bern's water supply came from four, low-production, 8 gpm wells, and these wells were dropping in production. In addition, the city was interconnected with the surrounding RWD however; the district's water supply consisting of two operating wells had an average production of 15 gpm. Water quality was very poor with high iron and manganese content. In 1988, northeast Kansas experienced severe drought conditions. The waterproduction for the City ofBern and the RWD declined dramatically. Based on its limited water availability, the RWD and city ofBern were both identified by the State ofKansas as priorities (drought vulnerable) to obtain additional water resources. Along with this application for assistance, Bern implemented conservation practices and the RWD instituted water rationing in March 1989. The RWD increased its water rates from $1.35 to $3.00 per one-thousand gallons. To alleviate the shortage ofwater, several patrons ofthe RWD loaded water from farm ponds or hauled water from other locations to supplement their livestock water needs. To meet demand and improve water supply sources, Bern initiated a project to obtain water from neighboring Nebraska. Project costs to install 2 new wells in the neighboring state ofNebraska approximately 4 miles from any existing rural water transmission line, connecting pipeline and a booster station were estimated at $233,500. Funding came in the form of $23,800 by the City of Bern, the RWD contributed $47,600, and a neighboring community ofOneida paid $7,600. An emergency grant of$I54,000 was awarded by special appropriation by the Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing. Rates were increased by the city ofBern as a result ofthe increased debt and need to conserve water. This was in November 1990. Monthly rates adopted then remain in force today for the residents ofBern:

- 6 -MonthlyMin. $8.50for first 2000 gallons, $2.75 per 1000 for the next4,000 gallons, $1.60 per 1000for the next 6,000 gallons, $1.40 per 1000for all water over 12,000gallons. Rates in the RWD, which uses much more water per user, were increased more dramatically to curtailuse: MonthlyMin. (Debt Service) is $12.50, no water, $3.00 per 1000 gallons for all wateruse.

Fig. 3.l Panoramaview ofBern,Kansas (from grainelevator).
TheRWD subsequentlyreduced the rates to the following: MonthlyMin. of$12.50, no water $2.50 per 1000gallon for the first 10,000gallons $1.35 per 1000 gallons for all use over l0,000 gallons A declining block rate such as the one found in Bern and the RWD is not unusual to find in farming communities

- even ones with wateravailability problems.

- 7 -

### Fig. 3.2 ff-axis washer with study participant

### Jill Meyer. Fig. 3.3Washermanufacturer representative: MikeCox.

Fig. 3.4Bernstudy liaison team: BettyLortscher,Tim Krehbiel,andDianeFitzgarrald. Presently, the RWD has one well in Kansas pumping continuously and two wells in Nebraska. Present concerns are that the district has experienced some pumping of sand and turbid water from one ofthe new wells. A bag filter system has been installed on a trial basis. The RWD has also experienced problems with inadequate water pressure and, to alleviate these problems, has recently installed an additional storage standpipe at a cost of$90,000. Thecity ofBern continues to operate three wells. The city and RWD water lines, which surround the city, are tied together so that thecity and RWD can share waterresources ifneeded.

- 8 -

### Fig. 3.5 Downtown area and local industries in Bern (grain elevator, city hall, cafe, and meatplant).

- 9 -

### 3.4. PARTICIPANT SELECTION Information about the project, a survey form and invitation to JOm the project were mailed to each ofthe 175 homeowners in Bern and the surrounding rural water district. The residents were made aware ofthe project's goals ofmeasuring the performance ofhigh-efficiency clothes. washers using the entire town as a test bed and for developing other information to determine the impact on the community ofa changeoverto high-efficiency clothes washers. The homeowners were told that ifthey were selected, they should be prepared to help collect data of each load oflaundry washed duringa five-month period. Forthe first two months, data would be collected on their current clothes washer, the washers would be changed out to the Maytag Neptune (horizontal axis)clothes washers, and data collection continued on the new washers for a three-month period. In return for their cooperation and assistance, the participants could elect to keep the new washerifthey so desired. The initial plan was to select about 90 homes with clothes washers to participate in the study. With the help ofa three-person volunteer Bern Washer Study Team (see Fig. 3.4), information from applicants including laundry habits, customerprofiles, types ofexisting washers, dryers and hot water heating systems was received and analyzed. The Bern Washer Team also coordinated and hosted a town meeting on May 2th in the Bern High School Gym to give ORNL and Maytag representatives an opportunity to meet the residents, provide details ofthe project and answer questions. A total ofI04 participants (washerowners) elected tojoin the study and submitted an application in time to be included. These "participants: included 3 washers in Bern's local Laundromat, one washer in the Bern High School, one in Bern's vetclinic and one in Bern's meat plant. All ofthose electing tojoin the study (1) had a water meter and purchased water either from the city ofBern or from the rural water district, (2) currently had a clothes washer, and (3) were sufficiently interested in the study to committo a 5-month datacollection period. Bern's Laundromat had six coin-operated, commercial washers and an equal numberofdryers. A decision was made to collect data on three ofthese washers for the two-month baseline period, then to replace these with three coin-operated, commercial, h-axis washer for the balance ofthe study. In all other cases, the replacement washer was Maytag's domestic h-axis model. Ofthe I04 whojoined initially, one single homeowner elected to withdraw about three weeks into the study, leaving 103 participants. Notably, all 103 completed the study. Atthe initiation ofthe project, the participants were surveyed to gain demographic, life-style and laundry behavior information. Some ofthe findings from this survey included: General information: The average Bern household is comprised of two adults and two children; in somecases, households have as many as 2 adults and 5 children; 21% ofthe households cited housewife/homemaker as the primary occupation of the female head ofhousehold; 40% ofthe households cited farming as the primary occupation ofthe male head ofhousehold; About 47% ofthe participants live in the Bern city limits; the remainder lives around Bern and is tied into the surrounding rural waterdistrict. Laundry behaviorand equipment: The majority ofwashers (71% ) were located on the first floor ofthe home;

- I0

-30
25**~** Q)**~20**


## ... !.**~** 15 ca 0 ..J .c gi 10 

### ::= 5
0 0 The majority of washers (65%) had a fabric softener dispenser although 49% of households with the dispenserindicated that they never use it; The majority of washers (60%) also have a bleach dispenser; of this fraction, 48% ofthe participants sometimes use the dispenser, and 45% indicated that they never use the dispenser; 88% ofthe participants used an electric dryer; 11 % used a gas dryer and 1% did not own a dryer; the average age ofa Bern dryer is 12 years; 64% of the participants used propane for water heating; 36% used electricity; natural gas is not available; Twice as many participants use powder detergent as use liquid detergent, and 25% had both types ofdetergent on hand; The numberofloads washed perweek depended on the household size; estimates made by Bern residents indicated that the average Bern household washed 11 loads/week- see Fig. 3.6.

Individualparticipantestimates are shown 11.2Average Loads Per Week 3.5Average Persons in Household Best fit

# ~ 0 0 Note: The averages are basedon a survey that was conductedpriorto data collection

. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Persons in Household Fig. 3.6 Dependence ofloads washed perweek on household size (pre-study estimates). The age and brand of clothes washer owned by the part1c1pants were also determined and compared with available information on national averages. The pie chart at the left in Fig. 3.7 shows the distribution of washer brands owned by the study participants at the outset of the project, and the pie chart at the right, shows the distribution ofwasherbrands on a national basis3• The distribution ofwashers by brand in Bern follows the national market share for some brands, while for others, the distribution of washer brands is different. These differences may be attributed to differences between local markets in Bern and the average U.S. market as well as manufacturer/distributor retailing efforts in larger towns surrounding Bern as compared to average market conditions on a nationwide basis. Importantly, all major national brands were

3ApplianceMagazine, 441 h Annual Report, Statistical Review, April I997.

- 11

-represented in the study, and this provided a good cross-section of vertical axis washers for comparison. Electrolux 6%

(a) in Bern Raytheon 4% Electrolux 7%

(b) National Market (1996) Fig. 3.7 Clothes washermarketin the U.S. and in Bern. In addition to providing brand information on their washers, the participants also indicated the age oftheir washers at the beginning of the study. Washer age was important to know because any changes in washing perfonnance and energy/water consumption by replacing washers with an h-axis model would depend on the performance of the existing baseline washer. The newer the washer, the better its performance would be expected to be. Data on washing machine ages provided the information needed to calculate the saturation curve (Bern Washers) shown in Fig. 3.8. The lower curve in this figure represents Bern washers and the upper curve is the national average distribution based on a 14-year typical lifetime for washers. This figure shows the fraction ofwashers in Bern according to their age. For example, the age ofthe oldest washer in the study was 28 years; therefore 100% of the washers in Bern were 28 years old or younger. Further, about 10% ofBern's washers were 2 years old or newer (shown as the intercept on the left side in Fig. 3.8). Moreover, half (50%) ofBern's washers were no older than 8 years. The distribution ofwasherages ranging to more than 28 years suggests that the true life expectancy of U.S. automatic clothes washers (point at which they are scrapped) can be much longer than the length-of-first-ownership. After the length-of-first-ownership, the old unit may be traded in, relegated to use somewhere else or scrapped. The length-of-first-ownership, characterized as the "typical lifetime" of a washer, is about 13 years4• Ifthe ultimate lifetime of a washer were the same as the typical lifetime, an age distribution curve as shown by the upper line in Fig. 3.8 would be applicable. This underscores the fact that like other major U.S. appliances, clothes washers can last for a long time and that the average clothes washer in the U.S. would be a little olderthan what a typical lifetime estimate would otherwise suggest.

4ApplianceMagazine, ApplianceLife Expectancy/ReplacementPicture, September 1997, p. 85.

- 12

---- --**------------------------~---------------**

100% -,------

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2

# ---**------~-----.--------------------------** ---\---------------------------

4 6 8 

# \ Machines in Bern

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Washer Age (y) Fig. 3.8 Typical clothes washerages. 

### 3.5. EXPERIMENTALDESIGN A central objective of the field study was to determine the impacts of replacing existing, conventional washers with high-efficiency, horizontal-axis (h-axis) washers. There are a number ofpotential impacts that a replacement, h-axis washercould have including, 

### o Changes in waterconsumption and its effect on thecustomer and water/sewerutility; 

### o Changes in energy consumption ofthe washeritselfand in the amount ofhot waterused; D Changes in load weights. For the same "throughput" oflaundry, the weight ofeach load determines the numberofloads ofwash needed to bedone; Q Changes in detergent use and patterns; 

### o Changes_in the "dryness" ofloads removed from the washer. The ability ofthe washer to extract waterin the final spin affects the energyneeded bythe dryer; Q Changes in customersatisfaction as related to cleaning/drying performance; 

### o Changes in customary laundry habits. The experimental design included individually metering the participant's conventional washers and recording data from this instrumentation as well as from participants on each load oflaundry that they washed for a two-month period (phase I of the project). Following phase I, all of the participant's washers were replaced by the high-efficiency, h-axis washer, the instrumentation reinstalled, and the experiment continued for a three-month period (phase II ofthe project). The changes in performance, laundry patterns, participant satisfaction and other potential impacts listed above were determined by comparing phase I and phase II data. In addition, the influence that clothes washers had on Bern's water supply and waste water generation 

### for two days of heavy washing

- one during phase Iand the otherduring phase JI was determined.

- 13

-

### 3.5.1.lnstrumentation Water Meters

- Two water meters were installed on each washer in the project

- one to measure the hot waterconsumption and the other for the cold. These meters (Badger Model 50) had been modified and adapted to work with a remote digital readout. The meter modification detailed in Appendix I, provided the readout with a measurement precision of almost 1/200 of a gallon. Participants simply recorded the readings from the hot and cold readouts after each load of laundry was completed, and the conversion of these readings into gallons of water was done during the data analysis phase of the project. Each meter also had the conventional analog register from which cumulative hot and cold water consumption could be determined. These registers were read periodicallyby project staffand used to check digital readout recordings made by participants. 

### Weighing Scale

- Each participant was given a scale for weighing wash loads. For most ofthe study, the scales with a measurement precision of±1oz., were used twice for each load: first, for obtainingthe pre-wash weight ofeach load and a second time for determining the post-wash load weight which was the weight ofthe load after washing but before drying. All recorded weights included the weight ofthe clothes and the laundry basket. As part ofthe analysis, load weights weredetennined by subtractingthe weight ofthe basket from recorded weights. 

### Laundry Basket

- Each participant was given a standard laundry basket to use for weighing the loads. This simplified determination ofload weights across the participants. 

### Measuring Cup

- Each participant was given a standard detergent cup to meter detergent use for each load. As before, participants recorded detergent use on individual load data sheets. 

### Temperature Measurements

- Water meters were installed on each washer during the first week ofthe study, and at this time, hot and cold water temperatures were carefully measured by the installation team and used in the analysis for both phases ofthe study. These temperatures were measured once again duringthe changeoverto the h-axis washer. 

### Washer Energy Consumption

- The electrical energy consumption (kWh required to operate a washer's motor and controls for a cycle) ofmost ofthe original phase I washers in the study was detennined from available data based on brand and model number. In those cases where a washer was too old and energy consumption infonnation was unknown, washer energy consumption was taken to be the average ofthe washer energy consumption ofthe remaining phase I washers. This provided a conservative (lower energy use) estimate for the older washers. The average washer energy consumption from prior field experiments on the h-axis washer was used in phase II ofthe Bern Study. 

### Data Sheets/Notebook

- Finally, each participant in the project was given a notebook containing data sheets to be filled out
- one for each load oflaundry, and a set ofinstructions for data entry and managing the notebook. Sample data sheets for phase I and phase II ofthe study are shown in Fig. 3.9 The two sheets are quite similar; they differ only in the "Settings" sections where the phase II settings are based on the controls for the Maytag Neptune model h-axis washer. Item 1 consisted ofthe date and time that a load was washed so that information on laundry habits could be detennined. In items 2 and 8, participants recorded pre-wash and post-wash weights to provide information on load weights and residual moisture. In items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, participants recorded information characterizing the load, describing washer settings, detergent use and indicating how the load would be dried. In item 7, participants recorded numbers from the digital displays connected to the two water meters on their washers. Finally, in items 9 and

- 14 -

# BERNWASHER STUDY ---.111er111·e11ee11vmr.:.aa
EJ Weigh load with scale. BEFOREWASH 

# •



# • DI rMonth--,- Day Ir**li~e--,** I.._
___ _.._;___:!_

. I (Calendaron rovern> 0 AM 0 PM DI How soiled is this load?

QVeryheavy OHeavy lJ Detergent

Y Amount <cupa) QModerate QL!ght

O•J· Qt QPA OVerylight ONone

OEra 

## ...**r--Pounda--~Ouncos==i** Cl Did you:

0 Pretreat stains? 0 Use chlorine**~each?** 0 Use color.safe b!each?

TType 0 Powder 0 Liquid QP,...oak? 0 Use fabric softener'!' 0 In drye(I

O'h Qtv. 02 Ql/4 Q11h 'Y Brend Olide QCheer QWtsk OSuriie QAll 0 Purex OSunllght OOtherCl!stl C! Machine Settings

T Cycle O Regular O Permanent Press QDelicate T Load Size QMinl os...11 QMedlum OLarge OX-la'lJe 'YWash Temperature OHot OWerm OCold 'Y Rinse Temperature OW.rm OCold

AFTERWASH IDclo"• dry;n!Jl**~** Satisfaction with dampness of load

afterwash cycle? O Completaty satisfied O Notvery satisfied O Very satisfied 0 Not at ell satisfied 0 SomewhatMtlsfted 

# •BERNWASHERSTUDY------=-=-
DI 

## f. Month .,: - Day**ll'=li~.e~,** EJ Weigh load with scale.T

### ~eland• on.._.., .

### ~ 0 PM

. (-
- ·Poundo----=-Ounc_es:J
• II! How will this load be dried? El How •oiled 111 thi• load? Overy heavy 0Heevy 0Moderate 0Llght OVerylight ONone Cl Did you1 0 Pretreat stains? 0Prasoak? 0 Dryer 0 Clothesline 0 Some dryer/some lln 

### -·w::w:1."N.. IQIO••o•oooo••ooooooo• 

### • 0 Use chlorine bleach? 0 Use color-safe bleech? 0 Uae fabr1c softener? Olndryeo'? [JI Detergent

T Amount Ccupol T Brand OWisk 0 Sunlight . O•t• Ot Oto1< 011deHE OAll OOtherClistl TType OPowder OLlquid I I 

# w 0 1

h 01 1 /• 02 03/'• 011/::i 0 llde <Reg.> 0 Em OCheer OPu""'

AFTERWASH
. CBeforedryingl ii WaterUsed 'Y <Record numbe111from metara In HOT .....,botowJ COLD 

# 111111111_11111**~** Satisfaction whh dampneu ofload after wash cycle? 0 Completoly astlsfled 0 Notvery eetisfted 0 Vtwy satisfied 0 Nototall 68lisfled 0 Somewhat satisfied .II! How will this load be dried? 0 Drye< 0 Clolhestlne 0 Somedryer/some line El! Weigh damp load with scale. "'

C!2 Satisfaction with overall

cleanablllty of load? 0 Completely satisfied 0 Verysatisfied 0 Somewhat satisfied 0 Notvery satisfied 0 Notetall satisftMI
25510 

## ••• • Fig. 3.9Datasheets for phaseI (in background) andII (in foreground) ofthe study. Hidden areaofphaseI datasheetis identical to correspondingarea in phaseIIdatasheet.

- 15

-I0, participants could indicate satisfaction with the dampness and cleanliness ofthe load after washing. 

### 3.5.2.Schedule The schedule for the study is given in Table 3.5.2. 

### Table3.5.2ProjectSchedulefor Bern Study. Project Schedule May 23, 1997 Selection and notification ofstudyparticipants in Bern May 28 Town meeting

- Bern High School Gym June 2 - 6 Installation of instrumentation on current washers; distribution of notebooks; initiation ofphase I datacollection June 27 Installation ofmetering on Bern water tanks and wastewater treatment lagoons to measure community water use/disposal patterns on the following day June 28 First "Superwash" Saturday - a day when part1c1pants concentrated their washing into a window ofI0:00 a.m. to4:00 p.m. to determine the impacts ofa heavy washday on the community'swateruse. July 28 -August I Removal ofcurrent washer; Neptune washer installation; re-installation ofinstrumentation; initiation ofphase II data collection September 13 Second "SuperWash" Saturday; a repeat of the first SWS so that changes in community water use could be determined and compared with impacts from first SWS. Also, announcement of preliminary findings on energy/waterconsumption found atthat point in the study. October31 - November4 Removal ofinstrumentation November4 - December31 Data analysis January 15, 1998 Final study draft report completed; to be followed by published final report Recognizing that the key element ofthe project was continued interest and participation by the people ofand surrounding Bern, an aggressive schedule was set for the project so that the data could be collected quickly and analyses conducted. At intervals during both phases, individually tailored reports, citing results from each participant in the study, were prepared and sent to each participant as one way ofproviding relevant and important feedback to participants. A sample of one ofthese reports is provided in Appendix B. 

### 3.6. DATACOLLECTIONAND ANALYSISPROCEDURE The overall approach to data collection and analysis was to create database tables of project information and link these databases according to information queries. The information in these

- 16 -tables included recorded experimental information, detailed participant information, information about phase I washer characteristics and other information which were recorded on the data sheets and submitted to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) for analysis. These individual tables of information were joined together as needed for analysis and for reporting results to individual participants. The key to the approach lay in the development ofa normalized database in which all tables of information and data were linked through a single parameter, a unique number assigned to each datasheet. The tools used to build the databases and to process data from the study included Microsoft Access 97 and Microsoft Excel 97. Access is a relational database management system that provides features for importing data and for creating tables, queries, forms and reports. In Access, data are represented as a table (a matrix ofdata in rows and columns). Access provides a number ofroutines for operating on the data such as queries, macros, visual Basic modules, forms and reports. Queries and reports were the two main components used in the study. The queries could be either created in a graphical view or by writing Sequential Query Language (SQL) statements. Queries were used to filter, sort, and screen the data from the study as well as to perform calculations such as sum and average the data. Access was linked to Excel as needed to perform histograms, create full-page graphics and to perform calculations which otherwise would have required extensive programming using Access. An example ofthis flexibility was the use of Excel to create pre-wash water meter readings from the ending water meter readings ofthe prior washer cycle. The ability to do this eliminated the need for participants to record the readings from both water meters twice in a single load. Atthe outset ofthe study, each participant was assigned a unique number or I.D., and a database of participant information and l.D. code was prepared. Second, on every data sheet for the project was printed a unique five-digit code which had been lithographed at the lowerright-hand corner of the form. As sets of these blank data sheets were periodically distributed to participants, ORNL kept track of the lithocodes assigned to each participant as well as the lithocodes on datasheets returned by each participant for analysis. Although Fig. 3.9 shows the front page oftypical datasheets, there was areverse side where the cumulative gallons ofwater as read from the register ofeach water meter could be entered. This was done twice (beginning and end) for each phase ofthe study. The datasheets have bubbles, which were shaded in, and blank boxes for handwritten data entries. The bubbled entries limit the data to discrete values. For example, in item 5, detergent use, the amount ofdetergent in a cycle could be specified in 'Ii-cup increments up to 2 cups. Examples ofhandwritten data fields are date, time and load weights. Each ofthe phase I data records consisted of

### 21 data fields. Each ofthe phase II data records originally consisted of 21 data fields, but this was further subdivided into 26 separate fields because of the possibility of more than one selection in some categories. As the project proceeded, every couple ofweeks or so, participants mailed completed data sheets to ORNL for analysis. Once received, the lithocodes were logged and checked to ensure that they had been correctly assigned to a participant. The data sheets were subsequently delivered to the Tennessee State Testing & Evaluation Center where an optical scanner read them and the handwritten data were entered by a keypunch operator. As records were read and prepared, State Testing also assigned a sequence number to each data record as it was entered into the scanner. A software program, which was prepared especially for the study, was used to assemble the recorded data into an Excel spreadsheetfile and e-mailed to ORNL for analysis. Once received by ORNL, the data were converted into comma-delimited files that could be imported into Access. The Access import engine provided the ability to create a specification file for comma delimited files. The specification file assigned a data type for each data field: eitheras

- 17 -date/time, text or number, and specification files were created once for the phase I data records and once for the phase II records. Further work automated this process so that as more and more data were received through periodic mailings from participants, and pre-processed by State Testing & Evaluation, the specification file automatically assigned the correct data type to each field in a record as the datarecords were imported into Access. Some ofthe tables ofdata and information also contained a listing ofparticipant number. Other tables, e.g. the body of data produced by the participants as they washed clothes throughout phases I and II also contained a column listing the lithocodes for each data record. The tables, which allowed all ofthe information to be tied together, were the lithocode/participant 1.0. table and the sequence number/participant I.D. table. Using the later table gave the fastest response to quenes. Summarizing, the overall process for assembling a database ofinformation forthe study consisted ofthe following six steps:
o Data entry by the Bern participantson pre-formatted data sheets; o Optical scanning ofthe data sheets supplemented by keyboard entries to generate a data table; o Formatting and importingthe datatable into Excel; o Conversion ofthe spreadsheetto comma-delimited ASCII file; o Importingthis file into Access; D Creating SQLqueries to assign datarecords to participants; !J Creating 

### SQL queries to sort, filter and screen all data and to perfonn calculations and analyses needed to address the study objectives.
Based on this process, data from over 7,000 washer loads in phase I and over 13,000 loads in phase II were analyzed to address the objectives ofthe study, and the results are reported in the next section ofthis report. The integrity and quality ofthe data collected from the Bern participants during both phases Iand II ofthe study is discussed in Appendix C.

- 18 -

### 4. OVERALLFINDINGSAND IMPACTS
The tumble-action principle of the h-axis washer and design of the h-axis washer based on this principle represents a major design change from the conventional, v-axis washers. Therefore, it was reasonable to expect that in the Bern Study, there could be significant impacts resulting from a changeover from conventional, v-axis washers to the h-axis design. These impacts include, for example, changes in average load sizes and weights, changes in detergent use patterns, changes in energy and water consumption, changes in cleaning performance and changes in the post-wash moisture content ofloads. In the following sections ofthis report, we examine first some ofthe overall impacts and findings between phases I and lJ of the study, and second, a more detailed examination ofthe influence ofindividual parameter differences on these overall results. 

### 4.1. Th1PACTSONLOADSIZE The size of loads washed with each cycle can be an important measure of the "throughput" of laundry because it can determine the number of loads washed by a customer. More loads take more time and can consume more energy and waterthan fewer loads. This is particularly the case on laundry days when loads are done one after another. Its volume or its weight or perhaps some combination ofthe two could characterize the size ofa load oflaundry. Although the weight of any wash load and its volume are linked, the relation between the two depends on the type of clothing in the load, e.g. a laundry basket full of cotton towels, sweatshirts, bedding, etc. may weigh more than one filled with permanent-press shirts or delicates. A participant's lifestyle would likely determine the type ofclothing worn and washed most often, and over the course of the study, the lifestyles for most ofthe participants remained fixed. This meant that load weights used in the study, were a good indicator ofload size. Participants measured and recorded load weights for each load washed during phases I and II. Fig. 4.1 shows the distribution ofthese loads in 2-pound increments up to 14 pounds and all loads which weighed more than 14 pounds (relatively small number).

30% 25%

U) 20% "C C'll 0 15% ...J 

### 0 ;,!! 0 10% 5% 0% •Phase I ml Phase II



### oto 2 2to 4 4to6 Phase/ '-------1 7,569 (99.0%) outof7,645 records Phase/I 12,991 (98.3%) out of 13,213records

6to 8 8to 10 10 to 12 12 to 14 more than 14 Load Weight Groups (lbs) Fig. 4.1. Distribution ofload weights in Phase I and II.

- 19

-In phases I and II, most ofthe loads weighed between 6 and 8 pounds, and about as many loads weighed less than 2 pounds as weighed more than 14 pounds. Across all washers and participants, the average load weight in phase I was 6.65 pounds and the average for loads done in phase II was 6.98 pounds. Interestingly, Fig. 4.1 shows that a larger fraction of loads were done by the phase Iwashers in each load category less than 8 poundsthan were done by the phase II washers in those same load weight categories. During phase II and as the summer progressed into the fall, participants tended to wash heavier loads (those weighing more than 8 pounds) more often than they did in phase I. These results are based on average pre-wash weight measurements from 7,523 loads (50,035 pounds) oflaundry done in phase I and 12,759 loads (89,063 pounds) done in phase 11. We found that as the study progressed, the average load weight increased slightly for each week ofthe study and throughout both phases at a rate ofabout 0.04 lb/load per week. Consequently, the average load weight for the first two months ofthe study (phase I) is a little smallerthan the average load weight for the last three months ofthe study (phase II). The finding thatthe average load weight tended to increase throughout the study suggests that the increase in average load weight between the two phases is not necessarily due to the type ofwasher. Instead, it appears to be timing related and results from differences in the type of laundry being washed by the participants as the study progressed through the Summer and into the Fall. Measurable changes up ordown in laundry "throughput" (weightper load) as a result ofwashertype were not found. 4.2. WATERCONSUMPTION The water consumed by each washer in both phases of the study was determined through individual, positive displacement (nutating disk) water meters applied to the hot and cold water lines to each clothes washer. After each load was washed, the digital display affixed to each meter was read and recorded by each participant. These readings simply indicated "counts", and during the data analysis phase ofthe study, these "counts" were converted to gallons through a conversion factor. The water consumed during one cycle was determined during analysis by subtracting the meter reading from the prior wash cycle from the reading for the current wash cycle. In each case, the difference in meterreadings was converted into gallons ofwater. Figure 4.2 shows the average water (hot and cold) consumption during phase I and II for each individual participant in the study. A count ofthe water use over all participants in I gallon bin groupings (such as 0 to I gallon) yields the distribution curves for phase Iand II shown in Figure 4.3. In phase I, the average total water use ranged from about 18 gallons to more than 60 gallons per load with an average of41.5 gallons/load. In phase II, the total water consumption ranged from 17 gallons/load to about 3.7 gallons/load with an average of25.8 gallons/load. Across all study participants, this represents an average per load water savings of 15.7 gallons, or 37.8%.

- 20

-65 60

..- 55 "C Cll 0 

### s 50 Cll en 

# -- m45 :::> 

# s**~** 40 Cl) gi 35 

# i ct 30 25 20

## ~ j do, 

# \'**~** 

# rl l**~**

# ~ l**~**

# ~**i~ ~** **~ ~**  

# .I J I'

# ~~**'~** A 

# t\ ! v 

# '\ !**~**

'' 1111 ' ' : 

# .. I I II I '' '' '' 

# ... .. .. 11111•1 I Study Participant

(a) Phase I.

Study Participant

(b) PhaseII. 

### Fig.4.2 Average waterconsumption by 

### participantfor phasesI andII.

- 21

-Ill "D m 

## .9



# - 0 '#. 14%

12%**+--~~~~~#-lr-~--1** - Phase I (vertical-axis washers)

- Phase II (horizontal-axis washers) 10%
8% Average of25.8 for Phase II



### ---- I -- - - 6%
4%
2%**03-l....-...-...-"""~:...,~_J~~~~~~~:±::::::::::::::::::::::~~;;;;:::::::::;i;;.11111;1!~===~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**  Water Use (gallons) in 1 gal bins Fig. 4.3 Distributionofwateruse inphasesI and II. 4.3. ENERGY CONSUMPTION Washers consume energy through two main mechanisms: first, energy is needed to produce hot water used by the washer, and second, the washer itself uses energy to operate the motor and controls. In this analysis, the hot water energy was taken to be the thermal energy in the hot water used by the washer. This energy was determined by measuring the temperature ofthe hot and cold water (see Appendix D) at a sink or faucet after the water had run for a time so that the temperatures were stable. This was done on three separate visits to each participant during the progress ofthe experiment. The hot and cold water temperatures were entered into a spreadsheet to be included in the analyses. The amount ofhot water consumed was measured by the water meters described earlier, and based on the volume of hot water consumed and the temperature difference between the hot and cold water, the energy content ofthe hot water to the washer was determined (Btu/gallon). It should be noted that although this procedure puts the energy contained in hot water on a consistent footing to compare washer performance, it understates the actual amount ofenergy purchased by the participants to heat the water used by these washers. From the survey administered to participants at the outset ofthe project, 64% ofthe participants heated water using propane and the rest used electricity. By applying national averages for the efficiency of water heaters5 (52% for gas/propane and 85% for electric) and ignoring any heat losses from the hot waterdistribution pipinginhomes, itcan be shown that only about 64% ofthe energy purchased for waterheating actually ends up as hot water. A comparison of the average total energy (hot water and washer) consumption of the phase I washers and the energy consumption of phase II washers on an individual participant basis is shown in Fig. 4.4. Acount ofthe energy use overall participants in 0.1 kWh bin groupings (such

5BTS CoreDatabook, version 2, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office ofBuildingTechnology, Stateand CommunityPrograms. Forcopy orinformation, contact Bill Zwack, 301/588-9387.

- 22

-as 0 to 0.1 kWh) yields the distribution curves for phase I and II shown in Figure 4.5. In every case, the phase II washer used less total energy than the phase I washer, and in some cases, the savings were dramatic. One must keep in mind that the phase I washers in Bern spanned the gamut from washers which were fairly new and relatively efficient, to ones which were much older and probably less efficient. Moreover, the phase I water and energy consumption information (Figs 4.3 and 4.5) shows the large variability in the water and energy and water consumption among the population ofwashers in Bern. Some ofthis variability was due to the washer, while the rest ofthe variability was due to different settings used by each participant. From the complete dataset taken during phase I and II on loads, load weight and hot/cold water consumption, the impact ofthe replacement ofall participants' vertical-axis phase I washers by the phase II h-axis washers was determined, and the findings are shown in Table 4.1. As can be seen from Entry l in the table, there were a total of 7,645 datasheet records received from participants during phase Iand 13,213 datasheets received in phase II. From a review/analysis of these sheets, we determined the number of loads washed by participants (Entry 2). The difference between thesetwo numbers ofrecords represents occasions when participants provided information other than load data such as readings from water meter registers that were made periodically during the study as a checkon the information from the digital readouts. Entries 3, 4, 5 and 6 show totals on water consumption and laundry weight. Averages were based only on the number ofdatasheets where information was provided and the information appeared reasonable. Forexample, ofthe 13,130 loads done in phase II, participants provided load weight on 12,759 of these loads (97% response rate). Consequently, the total load weight divided by the number of reported load counts yielded the average load weight shown in Entry 8. This same procedure of data normalization according to the counts received rather than the total number ofrecords was used to determine averages for hot and cold water consumption as well as for the remaining analyses to be described later in this report. Overall, solid information on load weights (pre- and post-wash) and hot/cold waterreadings were provided on data sheets for at least 92% ofthe time. Theseresults show that, on average, the h-axis washer used 62.2% ofthe water used by the v-axis washer, and this yielded total water savings of 37.8%. Moreover, the average h-axis washer consumed 42.4% ofthe energy used by a typical v-axis washer in the study, resulting in energy· savings of57.6%. These results as well as the distribution ofenergy consumption are shown in Fig. 4.6. With both washers, the majority share ofthe energy consumed is the energy needed to heat water. Therefore, a reduction in hot water consumption directly has a direct and beneficial effect of reducing overall energy consumption. Table 4.1 shows that the hot water consumption ofthe haxis washer is less than halfofthe hot water energy used by the average v-axis washer in the study. This finding supplemented by a 50% reduction m washer energy consumption work togetherto provide the energy savings shown in Fig. 4.6.

- 23

-5.5 5

,, 4.5**~** '.i§ 4

### ~ ";;' 3.5 I/) ::::>**~** 3 

# ..**~** w 2.5 G) en f! 2**~** <( 1.5 1**~** ::::>**~** 1.5 

# .. G) c w

### ~**~ ~**  !..!

co ,.. ,.. ('II

## ~ 

# I I**~**

### ~**~** 

## f 

## J**~** l,J**~ ~~**  

# '

,, ' ' ,,, co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. ('II C') C')**~ ~**  Ill Ill co Study Participant

(a) PhaseI. ,, ..r.

# ~J 

# '' lJ\**~**

# , 'if**~**

### v~ u j

,,,, ,,,



# & 1**+-111---4-+R-~-A-=-l\---ll\---llr-4-4-l~-f\--14+-l-+--1--'~-----j'V\J--ffl--H--l\f-l--~-f--l..._~~H** 111 

## ...**~** <(

,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. co ,.. ,.. ,.. C'll C'll M M**~ ~**  111 111 co co**~ ~**  m**~ ~** **~** o Study Participant

(b) 

### PhaseII. 

### Fig. 4.4

### Averagewasherenergy use by participantfor phases I 

### andII.

- 24- 

### ,..Ill 

# ,, Cll 0 ...I 0**~** 0 14% 12% Average of 0.96 for Phase II

- -- - I 10% 8% - Phase I (vertical-axis washers)

- Phase II (horizontal-axis washers) 6% Average of2.26for Phase I 4% 

### I 2%

### 0%J.:::~~L-.-~~~~_:::::-~~~~~~"'1"'!""1"9!""1""'1..,...,""T""'T..,..,..,..::;::;:;::;:;;:r;~l"'i""l"'T'"r-'r""!"'i""F'T'"~

<:::J'?'-**<:::J~** " 

## "'> "'9 

### "?-> ci,'Y**ci,~** ci,'t> n;,':- n;,'?'-**n;,~** b< b<'? b<'9 b<?-> <o'Y**<o~** <o't> 

### ro':- ro'?'- Energy Use (kWh) in 0.1 kWh bins 

### Fig. 4.5 Distribution ofenergy usein phaseI andII.

Phase Ivertical axis washers Phase II horizontal axis washers (a) Average hot and cold water consumption. 8000

-----;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;----.===========:::;--- 'O 7000 <ti .Q 6000

- :; §_ 5000 5l 4000 ::::> 3000 

### e>**~** 2000 LU 1000 0 Phase Ivertical axis washers •Average Machine Energy •AverageThermal

Ener

Phase II horizontal axis washers (b) Average energy consumption. 

### Fig. 4.6 Average water andenergy consumed by phaseI andIIwashers.

- 25

-

### # l 2 Table4.1 AverageEnergy andWaterConsumption in PhasesI andII. Phase I 1 PhaseII Calculation Units Data Records Data Records Total Records 7645 7645 13213 13213

-- ------+---- -- -- ------- - . - - ------ NumberofLoads 7633 7633 13130 13130

-- --**-~---·-----** -------- ----- 3 Total HotWaterU_s_e
_ _**g~IJon~** _ ___ 81405 7033 _?_8000
____ 1_201_!_



### ___±___ !_o_ta_l <;:o_ld_W_a_te_r_Us_e
_________**gallo~_ -------~-2286**  _____ _ 

### ]OQ?

___ 250461_
___

## !**19~Q_** 5 Total**Wat~~**s_e_ ___ _ _ _gallons_
_ ___ _**-~~_0691** ____**}08~62** _______ 6 Total LaundryWeight pounds
_ ____**__1Q03~_** _]J2'}
__**8906~**_ 12759 7 No. ofParticipants Reporting_
_ _____1_03___
_ ______**_1_0~** ____ 8 Average LoadWeight lb/load
__ 6_.6_5
___ _ ___**__6.~~---- _9_~umber**  ofwash day_s_
_ _?ays_____
_ 61
__ ____ I05 10 Average Hot WaterTemperature °F 72 72 Difference*

------ . ------------ - -- - - 11**AverageWas~erEn~_g_~Use** _**~Wh/loai_**_____ _**q'.~-~-** 

# ____________**-2:_~~-**

- _!l__AverageHotWaterUse_**_g~llons/load** ____**_!_1:~-** 

### __________ 4.83 

### _!l
__ AverageColdWater_Use
_____**gallons/lo~Q_**____**22·~-** _____**20.~§_**______ 14 Average Total Water**U~_** __**gallons/loa~---** __:!_l.46
_ ________**25.7~-----** _ 

### __!i**--~~~~age Tota_!_Energ~_Use**  _____**~~u/load** __ __**__7-71~_** ___ ___ _ _**_32?~.** 

### __ _**--~**_**~**verage load/day per**~~!"li~JJant_ !o_~~~~day** ________**l.:~L** 

## _ _ _____ __ _1.2

## !

_ _ _ _

----------------- -- ----- 37.8 % Water Savings** % Energy Savings** ------ - ------- ------! *The temperature differencesfor eachparticipantare given inAppendixD. **Comparison o,fitems 14 and 15, respectively,forwaterandenergy.
4.4. DETERGENTUSE AND CONSUMPTION 57.6

Changes in detergentuse by participants were also evaluated in the study. The survey conducted at the beginning of the study determined the distribution of detergent brands used by the participants, and as the study progressed, participants used the measuring cup which was provided as part ofthe experimental equipment to measure and record the amount of detergent used with each load. Participants were noted to use varying amounts of detergents to complete their wash. Cases were found where participants used as much as 2 cups of detergent to wash small loads. However, the average detergent usefor the phase I washers was about a 

### Y2 cup/load. A heavy concentration ofordinary detergentmay not be desired for an h-axis washer because of the high degree oftumbling present that can lead to oversudsing. There are three ways in which any tendency for oversudsingcan beminimized. One approach would be for the h-axis washerto bedesigned to sense any oversudsing condition and to alterits cycle, perhaps using an extra rinse, to eliminate it. TheMaytag Neptune washerused in phaseII ofthe study was designed to detect and handle problems with oversudsing. However, this may cause the washer to use more water than would ordinarily be used. The second approach would be to use a low-sudsing detergent. Themarket for low-sudsing detergents is anticipated to grow ash-axis washers gain market share and the demand for low sudsing detergents grows. In conjunction with the phase II pan of the study, participants were allowed to continueto use theircustomarybrand and type ofdetergent in the new, h-axis washer, orthey could use a new detergent formulated expressly for use in tumble action washers. This formulation, Tide HE (high-efficiency) was provided free to those

- 26

-participants who were interested. Figure 4.7 indicates the distribution of detergent brands A-F used in phase I ofthe study and how the participants responded in phase II to the availability of the new detergent, Tide HE. Clearly, many of the participants took advantage of the new detergent; however, there was also a substantial number who elected to continue to use the brand to which they were accustomed. A 3%

(a) Phase I 

## c

(b) Phase II Fig. 4.7 Distribution ofdetergent brands A-F and Tide HE in phasesI andII. The amount ofdetergent used by participants depended on the individual, the weight ofthe wash load and there were some differences as well between phases I and II. Figure 4.8 shows the distribution ofloads for both phases according to the amount of detergent used with each load. Since the smallest division on the laundry cup was 1 A cup, detergent use 

### in 'A cup increments was used to produce this figure. Itcan be seen that about 30% ofloads were washed using 

### 'A cup of detergent and that about 80% ofall loads were washed using l/2 cup ofdetergent or less. 

### In phase II, participants tended to favor using Y2 cup ofdetergent ratherthan 

### 'A or% cup, whereas in phase I, the distinction is less sharp. Surprisingly, there were some (albeit few) loads washed using 2 cups ofdetergent. The relation between detergent concentration (cups of detergent relative to load size) and the distribution ofloads is shown in Fig. 4.9. As expected, this histogram is similar in shape to the one in Fig. 4.8. Themost frequently found detergentconcentration 

### in phaseI ranged from 0.06 to 0.08 cups ofdetergent per pound ofload weight. With the phase II washer, the most frequently used detergent concentration was somewhat less at 0.04 to 0.06 cups/pound. One of the more interesting points from this Figure is the fact that that detergent concentration varied fivefold across about 80% of all wash loads. These differences are reflective ofthe individual washing habits ofeach oftheparticipants (some useless, somemore detergent for a given load size).

- 27

-60%
50%
40% I/) 'C IU 0 ..J 30% 

### 0**~** 0 20%
10%
0% 0.25

10% -+---- Phase I 7,061 (92.4%) outof7,645 records Phase II 12,393 (93.8%) outof 13,213 records

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 Detergent Amount (Cups/Load) 

### Fig. 4.8 Detergentuseby

### load.



### ,-u.-__,•Phase I 1---------------------j IiiPhase II Phase I 6,979 (91.3%) outof 7,645 records Phase II 12,336 (93.4%) outof 13,213 records

Detergent Concentration (Cups/Lb) Groups 

### Fig. 4.9 Changesin detergentconcentration.

- 28

-

### 4.5. IMPACTS ONUSE OFOTHERADDITIVES In addition to detergent use, there are a variety ofadditives which can be used to help launder clothes. Heavily soiled clothing can be pretreated with a stain removal agent, bleach in solid or liquid form can be used to oxidize stains and improve brightness, and fabric softeners can also be used in the final rinse or in the dryer. Study participants used none of these additives in approximately 30% of all loads washed, and there was no significant difference in non-use between phases I and II. Chlorine bleach was used for about 5% of all loads, and color-safe bleach was used for about 5%ofall loads, and there was little difference in use ofbleach between phases. A fabric softener was used for about 60% ofthe loads on phase II and for as many as 43% ofloads in phase I. It remains unclear as to why there is this difference in fabric softener use. It may be attributed to the availability of a dispenser on all of the phase II washers to automatically dispense softener at the appropriate time in the system, whereas an automatic dispenser would likely be present on a smaller number ofphase I washers due to their age. For the most part, differences in how wash additives were used were more a function ofhabits and customs ofthe individual participants and less a function ofthe phase ofthe study. 

### 4.6. IMP ACTS ONLAUNDRYHABITS The wash cycle ofthe h-axis washer is a little longer than the wash cycle for a typic"al v-axis washer. To detennine whetherthis made much difference in when participants washed loads, we analyzed the distribution ofloads according to day ofthe week. Ifthe somewhat longer cycle times made much ofa difference, it might be seen through this distribution. Saturdays followed by Mondays as shown in Fig. 4.10 continued to be the days ofthe week when most loads were washed. Although slightly fewer loads were washed on Saturdays and slightly more loads were washed on Sundays during phase II than during phase I, there does not appear to be an indication that phase II washing had to be continued into days of the week when fewer loads would ordinarily have been done. Tuesdaythrough Thursdays continued to be light laundry days during both phases ofthe study. 

### 4.7. IMPACTSONWASHERSETTINGS The phase I as well as the phase II clothes washers had the ability to set the water temperature used during the wash and rinse cycles. In both study phases, participants continued to set these temperatures according to their customary laundry habits and custom, and to record setting information on the load datasheets. From these data, temperature utilization factors (TUFs) were detennined as shown in Fig. 4.11. The wash/rinse temperature settings 

### (H = hot, W = wann, 

### C = cold) are shown along the horizontal axis, and the fraction ofloads washed by participants using each ofthese settings is shown atthe left. The TUFs used in both phases ofthe study were close tothe TUFs defined and used in the DOE Test Procedure for rating clothes washers and shown in the figure for comparison. Most of the wash load cycles were done using W/C temperature settings, and about 94% ofthe loads were rinsed in cold water. In the DOE Test Procedure6
, the combined TUFs for cold water wash is 82%. Apparently, the participants were generally more conserving ofhot water and washed a larger fraction ofthe loads in wann water. Based on the fact that farming is a principal vocation in Bern, it is reasonable to expect that wann water rinses would be used tothe extent shown. Hot water was used forthe wash cycle more often in phase II than in phase I, and wann water was used for washingmore frequently in phase Ithan in phase II.

6 Federal Register, Rules andRegulations, Vol. 62, No. 166, August 27, 1997. p. 45507

- 29

-Phase/ 6,851 (89.6%) outof7,645 records •Phase 1 20%+--------j**~---/** Iii Phase 2 Phase/I 11,764 (89.0%)out of 13,213 records 

# -**~** en

## ~ 15% -+------- "C**~** ...J

# I-**~** 10%

5%

0%

70%

60%

50%

ell 40% 'ti 

## ., 0 ..J 0**~** 30%

20%

::10%

0% Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 

### Fig. 4.10 Distributionofwash loads through the week.



### cc •Phase 1 ilPhase 2 •DOETest Procedures

HC WC

Wash and Rinse Settings Phase I 7, 199 (94.2%) out of 7,645 records Phase II 12,827(97.1%)out of 13,213 records

WW 

### Fig.4.11 Temperature utilization factors for phases I and II. 4.8. CLEANINGPERFORMANCE 

### From a customer's perspective, the cleaning performance of a clothes washer is paramount among the other attributes. In 

### general, customers are unwilling to compromise cleaning

- 30

-performance in exchange for savings in energy and water orfor added features on a washer. As washer technologies and qualities have improved and markets have remained competitive, customers have come to expect a high degree of cleaning performance from any washer purchased. In the study, the issue ofcleaning performance was evaluated by participants based on visual inspection oflaundry loads removed from the washers. Visual inspection ofloads to judge how well the load was cleaned is a useful tool for determining "cleanability" particularly since it is based on the experience, familiarity with individual articles ofclothing and laundry habits of each of the individual participants. Moreover, the 5-month duration of the study including both phases made it likely that a participant would likely wash the same articles a number oftimes and would be aware ofany substantive changes in cleaning. The "cleanabilty" index used in the study was indicative ofparticipants' reaction to the overall cleanliness ofeach load without reference to individual cleaning features such as stain type and removal, brightness, soil removal, and other specific measures. With each load washed, participants were requested to indicate their satisfaction with the cleaning performance ofthe washer on a scale offive choices ranging from "Completely satisfied" to Not at all satisfied." The results for phase I and for phase II are shown in Fig. 4.12. These results are based on information on the datasheets received (94% response rate for phase I and 93% for phase II). Overall, it appears that participants were at least reasonably satisfied with their washers' performance in phase I as well as in phase II. There were, however, significant improvements in cleaning satisfaction levels as participants moved to the phase II washer. The most significant change is in the fraction of loads in which participants were "completely satisfied." This fraction rose from 15% in phase I to 45% in phase II. Moreover, the fraction of loads in which participants were "somewhat satisfied" decreased. Dissatisfaction with cleaning performance (generally indicated by participants either "not very" or "not at all" satisfied) was not seen very often in either phase I or in phase II. It appears that the differences shown in Fig. 4.12 are significant between the two phases. These results show that, in general, the overall satisfaction level for the entire population of participants in the cleaning performance oftheir washers increased significantly as a result ofthe changeover to the phase II washer. Details on the relative influence offactors such as the phase I washer vintage on cleaning satisfaction are given in Section 5.2. 4.9. IMP ACTS ONLOADDAMPNESS In a manner similar to the data gathered on cleaning performance, participants were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with how dry the loads felt as they were removed from the washer atthe conclusion ofa wash cycle. An indication of"not at all satisfied" would mean that at the end ofthe wash cycle, the load was much wetter than anticipated indicating that the spin cycle was not as effective as participants believed it should have been. The dryness ofa load after washing also affects the energy used for the final drying process. If a load with a low moisture level is placed into a dryer, less energy would be needed to dry the load and the drying time would be shortened. This is the usual case particularly ifthe dryer is controlled by a sensor which detects either the moisture or temperature ofthe air exiting the dryer. Information on satisfaction with load dampness was submitted for 94% ofthe total records reported in the study, and the overall results are shown in Fig. 4.13. Apparently, there was noted improvement in satisfaction levels from the changeover to the phase II washer. The largest improvement was found in the category "completely satisfied" in which the fraction of loads meeting this satisfaction level increased nearly five-fold. Noticeably too was the reduction in the number of loads in the category "somewhat satisfied." In both phases, although more markedly in phase I, there were loads for which participants expressed somedegree ofdissatisfaction with dampness.

- 31 -80% -1------ 70% -!------

V> 60% +------ 

# ,, m 0 ...J 50% -+------ 0**~** 40% -+------ 30%**-+-----~** 20% -1-------f 10% -+-------1 27%

Phase I Phase II Fig.4.12 Overall satisfaction with cleaningperformance.

100% 90% 80% V> V> Cl) 70% c Q. E m 60% 

### c .s::. 

# - 'i 50% c 0 ;: 40% u m 

# - V>-**~~** 30% !/) 36% 20% 10% 0% Phase I Phase II Fig.4.13 Overall satisfaction with dampness.

- 32

- iiCompletely Satisfied •very

Satisfied Dsomewhat

Satisfied •NotVery

Satisfied •NotAt All

Satisfied

Phasa I 7, 196 {94.1%) out of 7,645records Phase II 12,338 (93.4%) out of 13,213records

([] Completely

Satisfied •very

Satisfied DSomewhat

Satisfied •NotVery

Satisfied •NotAt All

Satisfied
Phasa/ 7,211 (94.3%) out of 7,645records Phase/I 12,439 (94.1%) out of 13,213 records

### 4.10. ThfPACTS ONDRYINGHABITS Dryer energy consumption was not measured in the study; however, after each wash, participants indicated how each load would be dried, whether in the dryer, on a clothesline or some ofeach. The distribution ofloads and how they were to be dried is shown in Fig. 4.14. About 

### 70% ofall loads washed during phase I and II were dried at least partially in the dryer. About 

### 20% were dried only on the clothesline, and there were no significant differences between phases I and II. Based on this information, the customary habits of participants did not change as a result of the changeoverto the h-axis washer. This information could beuseful in determining any savings in dryer energy consumption if there were differences in the remaining moisture content (RMC) between the v-axis and h-axis washers. Since the dryer was not used at all for about 

### 18-26% of the loads depending on the studyphase, any savings due to lowerRMC should be lowered bythat samedecrement.

50%

Ill 

### -g 40% 0 ....I 0**~** 30%
20%
10%
0% Dryer only Phase I 100 % of7,645 records Phase II 100 % of 13,213 records

Clothesline only Dryer and Clothesline Not Indicated by Participant Fig. 4.14 How loads weredried. 

### 4.11. MUNICIPALUTILITYThfPACTS The water used by clothes washers comes from the same source as all ofthe drinking water to a house. After each wash/rinse cycle, most ofthe water that is used ends up going down the drain; only the small portion bound up in the wet clothes passes into the air during the drying process. Consequently, the amount of water used by clothes washers has an impact on the service providing the water to washers as well as the service for treating an equal amount ofwastewater from the washer. In the study, the systems for supplying waterand disposing ofwaste waterwere different depending on whether a participant lived in Bern proper or in the region which surrounds the city. Both water and sewer services areprovided to residents who live in the town. Wateris provided from a few communitywells, some far away. One large (50,000-gallon) water tower located inside the city limits is used to provide most ofthe capacity needed by the town. This tower, shown in Fig. 4.15 has also served Bern faithfully as a landmark since its erection in 1953.

- 33

-

----- ----------Wastewater from the city is carried through underground sewer lines to a wastewater treatment facility at the edge of town. This facility consists of a small number of lagoons that allow evaporation ofwaterand biologicalbreakdown ofwastes. In the area surrounding Bern itself, watercomes to residents in two ways: through theirindividual wells and/or through the community water supply system or Rural Water District (RWD). The RWD consists of distributed water piping to each of the homes in the District along with two standpipes (one shown in Fig. 4.16 to maintain adequate water pressure at critical points in the waterdistribution system.

Fig. 4.15 Bern's50,000-gallon tank. Figure4.16 Rural WaterDistrict standpipe (Nemaha County). Wastewater from residents ofthe RWD is treated with individual septic systems as are common throughout much of the rural areas of the nation. Many households located in the RWD used individual wells to meet agricultural and farming water needs and used the water from the RWD for domestic needs such as clothes washing. For a household in the RWD to qualify as a participant in the study, it was required that its domestic water be provided through the RWD utility. Theimpacts ofclothes washers on the waterutilities (supply and wastewater) in and around Bern were evaluated through two "Superwash Saturdays." The first Superwash Saturday (SWS) was conducted on June 28, 1997, when the original washers were still in place, and the second SWS was held on September 13, 1997, with the h-axis washers up and operating. The objective on both occasions was to measure the delivery flowrate water to the city and to the RWD, and the wastewater flowrate from the city throughout the day. These data, combined with information from the datasheets filled out by participants would allow the impacts ofclothes washing on the community's water infrastructures to be determined. On each Saturday, valves on the water piping in Bern and the RWD were used to stop the water flow to Bern's water tower, and to isolate water flow to both standpipes in the RWDs so that water inputcould be determined. The

- 34-waterdischarge from each tank was determined by monitoringthe water level inside the tank as it dropped throughout the day. Tank water levels were measured indirectly through use ofpressure transducers that had been installed in the water lines at the base ofeach water tower. The water pressure at the location ofthe transducer is directly proportional to the height ofthe water in the tank. The amount ofwater discharged from the tank over any time interval was determined from changes in pressure sensed by the transducer overthis same time interval and the diameter ofthe tank. Based on this procedure, the volume ofwater supplied to the city ofBern as well as to the RWD was determined throughoutthe day on each ofthe SWSs. The flowrate ofwastewater from Bern was determined through instrumentation that was installed at the lagoon. This instrumentation consisted ofa sensor to measure the height ofwastewater upstream and downstream of a v-notch weir through which wastewater flowed just before emptying into the lagoon. The difference in height at these two points is proportional to the volume tlowrate ofwater passing through the weir. This instrumentation was connected to a battery-powered datalogger, and data on the rate ofwastewater generation on both SWSs were collected and compared with the rate offresh waterconsumption ofthe city ofBern. There were two main objectives ofthe SWS concept. The first was to determine the impacts that clothes washers have on water utilities as compared with all ofthe other water uses present in households. The idea was to encourage participants to postpone most oftheir week's washing until Saturday when many loads would be done signifying a large wash day. The second objective ofthe Superwash concept was to determine the differences in water consumption ofthe collection ofwashers between phases Iand II. This gives an idea ofthe impact that a large-scale changeoverto h-axis washers can have on a community's water utilities. The impact ofa heavy wash day on the Bern's water supply and wastewater disposal system from the first SWS is shown in Fig. 4.17. On this day, data on water flow from Bern's watertank and wastewater flow into the lagoon began to be collected about 9:30 a.m. The figure shows that over the day about 16,000 gallons ofwater were used and discharged down the drains ofthe residents ofthe city. The total flows to the lagoon and from the water tank were about the same, and this indicates thatthere was no outside watering done. The source ofnoise in the signal from the city water tank beginning about 2:00 p.m. is unknown. The collective water consumption of the metered clothes washers in the city has been added to this plot as shown in the Figure. Although some participants started loads early in the morning, most began about the time that utility water data collection began. Figure 4.17 showsthe clothes washer water consumption with a beginning time of9:30 a.m. It can be seen that over the day, the 48 v-axis washers in the city used about 18-20% ofthe total water used by the town. Moreover, these washers accounted for the same fraction oftotal wastewater generated by the town. It should be pointed out that Saturdays are normally heavy wash days already and that participants were encouraged to concentrate their week's laundry on the 6/28/97 SWS. Records showthaton that day, study participants who lived inside Bern washed 164 loads ofclothes weighing 1,027 pounds using 72 cups ofdetergent. Similar information was obtained for the water consumed by the surrounding RWD and the loads of clothes done by washers located in the rural water district. This information was used to supplement the information developed for the city to arrive at the total impact of SWS on the community. This summary information, shown in Figure 4.18 indicates that the city and RWD together used 55,000 gallons ofwater, and that clothes washers, based on measurements from the I03 individual washers, used about 12,000 gallons ofwater (22% ofthe total). During that time, all I03 participants in the study washed 503 loads weighing 3,336 pounds with 225 cups of detergent. On average, participants in the rural water district washed 68% ofthe total number of loads done that day.

- 35

-20,000
16,000

-

..- ii 

## s 12,000 Cl) l/l :::>


## ... Cl) 8,000 

# - ca**~** 4,000

0 ' 9:00AM To lagoon "'-- ••••••••**~** 

# .. From citywatertank

11:00AM 1:00 PM Time of Day 

# .. 

# .. 

# .. ... ___

## .....

# -

Used by clothes washers In city

# ~

3:00 PM 5:00 PM Fig.4.17 Waterutilization in Bernduringfirst Superwash Saturday,6/28/97 for phaseI washers.

..- ii 

## s Cl) l/l :::>


## ... Cl) iii**~ ~~**  

### -

- 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000
0 9:00AM Fromcityand rural watertanks**~**

11:00 AM Used byall clothes washers in study

1:00 PM Time of Day 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 

### Fig.4.18 Waterutilization in Bern andRWD duringfirst SuperwashSaturday,6/28/97 for phaseI washers. It can be concluded from this analysis that on a heavy laundry day (e.g. 6/28/97 for Bern), a community like Bern could be expected to use 18

- 22% ofits total waterconsumption in clothes washing. The fraction ofwastewater generated byclothes washers would be at least this much

-

- 36

-perhaps much higher depending on the amount of water used outside the house for watering or washing the car. On September 13, 1997 after the h-axis washers had been installed and phase II ofthe study was well underway, a second SWS was held. The technique and approach were identical to the ones used for the first SWS with all systems instrumented as before. The purpose ofthis test was to gather the data needed to compare the water consumption ofthe phase I washers in the first SWS to the consumption of the phase II, h-axis washers. During the second SWS, all of the study participants (city and RWD) washed 516 loads and 3,666 pounds ofclothing using 251 cups of detergent. This represents only small increases (2.6% more loads, 9.9% more pounds of wash, 11% more detergent) over what was seen during the SWS conducted in phase I. Comparing data from the two Superwash days indicates that there were differences in the proportion ofloads done bycity washers as compared to all ofthe loads washed. On the first SWS, 32% ofall loads were washed in the city whereas on the second SWS, 40% ofall loads done were washed in the city. The major change, however, between the two SWS periods, as shown in Figure 4.19, was found in the total amount ofwater needed by washers during those two similar days. In this figure, the cumulative waterconsumption ofall washers for all loads ofwash done in each SWS is plotted as a function of the time of day. During the first SWS, the phase I washers consumed 20,454 gallons of water. During the second SWS, an equal number of phase II, h-axis washers used 13,091 gallons ofwater- a 36% reduction in overall washer water consumption. Apparently, on both days, the wash day started early and ended late for some although most of the loads were done in the period 7:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. A town picnic was held the afternoon of9113, and the impact of this picnic on washing behavior can be seen as many of the participants and picnicgoers attended to washing chores earlierin the day than they did for the first SWS.

20000 -+--------< All washers on 9/13/97

....... ;**15000+-~~~~~~~~~~~~~-""':--~~~~~~~~~--l** 

## 5! :::> 

# ! 10000 City washers on 9/13/97**o+-~-=---..-i=a.2::=:::.......,.**

### ______________ ----1 12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM 12:00 AM Time of Day 

### Figure4.19 Collective waterconsumption ofparticipants' washers duringboth SWSs.

- 37 -- 38

-

### 5. ANALYSES OFFINDINGSAND IMPACTS In this study, phase I washers spanning a range ofages,.brands, and features were replaced by a single type, brand and model washer (Maytag's h-axis Neptune model). The impacts reported in the previous sections ofthis report were based on the "average"phase Iwasher in the Bern Study. This "average" washer was found to be about 8 years old, to consume 11.6 gallons ofhot water and 29.9 gallons ofcold water per load, and to have the other average characteristics shown in Table 4.1. In this section of the report, we analyzed relationships between several of the parametersto determine their influence on the findings. Although there are a number ofanalyses that could be conducted from information provided in the study, we chose to perform a limited number ofanalyses. These analyses were designed to answer some key questions posed in the study as well as to evaluate some performance-related issues associated with the h-axis washer such as: How does water savings depend on the load size? How does the cleaning performance (cleanability) depend on the age ofthe phase Ibaseline washer? What were the impacts of using the conventional detergent vs. the highefficiency detergent in the h-axis washer? Other than the washer itself, how did other factors affect the cleaning performance? In the following sections, we explore some ofthese questions. 

### 5.1. WATERCONSUMPTION The amount ofwater consumed by a washer is determined by a number offactors as shown in Fig. 5.1. Some ofthese factors are fixed and depend on the design ofthe washer itselfwhile others depend on howthe washer is used and operated by customers.


### • Machine. Three principal characteristics ofa washer affect its water consumption, and these include the type ofwasher (v-axis or h-axis), the age ofthe washer (older washers may be less water-efficient than newer ones), and the washer settings used by customers.


### • Load. The load type and size affects the water consumption ofa washer. Many vaxis washers have a load size setting (switch or knob)that can be used to regulate the water level inside the tub. It is not clear how many actually use this switch to adjust their water use with load size. However, there is also the chance that small loads could be washed using a large load-size setting, and this would require more water to be used than is necessary. These washers also have a water level sensor thatcontrols the level ofwater in the tub for the washing and deep rinse cycles. Since clothes tend to displace water in the tub ofa v-axis washer during a fill cycle, the water needed to reach each water level setting depends on the size and makeup ofthe load in the tub. The h-axis washer is designed to operate without using a switch for setting the washeraccordingto load size, i.e. the washerregulates the amount ofwater needed to wash and rinse each load

- less water for smaller loads and more water for larger ones. Therefore, for both types ofwasher, v- or h-axis, load size should affect water consumption.

- 39

-• Detergent. The type and amount of detergent can affect a washer's water consumption. The vigorous tumbling action of the h-axis washer can cause oversudsing if too much of a conventional, high sudsing detergent is used. The Neptune was designed to sense any oversudsing condition, and if found would automatically call for extra water to eliminate the condition as part of a suds management protocol. The extent to which extra water was required depends on the amount of detergent that participants used for each load and the type of detergent: theirnonnal brand orthe low sudsingTide HE.

Type Age Settings Size

Type Amount


### Fig. 5.1 Washingfactors that determine water consumption In a prior section ofthis report (Section 4), we looked at the influence ofwasher type on water consumption. We found that the v-axis washers ofphase I tended to use more water (on average 15 gallons more) than the h-axis washers of phase IL In the current section of this report, we explore the two remaining factors (load size and detergent type/amount) to determine how they**aff~t** water consumption. Throughout both phases of the study, participants washed loads ranging in size from a pound or so to much larger weights. From these data, relations between**lo~c:!** weight and water consumption per unit load weight were developed by perfonning a statistical analysis (best fit) of the load weight/water consumption data. The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. 5.2. The trends for phase I and II are similar showing that as load weight increases, the ratio ofwater consumption to load weight decreases. This means that both types of washers, h-axis and v-axis tend to use water more efficiently at higher load weights. Across the load weights shown, the h-axis model used less water per pound ofload than did the v-axis model and this relative improvementin performance increases with load weight. The notes on the curves for the h-axis and v-axis washers shows the equations developed for a singleparameter fit ofwater consumption to load weight. The notes further indicate that much ofthe waterconsumption for either washercanbeexplainedbythis single parametermodel.

- 40 -60 45% -Phase I 43% 50 -o-Phase II -o-waterSavings 41% -%Water Savings Phase I 39% 6,814 (89.1%) out :ii' =::: ; 40 of7, 645records 37% I/) Cl c Phase II 35%**-~** 9, 194 (89.0%) out IJ) :.!? of 10,333 records 0 33% "D c :::J 0 Q. 30 

### a; Q. Cll I/) ::I 

# .. 31% 20 .l!l Ill 3:: 29% 10 27% 0 25%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Load Weight (lb) Fig. 5.2Impactofload weighton waterconsumptionand savingsproduced.
Based on data from the study, we explored relationships between detergent type/amount and waterconsumption, and the results ofthis investigation are shown in Fig. 5.3.
16
14 :ii' 

### s ; 12**~** "C § 10 ..!!! 0 "D 8 c :::J 0 Q. 

### a; 6 Q. 3l ::I 

# ..**~** 4 3:: 2
0 --4 • Phase I

0.25 llPhase II • Ph2-Tide HE 1-----------------------------l • Ph2 - Others

0.5 0.75 1.25 Detergent Amount (cups) Phase I 6, 196 (81. 1%)outof7,645 records Phase II 11, 107(84.1 %)outof 13,213 records

1.5 1.75 2 Fig. 5.3 Impactofdetergenttype/concentration onaverage wateruse.

- 41

-In Fig. 5.3, there are four relations shown: one for the phase I washers, the second for all ofthe phase II washers without regard for the type ofdetergent used, the third for phase II washers in which participants elected to use the low-sudsing (Tide HE) detergent provided, and the fourth bar for phase II participants who chose to continue to use their conventional detergent (others). The phase I and phase II bars simplyreiterate the finding that the v-axis washers used more water per pound of wash than did the h-axis washer, and that participants would likely increase the amount of detergent as load size increases. In the remaining two bars, differences in water consumption between participants who used the low sudsing detergent and ones who continued to use their customary brands (others) are shown. Interestingly, with each detergent concentration in phase II, water consumption was consistently larger for the customary, conventional detergent than for theTide HE detergent. This suggests that the low sudsing detergent provides a benefit in reducing the amount of water used. There was little benefit seen for loads that used 1 A cup of detergent and somewhat greater benefits with higher detergent amounts. This is to be expected since low concentrations ofeither type ofdetergent would not lead to an oversudsing condition. The absence of a bar at the 1-¥.i cup level simply indicates that no loads at that Tide HE concentration were done and reported. 

### 5.2. CLEANING PERFORMANCE There are a number offactors that can affect the cleaning performance ofa washer and customer satisfaction with cleaning as shown in Fig. 5.4. While many ofthese factors are identical to ones identified previously, there are additional ones that affect customers' perception ofthe cleaning performance ofa washer.



### Type Age Settings Size Soil level

Type Amount



### Fig. 5.4 Washingfactors thataffectcustomer's satisfaction.

-42 -The initial soil level of loads before washing, the use of bleach and other additives, the temperature settings used on the washer, the amount and type ofdetergent used can each affect cleaning performance as well as the washer itself. Therefore, it was important to distinguish differences in cleaning performance as a result ofthe changeover to the new h-axis washer from differences that could be attributed to these otherfactors.


### • Initial soil level. How clean a load appears when removed from a washer depends to some extent on the initial soil level ofthe load going into the washer. We assumed that over the extended period ofthe study and the large number ofloads analyzed (more than 20,000), the average soil level in a typical load and the distribution ofloads at any initial soil level would be uniform. Some loads were probably quite soiled before washing, some less so, but on average and across all participants, the initial soil levels were taken to be consistent between phases ofthe study.


### • Bleach use. Bleach and other additives can affect the appearance ofloads removed from the washer and a customer's perception ofcleaning performance. From the loads studied and analyzed, there were no significant changes in the use ofbleach. About I0% ofthe loads in each phase were washed using bleach.


### • Effects ofWasherAge. Each participant in the studyjudged cleaning performance based on their experience with their original phase I washer. It seems reasonable to anticipate that participants with olderphase Iwashers would see more cleaning improvement with a phase II washerthan would participants who's original washer was newer. It is reasonable to assume that: the newerthe washer, the better its cleaning performance would likely be and the less of an impact the phase II washer would make on cleaning. Since the phase I washers ranged in age from almost new to more than 20-years old, a participant's judgement of the relative improvement in cleaning by changing to the phase II washer could be significantly affected by the original washer. To test this assumption and to establish a basis for conclusions on washer cleaning performance, we segregated phase I washers according to vintage as shown in Fig. 5.5 and determined cleaning satisfaction levels as before. While there was some variability in the results, the younger the phase I washer, the higher the satisfaction with its cleaning performance. This is especially evident with the phase I washer which were "brand new" (I year old or newer) as compared to older washers. As would be expected, participants with brand new washers were at least "very satisfied" most of the time (about 86% of loads washed). For older washers, the dissatisfaction level is seen to increase with increasing age (the 25 to- 27-yearold category notwithstanding where there was only one washer). Figure 5.6 shows the cleaning satisfaction reported by participants who had replaced their phase I washer of the vintage shown with the h-axis model. A comparison ofthese two figures (Fig. 5.5 and Fig. 5.6) indicates that in each age range, cleaning satisfaction increased with the changeover to the h-axis model. The improvement in satisfaction was especially notableto participants who had phase I washers more than 15 years old.

- 43

-100% 90% 80% 70%

I/) 60% "O ca 0 ...J 50% 0 <ft. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

100%

90% 80% 70%
(I) 60% "O cu 0 50% ..J 

# - 0**~** 0 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 

### oto 1 1to5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 Age Range 20 to 25 25 to 27 11Completely Satisfied •VerySatisfied D Somewhat Satisfied •NotVery Satisfied • Not At All Satisfied

7,271 (95. 1%) out of 7,645 records

Fig. 5.5 Dependenceofcleaningsatisfaction ofphase 1machineon its vintage.

Oto 1 1to 5 5to 1 

## o 1

## oto 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 27 Age Range l.lCompletely Satisfied •Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied

12,363 (93.6%) out of 13,213records



### Fig. 5.6 Dependence ofcleaningsatisfaction ofphase IIwasherbased on experience with phaseI washer (by

### vintage).

-44-

### • Effect of Temperature Settings. Wash and rinse temperatures can affect the cleaning performance ofa washer. Participants were asked to indicate howthey set the wash and rinse temperatures for their washers as they washed clothes. In most ofthe washers, a hot, warm or cold wash temperature could be selected, and a warm or cold rinse temperature could be selected. In addition, participants were asked to characterize the soil level ofeach wash load prior to washing. As can be seen in the datasheet, soil levels of Very Heavy, Heavy, Moderate, Light, Very Light and None were the selections available. Participants simply selected the initial soil level from among these choices for each load of wash. The information was collected for both phases ofthe study, and the results shown are in Fig. 5.7 for phase I and in Fig. 5.8 for phase II. The top of each figure shows how participants characterized the pre-wash soil level of all wash loads without regard to a particular wash/rinse temperature setting; that is, all temperature selections were used. In phase I (Fig. 5.7), participants' satisfaction with cleaning performance followed the expected trend: participants were more satisfied with a washer's cleaning performance for lightly soiled loads than for heavily soiled ones. They were very (or completely) satisfied for more than 90% of all loads, which were very lightly soiled, and 55% for loads, which were very heavily soiled at the outset. The four charts atthe bottom ofFig. 5.7 indicate how these satisfaction levels varied according to wash/rinse temperature settings. As before, cleaning satisfaction tended to be accordingto the initial soil level ofthe load. The results ofinitial soil loading and wash/rinse temperatures for the phase II h-axis washer are shown in Fig. 5.8. Without regard for temperature setting (top ofthe Figure), participants were at least very satisfied with 90% or better ofall loads across all initial soil levels. For lightly soiled loads, the satisfaction level is about 98%. The four charts at the bottom ofthe figure show how cleaning performance depends on the wash/rinse temperature selections. Over all temperature setting combinations and all initial soil levels, participants' assessment ofthe overall cleaning performance ofthe h-axis washerwas superiorto theirphase Iwasher.


### • Effect of High Efficiency Detergent. During phase II ofthe study, participants had the option of continuing to use their conventional detergent, or using Tide HE, which had been formulated expressly for use in h-axis clothes washers. About 80% ofall phase II loads were done using the HE detergent. To test the contribution that the new HE detergent had on cleaning performance, we separated datasheets received in phase II according to those loads washed with Tide HE and those washed using participants' customary brand/type of detergent. The results ofthis analysis are shown in Fig. 5.9. Also, the satisfaction responses forthose loads for which there wasn'ta detergentbrand identified or more than one entry was given are shown in the figure as the category "none or more than one specified". All, participants appeared to be very satisfied with the cleaning performance of both types of detergents. In the case ofTide HE, participants were at a minimum very satisfied with 96% ofall loads thatthey washed using this low-sudsing detergent, whereas with the conventional detergent, 92% ofall loads delivered this same satisfaction level. These results are based on datafrom 11,483 loads. No detergent use or more than one detergent type was reported for a much smaller sample size as shown in Fig. 5.9.

- 45

-"' Qi > 

## .,

..... c 0**~** 

### ., ] 

### Ji**~** 

### ., E**~** :J 0



### ., Qi**~** ....J C.· 0 

## = l**~** !JI l; E 

### .s 

### "' :J 0 

# .. 'ii > GI ....I c 0 :;::; u .! .!!! iii (/) 

# .. GI E 0 Ui ::J 0

80%
60% 40% 20%

100%
80% 60%
40%
20%
0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Soiled Levels Very Light None IiiCompletely Satisfied •Very Satisfied D Somewhat Satisfied •NotVery Satisfied •NotAt All Satisfied

(a)All washertemperaturesettings.

Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None

(b) HoUCold temperaturesetting.

Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None

(d) Warm/Coldtemperature setting. 

### "' Qi > 

### .,

..... c 0 "' u J!l 

### .,**~ ~**  

### .s 

### ., :J (.)



### ., Qi > 

### "

..... c 0 

### "' Jl "' 

## = ., !JI l; E**~** :J (.) 100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%

100%
80%
60% 40%
20%
0% Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None (c) Warm/Warmtemperature setting.

Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None

(e) Cold/Cold temperaturesetting. 

### Fig. 5.7 Relative cleaningperformanceofphaseI washers versus initial soiled level oflaundry.

- 46

-

### "' 'i > II> 

### _, c 0 :;:; u .! 

## "' :; I/) G; E 0 Ui 

### "' 0

100",{,



# .. ! 80% ...J

### ~ 60% 8 ,g .:! 40",{, i g lii 

### " 20% 

### "

100%
Ji! 80% 

## .. > 

## .. ...J c: 0**~** 60% l! 

### ., .:! 40%**~** 1ii " 20% 

### " 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Soiled Levels Very Light None IllCompletely Satisfied •Very Satisfied D Somewhat Satisfied •Not Very Satisfied • Not At All Satisfied

(a) All washer temperature settings.

Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None (b) Hot/Cold temperaturesetting. (c) Warm/Warm temperature setting.

100%
Ji! 80%**~** ...J

### ~ 60% 8**~** .:! 40% i Ii 1l 20% 

### "
Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None Very Heavy Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None (d) Warm/Coldtemperaturesetting. (e) Cold/Cold temperaturesetting. 

### Fig. 5.8 RelativecleaningperformanceofphaseIIwashers versusinitial soiled level oflaundry.

-47

-80% 70%



### ., 60% "C 

# .. 0 50% ...J 0 ?ft. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ndeHE Others None or More than One Specified DetergentTypes !!Completely Satisfied •very Satisfied 0 Somewhat Satisfied •Not Very Satisfied •NotAt All Satisfied In All 12,377 (93.7%) out of 13,213 records Tide HE 9,853 (79.6%)out of 12,377 Others 1,630 (13.2%)out of 12,377 Noneor MoreThan One 894 (7.2%)out of 12,377

Fig. 5.9 Dependenceofcleaningsatisfactionondetergentin phaseII. Finally, the data on cleanability was examined to detennine effects stemming from familiarity with the phase II washer. The data records were separated according to time-of-ownership for the h-axis washer, and cleaning satisfaction levels were compared as shown in Fig. 5.10. Over a 3-month period startingfrom when phase II washers were first installed, participants were at least reasonably satisfied with about 95% of the loads done during that period. Most evident is the increase in overall satisfaction level shown by the significant and consistent increase in the number of loads for which participants were completely satisfied. These results suggest that (1) participants became more experienced with the h-axis washer and increasingly were able to obtain excellent performance from it, and (2) improved cleaning of the same articles of clothing through repeated washings over this time period became more evident. 

### 5.3. MOISTUREREMOVALPERFORMANCE Satisfaction with how dry loads appeared at the conclusion of the wash cycle is affected by most of the same factors as satisfaction with cleaning performance as shown in Fig. 5.11. One major determinant ofthe remaining moisture content (RMC) in a load is load weight. Therefore, it would be anticipated that with higherload weights, participants would tend to be less satisfied with the level of dampness. To test this assertion, the loads done in phase II were segregated according to load weight as shown in Fig. 5.12, and the level of dampness satisfaction (fraction of loads with satisfaction levels applied) was determined. Overall, dampness satisfaction followed the expected trend, that participants' were noted to be less satisfied as load weight increased. Fig. 5.13 shows the results for the same weight categories for phase I, and it appears that there is some improvement in the level "complete" satisfaction for load weights in the 15-20-poundload weightrange.

-48

-100% 90% 80% 70% 60%**~** m 

## .s Ci ;!. 40% 30% 20% 10%

Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Study Months IllCompletely Satisfied •Very

Satisfied Dsomewhat

Satisfied •Not Very

Satisfied •NotAtAll

Satisfied

Phsse I Months 1&2

Phase II Months 3 to 5

Fig. 5.10 Changes in satisfaction with cleaning performanceofphase I and II washers.



### Type Settings Size



### Type

Fig. 5.11 Washingfactors thataffect customer's dampness satisfaction. The h-axis washer used in the study had a switch on the operating panel that would increase the speed and duration ofthe spin cycle to wring more moisture from the clothing. Participants used this max extract (maximum extraction) feature for about 62% of all loads and an extra rinse feature for about4% ofall loads washed in phase II. Fig. 5.14 shows the effects that these washer

-49-

### features had on the dampness satisfaction index. There seems to be little in terms of a trend except for the point that participants' satisfaction levels were lower where the extra rinse alone was used. Beyond this, there were only minordifferences in satisfaction levels.

100% 90% 80% 70%

rn 60% 

## ,, as 0 50% ...I 0 ;,!! 0 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

90% 80% 70%

rn 60% 

# ,, as 

# .s 50% 0 ;,!! 0 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Oto 5 5to10 10to 15 15to 20 20to 27 Load Weight (lb) All IllCompletely Satisfied •Very

Satisfied DSomewhat

Satisfied •Not Very

Satisfied •NotAt All

Satisfied 12,943 (94.1%) out of 13,213 records

Fig. 5.12 Dependenceofdampness satisfaction with load weightfor phase II.

38% l-----1353 1-----l 34% 33%

Oto 5 5 to 10 10to 15 15 to 20 Load Weight (lb) 50%

20 to 27 All lfilCompletely Satisfied •Very

Satisfied oSomewhat

Satisfied •Not Very

Satisfied •Not At All

Satisfied 7,211 (94.3%) out of 7,645 records

Fig. 5.13 Dependence ofdampness satisfaction with load weight for phaseI.

- 50

-100% 90% 80% 70%
(/) 60% "ti**~** ...I 50% 0 'if!. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Settings IllCompletely Satisfied •Very Satisfied o Somewhat Satisfied •Not Very Satisfied • Not At All Satisfied

Out of 13,213 records All 12,439 (94%) Max Extract 8,206 (62%) Extra Rinse 522 (4%) Max & Extra Rinse 1,293(10%) NoMax or Extra Rinse 2,418 (18.3%)

Fig. 5.14 Dependence ofdampness satisfaction on max. extractandextra rinse cycles (phase IImachines).

It is much more efficient to dry clothes by spinning them in a spin cycle than by using thermal energy to evaporate the moisture. Consequently, the effectiveness ofthe final spin in removing moisture can be important in saving dryer energy. The measure of how dry a load is after a process (e.g. final spin) is the remaining moisture content. RMC (as a fraction) is the weight of the moisture retained in a load divided by the dry weight of the same load. Lower RMCs are desirable from an energy-efficiency standpoint. From the pre-wash and post-wash load weight data, a "field" RMC value could be obtained, and this was done for phase 1, and for phase II with the max extract feature enabled and without max extract. Fig. 5.15 shows the trends produced from this analysis. In phase I, RMC values ranged from about 68% for a 2-pound load to about 50% for a 20-lb load. In phase II, lower RMCs were produced by the h-axis washer operating without the max. extract feature on, and still lower RMCs with the max. extract feature on. The RMC for the class of washers in phase I was particularly sensitive to the dry load weight, and with higher load weights, both machines were able to leave loads with RMC values of 50% or less. Forthe 

### 6-7 pound average load weight in phaseII, the RMC ofthe h-axis machine using the max. extract setting was about 48%. It should be noted that these RMC values were measured in the field and werebased on the condition ofloads as they were prepared for washing. Laboratory measurements ofRMC are based on pre-washconditions where the clothes are bone-dry.

- 51

-97.2 % oftotal records - Phase I 0.65 +-----'-----------------J28. 1% oftotalrecords - Phase II (max) 13.2 % oftotal records - Phase II (no max)**0.45+-----------------------------------~** 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Dry Load Weight (lb) Fig. 5.15 Dependence ofremainingmoisturecontenton load weight.

- 52-

### 6. CONCLUSIONS The major impetus ofthis study was quantifying the water and energy savings offered by a large concentration in a community ofhorizontal-axis (h-axis) washers over conventional vertical-axis (v-axis) washers. Close to 35 billion loads oflaundry are washed annually nationwide in the U.S consuming2.6% ofthe total residential end-use energy7• Theresults ofthis study indicate that vaxis washers on average use over40 gallons ofwater and over 7,700 Btu or 2.25 kWh ofend-use energy per load ofwash and that h-axis washers provide close to 38% water and 58% energy savings overthese v-axis washers. Based on these averages, close to 1.4 trillion gallons ofwater and 270trillion Btu ofenergy are used by these v-axis washers annually nationwide and complete replacement ofthese washers with h-axis washers could save over 500 billion gallons ofwater and over 150trillion Btu ofenergy annually. In addition to demonstrating the h-axis washer as an extremely efficient technology, this study evaluated and quantified many ofthe potential impacts ofa changeoverto high-efficiency clothes washers. These include impacts on customer habits and behavior patterns with respect to laundering tasks, impacts on the energy and water used by customers, and impacts ofwashers on the utilitiesthat supply water. Overall, the study showed thatthe changeoverto the h-axis washer had little impact on the way in which customers washed and dried clothes. Customer laundry patterns such as days ofthe week when laundry is done, detergent use, how loads are dried, and use of additives did not change in the switchover to the h-axis model. In addition, customers made minor changes in their washer's wash/rinse temperature settings between study phases: 9% more loads were washed using a WIC temperature setting and 9% less loads were washed using a H/C temperature settingin phase II than in phase I. The study showed that, on average, participants' overall satisfaction with the cleaning performance ofthe h-axis washer over their original v-axis washer was much improved. The fraction ofloads in which participants were "completely satisfied" with the cleaning performance increased threefold from 15 to 45% in the changeover from the average v-axis washer to the haxis washer in the study. In cases where v-axis washers that were I-year old or newer were replaced by the h-axis washer, the improvement in cleaning performance was notable: the number of loads in which participants were completely or very satisfied rose from 86% to 97% of all loads washed. There was only a marginal improvement in cleaning satisfaction as a result ofthe use of the high-efficiency detergent over the conventional detergent in phase II of the study. With eithertype detergent, participants appeared to be well pleased. The results from measurements of the "wetness" of loads removed from the washers were consistent in the study. Participants appeared to be much more satisfied with the dryness ofloads removed from the h-axis washer than from the typical, phase I v-axis washer. Participants appeared to be completely satisfied with the level ofdryness in 9% ofthe phase I loads and 43% ofthe phase II, h-axis loads. This subjective measurement was corroborated by calculations of remaining moisture content which showed that the h-axis washer

- particularly ifaided by the high-speed spin setting

- performed a betterjob ofmoisture removal for typical loads than the average v-axis washer from phase I of the study. With higher load weights, however, the improvement (reduction) in remaining moisture content between the two washer types became less noticeable.

7 "Revolution, Not Agitation: ANew Spin on Clothes Washing'', Home Energy, Vol. 13, No. 6, November/December 1996, pp. 7-8.

- 53

-Major interests in the study were changes in the water and energy consumption between phases I and II. On average across all participants, the h-axis washer required only 62% ofthe water and 42% of the energy needed by the typical v-axis washer. The impacts of these reductions are shown in Fig. 6.1 and 6.2 where the cumulative water and energy consumption of all of the instrumented washers were measured and theresults plotted. In each Figure, the trendline showing the total water orenergy that would have been consumed if theI washers had remained in place is shown. Thepresence oftwo SuperWash Saturdays, one in phase I and the other in phase II can be seen along with the week needed for the phase I-II transition. These savings in energy and water will continue to grow and produce benefits to the participants and the community of Bern. By converting to the h-axis washer, the 103 study participants will continueto savethe community ofBern more than 50,000 gallons ofwater
- one storage tankfull

- each month. The change in energy consumption exhibits a similar trend as shown in Fig. 6.2. In summary, the Bern Washer study showed the field perfonnance of tumble-action, h-axis washers to produce significant savings in energy and water as compared with conventional washers found in the field. The study showed that a transition to the h-axis technology did not present any extra challenges that must be overcome by customers, or that they had to adjust any laundry habits and patterns as a result of the replacement. Of the variables that could affect participant satisfaction, none were found to change a conclusion ofsuperiorcleaning perfonnance and satisfaction with post-wash load dryness. The study demonstrated that large amounts of energy and water used by the conventional phase I washers in Bern are not needed to clean clothes effectively. Theh-axis technology was shown to use much less water and energy than the phaseI conventional washers while atthe sametime, was found to improvecleaning performance andproduced a high level ofoverall customer satisfaction. 800,000 .-----------------------------------, 700,000 Phase 1 

# l**Projecie~Ti;Jct~-;savings** Due 6,855 {89. 7%) of7,645 records**>--------~riz°-~~l** {.ll(is Washers**>---~~--<** Phr.se II 600,000 11**?6~t** 8(J.**o~**

### ... Jot ;:;· :;- t3

300,000
200,000**+----------\--~--:zP"------..,,p>D------~~·--------~** ···"-,
Hot Water Use
0**+,----~~~--------------------------!** 8-May 28-May 17-Jun 7-Jul 27-Jul 16-Aug 5-Sep 25-Sep 15-0ct 4-Nov Fig. 6.1 Projected impactofwasherreplacementonwaterconsumption.

- 54 -45,000 40,000 -1---------------------lr**;-;iojf-:c?t::~ ~n£ig~'** **s~~i~£5-** 0-:..!;-·-----r----,

..**-------------------~** ia;:o:-;;:oni::!**!--J.:~ ri_,·~t_:(!:-.~**  Phase I 35,000 6,855 (89. 7%) out of 7,645 records 30,000 ••j, / l I**~** I ,J5

...... .I:**~-------------~** 31::**~** 25,000 GI Ill ::::> >- 20,000 Dl 

# .. ! w 15,000

2-Jun-97

### 0-t-~~~\~~-.-~~-.-~~.--~--r~~--.-~~-,.-~~---,-~--j 8-May 28-May 17-Jun 7-Jul 27-Jul 16-Aug 5-Sep 25-Sep 15-0ct 4-Nov Fig 6.2 Projected impact ofwasher replacementon energy consumption.



### - 55

-

### Appendix A. Water Metering for Clothes Washers The following information

- details regarding the distributed water meters used in the study

- is provided to help water utilities and others who may be interested in conducting similar projects requiring end-use metering ofwater fixtures or appliances such as clothes washers. Described is the technique we used for adapting a conventional water meter with a remote digital readout that could be easily read by the participants with each load oflaundry. This eliminated any need for the water meters to be viewable by the participants. The modification was found to be simple to implement, relatively inexpensive and retained the inherentaccuracy ofthe watermeter. Water consumption of clothes washers in the Bern Study was determined with conventional nutating disk water meters ofthe type used by many water utilities for determining a customer's water consumption. Water passing through this meter causes a disk within the meter itself to nutate or wobble about a fixed axis · -- --**---~** with a frequency which is , proportional to the volume flow rate of water through the meter. The nutating disk is affixed to a 4-pole permanent magnet, so that as water 1 passes through the meter, the magnet rotates and a register on the face of the meter itself senses its rotation. We removed (temporarily) the register (as shown at the photo at the right) and installed a small reed switch on the body ofthe meteritself. 

# @ 

# 0

.. 0 

# --- I I



## -**--~-__J** The magnet hidden inside the bronze casing caused the reed switch to open and close four times with each nutation. Knowledge ofthe number ofnutations per gallon ofwater passing through the meter (provided by the meter manufacturer) along with information concerning the four-pole magnet allowed us to develop the modified meter relationship between gallons of water passing through the meter and number of reed switch closures. For the meters chosen, 200 contact closures represented approximately one gallon of water through the meter. Thereed switch was simply connected to a battery-powered electronic counter as shown in the photo at the left. Two counters, one for the hot and one for the cold water meters, wereplaced into a singlebox and thebox was placed in a convenientlocation in the laundryroom ofeach participant. Participants had only to read the numerals on each electronic counter once with each laundry load, record the information on datasheets. No resetting was required, and the water consumption for each individual load could be determined from the datasheets submitted from successiveloads.

-A.I -

### Appendix B. Examples ofReports to Participants The following pages are colorized examples ofthe individualized study reports sent to the I03 Bern Study participants during phases I and II ofthe study and atthe end (comparison ofphases I and II). Each report includes six graphics on the first page (first two pages in the case ofthe comparison report), which provide percentages on: (I) load frequency by day ofthe week, (2) load frequency by hour ofthe day, (3) initial soil level ofthe laundry priorto washing, (4) methods used to dry the cleaned laundry, (5) hot wateruse by machinetemperature setting, and (6) cold waterused by machine temperature setting. Onlythe actual temperature settings used by the participant are shown for (5) and (6). Therefore, not all ofthe possible five temperature settings (H/C, H/W, W/W, W/C and C/C) are necessarily shown for each report. The second page of the separate phase I and II reports and third page of the phase I and II comparison report include a summary table on the totals and averages forthe loads washed by the participant. Thetotals include:
• number ofloads orcycles washed by participant • weight ofthese loads • amount ofwater used • amount ofenergy used (calculated from thermal and machine energy) • amount ofmoisture that would have to be removed by dryerorotherdrying method The averages include:
• weight oflaundry orwashed clothes per load cycle • water used per load orcycle • washerenergy in kilowatt-hours used percycle • ratio ofload weight to wateruse in pounds pergallon • ratio ofload weightto energy use in pounds per kilowatt-hours Only one report was issued to the study participants for phase I (vertical-axis washers) since most ofthe data was collected by the time the report was issued. Pages A.3 to A.4 provide an example ofthe initial report on phase Icustomer#1, Karen Aeschliman. Both an initial (after the first two weeks) and an interim report (after the first month) were issued to the study participants for phase II (horizontal-axis washers). Pages A.5 to A.6 provide an example ofthe interim report on phase II for the customer #I. Final individual reports comparing phases I and II for all ofthe data collected during both phases was issued along with this Bern washer study final report. Page A.7 shows the third page ofthe final reportthat was sent out comparing phases I and II. The contents of the letter that accompanied the final individual report is on pages A.8 to A.l0. The letter provides a description ofall the calculated values given in the comparison table ofthe third page ofthe individual report. The first two pages ofthe final report aren't shown since their layout is the same as the first pages ofthe Phase I and II reports.

-A.2 -J

## Bern Washer Study
- Initial Phase 1 Results

# I Monday,August25, 1997

i Name: Customer Number:

Fig. 1. Your Daily Load Frequency

Fg. 3. How Soiled Your Lamdry Looked Before Washing

# ~::1

# ~**~::~====-==:l:::==I==~.~====** 0 0% +--....-, --'-r- • .-._,,,--.-.._,., __ .__,__.......,

Fig. Sa. Madline Hot Water Consumption 

### .!

# ~ 251 

# t

H

# lj

# :~I=:=====~;;=========**~ ~**  0 +·

## ~---.,...,----....---•--.....---.....-----.

### ~v**~v ~~**  

# .!'**~**

### ~~ Machine Setting Karen Aeschliman 

### 1
Fig. 2. Your Load Timing DuringThe Day 35%,..-------------

Fig. 4. HowYou Dried Your 

### 'i 120% ·c 100% c 80% 

# 1 60% ..J 40%**~** 

# 20% 'if. 0% Laundr

Fig. Sb. Machine Cold Water Consumption

# ~i-u1:1 3:: u c 30

# +----1-----**~~**

# i**20~1-1--~~--~~- ~**  81
..... 10 +-.--------_----- <C :::l 0 +-"---.,...,**----....---'--,---~-~**



### Page 1of2

- A.3 -**~f.>** 

## # 

# .!'**o~ ~~** **~** Machine Setting

# IBern Washer Study- Initial Phase 1 Results

# I Monday,August25, 1997

Name: Karen Aeschliman Customer Number:



### Table 1. Calculations Based on Customer Data Total Number of Cycles: Total Weight of all Loads (lbs): Total amount of water used (gallons):

. Total amount of energy used (kwh):

Total amount of moisture removed by dryer (lbs): Average weight of clothes in a cycle (lbs): Average water used per cycle (gallons): Average washer energy use (kwh/cycle): Average weight of load per gallon of water used (lb/gal): Average weight of load per kWh (lb/kWh):

Page 2 of 2

- A.4 - 

### 1

88 633.28 3906.02 89.03 358.56 7.20 44.39



### 1.01 0.16 7.11

## IBern Washer Study
- Interim Phase 2 Results

# I Friday, October 10, 1997
Name: Karen Aeschliman Customer Number:

Fig. 1. Your Daily Load Frequency 

### i J::. 25%..--------- 

# i**~blid** Fig. 2. Your Load Timing During The Day 35%..----------- 30%+--...,.,,,.------- 25% +----·------- 20"k +---ml------ 15%-+---mll-
___ _**10%-1--.-1--•1----~-** 5%+---..-..--111•1---t••- O"/o**~..._,__,..._..,._.."'-.-_,_,_~**

'o
..

### ~ OJ

..

### ~**~cf'~** ,,,

### q~ 'o

### q~**~'"** ..si ,o ,o ,o ,o 

### .$-lS**~ 'o~o~**  "'..si**l:>~OJ** OJ't'**~o** ...**~** ., 'o' 

### 1**-----~--** ------- 

### ---,**-~-·-----** 

## ----1 Fig. 3. How Soiled Your Laundry 

### i Looked Before Washing 

### i 50%..---------- 111403 I 

# d i;: g 1g;:

# +--~,__ ;).._,_,.

.......

# .,....-..~.-• ..... 1

# .~ ';!.**0~0 .p~** **~~~ -~~** **,J,~~ #~~** **~** 

### '>OJ '>OJ**~,p ~~** **~0 ~0(\** **~0(\**

Fig. Sa. Machine Hot Water Consumption

... G) 6.0 ..---------- 

# :

# ~!::g I 

# I &

### if

# =3.0 +-_

# --111-----1_---
I!! "5!

### ~ 2.0

# +-----------------**~** ill

....... 1.0+----------- "" ::::> 0.0**+--~. --~.** **-~.----...-~** 

### cf

1**~v** 

### $'**~o .;:,~**  Machine Setting 

## I I**~** Fig. 4. How You Dried Your Laundry "tJ

# f~tlt-------- ...1 20%
. 

### 0 ';!. O"/o I

-----------
Fig. Sb. Machine Cold Water Consumption

ftl >-Iii 20 +-.----.....-------

# .!~ 251 

# H 

# H:11

er ::::> 0 I I c)v**~\v ~~**  

# I**~v ~**  -§'o**.;:,~** Machine Setting Page 1of 2

- A.5- I



## _ __J

## IBern Washer Study- Interim Phase 2 Results

# I Friday, October 10, 1997

Name: Karen Aeschliman Customer Number:

--- --- --------- 

### Table 1. Calculations Based on Customer Data Total Number of Cycles: Total Weight of all Loads (lbs): Total amount of water used (gallons): Total amount of energy used (kwh): Total amount of moisture removed by dryer (lbs): Average weight of clothes in a cycle (lbs): Average water used percycle (gallons): Average washer energy use (kwh/cycle): Average weight of load per gallon of water used (lb/gal): Average weight of load per kWh (lb/kWh):

----------- ------------- -

Page 2 of2

- A.6 - 1

56 358.14 1304.08 34.97 203.44 6.40 23.29

0.62 0.27 10.24 I i ---·---1

## lsern Washer Study
- Comparison of Phase I 

## and II 

## Resultsl Tuesdav. March 17. 1998 Name: Customer Number: Phase II Phase I August, September, June & July 1997 & October 1997 Water Use (gallons orgall Total Hot: 594.2 656.2 Total Cold: 3,368.7 3,232.9 Total Hot & Cold: 3,962.9 3,889.1 Average Hot Per Load: 6.6 4.3 Average Cold Per Load: 37.9 21.1 Average Load Hot+ Cold: 44.5 25.4 Average Daily Hot+ Cold: 86.2 51.9 Average Weekly Hot+ Cold: 440.3 259.3 Energy_ Use (kilowatt-hours orkwh} Total Energy: 94.9 100.6 Average Energy Per Load: 1.1 0.7 Average Daily Energy Use: 2.1 1.3 Average Weekly Energy Use: 10.5 6.7 Load Weights {Roundi orlb} Total Weight of Loads: 667.0 1,092.1 Average Load Weight: 7.2 6.9 Average Daily Weight: 14.5 14.6 Average Weekly Weight: 74.1 72.8 Total Remaining Moisture: 376.8 641.8 (wet minus dry weight) Average Moisture Content: 0.6 0.6 (ratio [wet minus dry]/[dry]) Loads andEfficiency_ Total Numberof Loads: 93 160 Average lb/gal: 0.2 0.3 Average lb/kwh: 7.0 10.9 Paqe 3 of 3

- A.7

- 

### Karen Aeschliman 1 Your Savings or Difference

62.0 135.9

73.8

2.3 16.7 19.1 34.3 181.1

5.8 0.4 0.7 3.8

425.1 0.3 0.1 1.3 265.0 0.0

67 0.1 3.8 Study's Average Savings

6.2 8.7 14.9 38.7 120.0

1.2 3.0 9.9

0.1

0.1 4.4

### Contents ofLetter to Participantsenclosed with Ph I andIIComparisonReport DearMs. Aeschiliman, We have completed the analysis of the data collected by you during the Bern Washer Study. Close to five months worth ofdata were collected during the study: two months during phase I (old vertical-axis washer) and three-months during phase II (new horizontal-axis washer). Again John Tomlinson and I wish to thank you for your participation in the study and for your diligent effort at writing data on the datasheets each time you performed a load ofwash. Enclosed with this letterare two documents that provide you with the findings ofthe study. The first is the final Oak Ridge National Laboratory report that covers the results of all ofthe data and discusses the water used and saved, the energy used and saved, customer satisfaction, dampness satisfaction, and many otherissues. The second is an individualized report similar to what you have received before. Your own individual report shows how much waterand energy you savedby switching from your old washer to the new washer along with other information. The first two pages of the report provide information on the use patterns for phases I and II, respectively. They show your usage patterns for the time of the day and day of the week, how soiled your clothes were before washing, how you dried your clothes, and water used with the different temperature settings of the washer. You can compare these two pages to see differences between phases I and IL The third page provides a comparison ofthe water and energy use, and efficiency ofthe old washers (phase I) versus the new washers (phase II). Each page has been colorized to better distinguish phaseI (inblue)from phaseII (in green) results. With regard to the third page ofthe individual report, information for phases I and II is given in thefirst and second columns, respectively. Your savings (or average differences) provided bythe new washer is given in the third column and is shown in black (or red). The savings (in black) are based on averages per load, day, week, or average efficiency and represent water or energy savings with the new washer. The differences (in red) do not necessarily represent savings and can vary from participant to participant based on the number ofloads washed. Typically, these values.represent differences in totals and cannot be compared to other participants. The average savings for all participants are given in the fourth column and are shown in gold. This column is included so that you can see how your savings compare with the other study participants. There are twenty-onecalculations given on this pageand, for easyreading, they have been broken down into four major categories of information: water use, energy use, load weights, and loads 

### & efficiency. 

### WaterUse Total Hot, Total Cold, and Total Hot 

### + Cold: The values in the first two columns show the total gallons ofwater (hot, cold, and hot plus cold) used during each phase ofthe study. The value in the third column is the difference between these two totals, which may or may not represent savings. These two values should only be compared ifthey are divided by the number of wash loads (shown near the end of the first two columns) performed during each phase of the study. Seebelow. 

### AverageHot andAverage ColdPerLoad, andAverageLoadHot+ Cold: The values in the first two columns show the average gallons ofwater (hot, cold, orhot plus cold) used for each load of wash for the two phases. They were calculated by dividing the total water used (given above) by the total number ofwash loads (given later). These values are good indicators ofhow much hot,
-A.8 -cold, or total water was used, on average, for each load ofwash. The third and fourth columns show the average gallons of water you saved and average gallons saved by all participants for each wash load. On average for all participants, the phase II washers used 6.2, 8.7, and 14.9 gallons less hot, cold, and hotplus cold water, respectively, than the phaseIwashers. Average Daily Hot 

### + Cold, Average Weekly Hot 

### + Cold: The values in the first two columns show the average gallons of water (hot plus cold) used daily or weekly. The last two columns show your daily or weekly water savings and the average savings for all participants. On average, participants saved 38.7 and 120 gallons perday and week, respectively. 

### EnergyUse Total Energy: The values given in the first two columns show the total kilowatt-hours ofenergy (electrical energy ofwasher motor plus thermal energy ofhot water) used during each phase of the study. The electrical energy calculation for the washer motor is based on the electrical rating of your washer. The thermal energy calculation for the hot water is based on the gallons of hot water you used and the temperature differencebetween the hot water and cold waterfaucets at the washer. As indicated above, the third column is only a difference and may or may not represent a savings. Average Energy PerLoad: The values given in the first two columns show the average kilowatthours ofenergy used for each load ofwash. They were calculated by dividing the total energy used by the total number ofwash loads. The third and fourth columns show your average energy savings and the average savings for all participants. On average for all participants, the phase II washers used the equivalentof 1.2kilowatt-hours less energy than the phaseI washers. Average Daily Energy Use, Average Weekly Energy Use: The values in the first two columns show the average kilowatt-hours ofenergy used daily or weekly during the two phases. The last two columns show your daily or weekly energy savings and the average savings for all participants. 

### LoadWeights Total Weight of Loads: The values shown in the first two columns are the total weight ofclothes washed byyourwashers during each phase ofthe study. These were calculated by adding all load weights before each wash. The value in the third column is the difference between these two totals, which may or may not represent a savings. The two values for phase I and II should only be compared ifthey are divided by the numberofwash loads performed during each phase ofthe study. Seebelow. AverageLoad Weight: The values in the first two columns show the average load weight for the two phases. They were calculated by dividing the total weight of. the laundry (given above) by the total number ofwash loads (given later). The third column is the difference in average load weightbetween phases I and II. Average Daily Weight, Average Weekly Weight: The values in the first two columns show the average weight of laundry washed daily or weekly. The third column shows the difference in these averages between phases I and II. Total Remaining Moisture: The values in the first two columns show the weight ofthe moisture remaining in loads for the two phases of the study. It was calculated by subtracting the total

-A.9 -weight of the laundry before washing from the total weight ofthe laundry after washing. This value represents the amount ofwater in pounds remaining in the clothes after washing. It is the amount ofmoisture that has to be removed from the clothes eitherby drying them in the dryer or out on theclothesline. ThephaseI and II values should onlybecompared ifthe totals are divided bythe number ofwash loads performed during each phase. Forexample, 2.0 and 2.5 pounds per load for phase I and II, respectively could be compared ifthe total remaining moisture is 200 and 300pounds and the numberofloadsis 100 and 120 forphaseI and II, respectively. Average Moisture Content: The values in the first two columns show the average moisture content for the two phases of the study. It was calculated by summing up all the moisture contents (the value given above butdivided bythe total weights before washing) for every load of wash and dividing by the number of wash loads. These values have no units but provide a measure ofthe percent ofmoisture remaining in the clothes after washing. For example, if the value is 0.6 then the moisture content is 60 percent. In other words if the laundry was dry and weighed 100 pounds before washing then the laundry would be holding 60 pounds ofwater after washing and would weigh 160pounds. Loads & Efficiency Total Number ofLoads: The values shown in first two columns are the total number of wash loads based on the number ofdatasheets you turned in during phase I and II ofthe study. These values were used to ca1cu1ate the averages for water use, energy use, and load weights given above. Average lb/gal: The first two columns show the average lb/gal orpounds oflaundry per gallon of wateruse forphases Iand II ofthe study. The values were calculated bydividing the total weight ofall the clothes washed by the total (hot plus cold) water used in each ofthe phases. The third and fourth column show youraverage lb/gal savings and the average savings for all participants. On average for all participants, the phase II washers saved 0.1 lb/gal over the phase I washers. The ratio gives you some idea ofhow much load weight (pounds ofclothes) can be washed for every gallon ofwater. Forexample ifthe values are 0.1 and 0.3 for phases I and II, respectively, then 10 gallons of water will wash on average 1 and 3 pounds of clothes for phase I and II, respectively. Average lb/kWh: The first two columns show the average lb/kWh or pounds of laundry per kilowatt-hours ofenergy for phases I and II. The average lb/kWh is another efficiency indicator ofthe phase I and II washers. The values were calculated by dividing the total weight of all the clothes washed by the total energy used in each phase. The third and fourth column show your average lb/kWh savings and the average savings for all participants. On average for all participants, the phaseII washers saved4.4 lb/kWh overthe phase I washers. Theratio gives you someidea ofhow much load (weight) can be washed for every kilowatt-hour ofenergy used. For example ifthe values are 3.0 and 7.0 for phases I and II, respectively, then 1 kilowatt-hour will w.ash 3 and 7 pounds ofclothesfor phases Iand II, respectively. Thankyou again for your participationinthis importantresearch study. Sincerely, John Tomlinson and D. Tom Rizy Attachment (3-page phase Iand II comparison report)
-A.10-

### Appendix C. DataIntegrity and Quality Overall the completeness ofthe data was very good with any one field ofinfonnation being 88% complete or better (see Table C.1) with the exception of the "did you" field which was an optional field. The quality ofthe data (see Tables C.2 and C.3) was also very good as well with an extremely small percentage of the data consisting ofoutliers (out ofrange values). These outliers are due to out ofplace (in tenns ofdate and time) records, incomplete data, or incorrectly entered infonnation or a combination ofthe three. The completeness and quality ofthe data is discussed more in detail below. 

### CompletenessofRecordedData Part ofthe quality ofthe data is the completeness ofthe data records. The completeness ofeach data sheet or record refers to the number of nonblank entries in each data field or cell as compared to the total numberofdata records that wasturned in. The completeness ofthe data set was examined by counting the number ofnonblank entries for each ofthe possible data fields and comparing it to the total number records turned in. A total of20,858 data sheets orrecords were turned in by the study participants over the five-month long data collection period ofthe study (two-months during phase 1and three-months during phase II). Each data sheet consists of22 to 32 individual fields or cells ofdata. For phase I, the maximum was 22 for a wash load without the analog readings from the faces ofthe water meters and 26 with thereadings. For phase II, the maximum was 28 for a wash load without the analog readings and 32 with the readings. The cells ofdata consist of: a) sequence numberorthe order in which each data sheetwas scanned and entered into the database( l field), b) lithocode orunique id number associated with each individual data sheet (l field), c) date ( l field), d) time ( l field), e) pre-wash load weight (2 fietds), f) soiled level ofpre-wash laundry ( l field), g) "did you" orpre-wash preparations such as pretreat stains, use ofbleach, presoak, use offabric softener (1 field in phase 1, 6 fields in phase II), h) detergent amount {I field), i) detergentbrand (1 field), 

### j) detergenttype (1 field), k) machine temperature, load, and cycle settings (4 fields for phase I, 5 for phase II), I) digital hot and cold waterreadings (2 fields), m) post-wash load weight (2 fields), n) dampness satisfaction index indicated by participant (I field), o) cleanliness satisfaction index indicated by participant (I field), p) method used to dry cleaned laundry (I field), q) analog meterreading (4 readings) Table C.1 shows the total numberofrecords turned in by the study participants for each phase of the study. Also, the number ofnonblank or filled-in values for each cell as well as percent ofthe total recordsthatthis represents is shown in thistable. Forexample, 7585 or99.2 % out ofa total of7645 records were filled in forthe "date" field.

-A.11

-

### Table C.1 Completeness ofPhaseI andIIData Records.

# ~-··**~** # Data Record % Total Records 76451 132131 Records with Lithocodes 7645' 100.0% 132111100.0% Customers 103 103

### I 1 Date & Time 75851 130171 Date 99.2% 98.5% Time 74581 97.6% 128381 97.2% 2 Weigh load with scale (preweight) ! 130131 

# 75701 pre-pounds 99.0% 98.5% I pre-ounces 7552 98.8% 130131 98.5% 3 How Soiled is this load? 74531 97.5% 128121 97.0% 4 Did you: 31151 40.7% 9499j 71.9% J I 5 Detergent 

## I ! 123931 Amount 6998 91.5% 93.8% Brand 6724 88.0% 12071 91.4% Type 7262 95.0% 12455 94.3% 6 Machine Settings 74621 Cycle (Ph I) orFabrics (Ph II) 97.6% 12862 97.3% LoadSize (Ph I} or Wash/Rinse (Ph II 73851 96.6% 12859 97.3% Wash Temperature (Ph I} orOptions (Ph II} 

# 73751 96.5% 10512 79.6% Rinse Temperature (Ph I) orQuick/Delay Wash (Ph II) 7379 96.5% 845 6.4% Regular(Ph II only} 12318 93.2% 

## l 7 Water Used I Hot 7444 97.4% 12894 97.6% Cold 7534 98.5% 12972 98.2% 8 Weigh damp load with scale (postweight) 

## I 

# 129301 Post-pounds 7535 98.6% 97.9% Post-ounces 7508 98.2% 12929 97.9% 9 Satisfaction with dampness of load after wash cycle? 7299J 95.5% 125021 94.6% 

### ! 10 Satisfaction with overall cleanability of load? 72151 94.4% 123801 93.7% 11 Howwill this load be dried? 73191 95.7% 125861 95.3% Analog Readings: 2071 ColdRegister 152 ColdNeedle 209 144 Hot Register 210 1491 HotNeedle 207 141

-A.12 -

### Overall the completeness ofthe data is very good at 88% orbetter with the exception ofthe "did you" field. The completeness ofthe "did you" field for phase I is lowerthan for phase II because the possibility ofmultiple selections was not accounted for in the data entry process for phase I. 

### For the phase II data entry process, the field was broken down into 6 cells so that these multiple selections could be captured. All but a few ofthe data records ofphase I and II represent a load ofwash. A small percent of them represent only the analog water readings at the beginning and end ofeach phase. In some cases the readings were recorded on a datasheet together with wash load data. In other cases the readings were recorded separately from a load ofwash. 

### IntegrityofData A second area ofdata quality is the reasonableness or integrity ofthe recorded readings and the various calculations from the recorded readings (such as water use and load weight) in each data record. A small number of the recorded readings were incorrectly entered either by the participant on the datasheet or by State Testing and Evaluation in the creation ofthe digital file. Many ofthese misentered readings showed up as values that were too small or too large. The values showed up as null (blank) values ifno entry was entered for any reading. The calculations most sensitive to incorrect entries or lack of them are the water use calculations. First, the calculations depended on having both a pre- and post-reading in orderto calculate the water use for the load of wash. By design, the raw data records contained only one reading which represented the digital reading after the laundry (post reading) had been washed. It 

### was first necessary to match up post and pre-water digital readings in order to calculate water use. It was therefore necessary to create atable ofpre-wash readings for each record. The pre-readings were determined by looking back at the record that occurred just prior to the current record. This required sorting ofthe records by both customer#, date, and by time. Thus water use, either hot or cold, was calculated by subtracting the pre-reading ofthis table from the post-reading ofthe data records for the same record. An incorrect entry for either ofthese values needed for sorting resulted in an outlier, a calculated value outside of the normal range of values. The weight calculations required either a recorded pound (lb) or an ounce (oz) reading in order to calculate the pre- or post-weight ofthe laundry. The weight calculations did not require customer#, date, and time in order to determine totals and averages. These values were only needed to sort or groupthe data by customer, date, and/ortime. Table C.2 and C.3 describe the quality ofthe data as it relates to both the water use and load weight calculations. The tables show the percent of the data records that provide reasonable calculations. Over 85% ofthe data records in phase I and II were found to be ofextremely good quality for water use calculations, since they fell within the 0 to 60 gallon range. Over 95% ofthe data records in phase I and II were found to be ofextremely good quality for load weight calculations, sincethey fell with the 0 to 20 pounds range. Reasonableness ofthe calculations was determined by grouping the calculations into four groups. For the water use calculations, these are (1) less than 0 gallons, (2) 0to 60 gallons, (3) greaterthan 60 gallons, and (4) not enough data to perform the calculation. For the load weight calculations, these are (I) less than 0 pounds, (2) 0 to 20 pounds, (3) greater than 20 pounds, and (4) not enough data to perform the calculation. For example, 85.9% and 91.3% of the phase I and II data records, respectively, provide water calculations that fall within the range of 0 to 60 gallons. Limits were used in the Microsoft Accessqueriesto eliminate gross outliers. The limit of0to I00 gallonswas used for the cold and hot water use calculations, instead of0 to 60 gallons, which was considered to be too narrow in

-A.13

-range. The limit of not less than 0 pounds was used for the load weight calculations. The average value calculated for the wateruse and load weight both without these limits and with the previously statedlimits is shown on theright sideofeach table. 

### Table C.2 Quality (percent of total records) ofPhase I and Il Hot and Cold Water Calculations. % in Water Use (gal) Range Average Water Use Greater Not Enough Data Limits Limits* Less than 0 0 to 60 Than 60 ForCalculation (0 to 60) (0 to 100) 

### PhaseI

Hot 9.3% 85.9% 2.1% 2.6% I 1.23 I 1.57 Cold 3.9% 88.9% 5.8% J.5% 28.48 29.89 Hot+Cold 39.71 41.46 

### PhaseII

Hot 5.6'ii 91.J'k: l.51){- !Ni'- 4.77 4.83 Cold 3Hk 92.2* 3.Yk I.Ql,( 20.38 20.96 Hot+Cold 25.15 25.79 *Limits usedto calculate the total andaverage water use in the study. They were usedto eliminate any unreasonable calculationsdue to incorrectlyenteredwater readings (byparticipantorkeypunch operator) orsortingproblemswith readings due to incorrectly entereddate ortime.


### Table C.3 Quality (in percent oftotal records) ofPhase I and Il Pre-Wash and PostWash Weight Calculations. % in Weight (lb) Range Average Load Weights GreaterThan Limits 20 andLess NotEnough Data (greater Less than 0 0 to 20 Than 40 For Calculation No Limits than 0)* 

### PhaseI

Pre Wash 0.6% 98.4% 0.03% 1.0% 6.60 6.65 Post Wash 0.3% 96.0% 2.3% 1.4% 10.32 10.36 

### PhaseII

PreWash 0.2% 99.5% 0.1% 0.3% 6.97 6.98 PostWash 0.1% 95.8% 3.4% 0.9'7r 10.39 10.40 *Limits usedto calculate the total andaverage loadweights in the study. They were usedto eliminateany unreasonable calculations due to incorrectly enteredloadweightdata (byparticipant orkeypunch operator).

-A.14-

### AppendixD. Individual WaterTapTemperaturesandDifferences atEachWasher The water temperatures of both the hot and cold water taps (or faucets) at each participant's washerwere measured at thebeginning ofthis study. Theindividual watertemperatures and their differences are provided in Table D.l. The average hot and cold water temperatures and difference were found to be 132.5, 62.5, and 72°F, respectively. The individual temperature differences in this Table D.l along with the amount of hot water were used to calculate the thermal energy consumed for each load oflaundry washed byeach participant. 

### TableD.1 Hotand ColdWaterTemperaturesMeasuredatEachParticipant'sWasher. Temperature Measurements and Difference, °F) Participant Customer No HotWater

# ICold Water Hot Minus Cold 

### 1 1 113 60 53

___ 21 21- 146., 571 89

# ----!5~**1** !51

# ~~~I**~~, :~**  132 62 70

## 6~ 136 58 78 7 7 143 60 83 11----1 

### 8 8 124 61 63 11----9,1 91 1341 571 77 

### 10 10 132 63 69 11----: 

### 11---1_11 111 ·1651 601 105 12 12 111 65 46 11----

### -~I 131 1341 611 73**~** 

### 14 112 57 55 11----:


### ,.___ 1_51 151 1271 651 62 16 16 1291 59 70 11---- 11---1_71 171 1261 6·21 64 18 18 124 64 60



### ----·-

# II----~-~'**~~I--·-** 

# -**~ ~:1** **~~I ~~**  --211 211 133-1 681 65 22 22 

### 137 60 77

# II---;-~'-- 

# ;!r**~~:1 :~1** **~:** 251 251 1461 611 85

# -----~1**}~I----~ ;~I--·---** **-{~I :~**  

# :------;-!,--

- -**~·1----:~1 :~** 

# -~--~~I**~~I ~~~I** **~~I :~**  32 32 120 57 63 33 33 168 57 111

-A.15-TableD.1 Hotand ColdWaterTemperaturesMeasuredatEach Participant'sWasher (cont.). Temperature Measurements and Difference Of) Participant Customer No HotWater Cold Water Hot Minus Cold 34 34 126 60 66 351 351 137 60 77 361 361 1101

# ~ 53 37 37 122 64 8 381 381 1491 571 92 39 39 150 87 63 40J 401 1201 61 J 59 41 J 41 J 120 631 57 421 421 131

# I 631 68 43 43 1361 66 70 441 441 1171 661 51 45 45 123 61

# I 62 461 461 1301 601 70 47 47 129 62 67 481 481 1221 611 61 49 49 1351 59 76

# ~ 1341 58 76 51 1591 56 103 521 53 125 61 64 531

## 541~ 631 76 541 55 121 581 63 551 561 1341 631 71 56 134 60 74 57 571 581 1211 601 61 581 591 143 57 86 591

# 60~1 661 57 60 61 146 59 87 611

# 621~ 581 76 62 63 152 601 92 631 641 1281 641 64 64 65 114 61 53 651

# 661~ 641 74 66 67 141 651 76 671 681 1431 591 84 68 69 138 57 81 69 70 135 62 73 70 71 128 55 73 71 72 134 60 74 72 73 148 60 88 73 74 115 58 57

-A.16

-

### TableD.1 HotandCold WaterTemperaturesMeasured atEach Participant'sWasher (cont.). Temperature Measurements and Difference °F) Participant Customer No HotWater Cold Water Hot Minus Cold 74 75 121 61 60



## -- -- 75
_______ 

## 76r-

- ffo 611
______- 

## 49



# - --**;~1----~-**

# -**~~~~~~1=--~ ~~I-** **-----~~1~=--=~~~**



# __--**--=-~~1:**

# ----**~--~~~1= ~~~I----_** 

# --**~~1-~=-=---=~~ ;~**  

# -**------:~,~~-- ~:-~~~,--=** **~~~1=--~-:~1~--~-=~**

# -**-{~** 

# =--**-:;r--~**

# --**:~1:~=---+~~,**

# - ---=-**-~~1~~-**

# -_----**~~**


# ----**::1~-** 

# =--**-~:~1--- -~-~~I-**  

# ---=--**~~I- ---~~** **~~~~:~1-** 

# -**-~~ :~1** **~~:1-** 

# -**~**

# -**-~~,--** 

# ----;!

---**-~**

# -_ :![

__**~ -~==:~t**  

# -**--}~~[~ -----~~1~** 

# ---- -**=~~** 90 92 140 60 80

---- -- - -·- ------ 91 93 131 61 70

average 132.5 60.5 72

-A.17 -