<icLr 

1ma.1111/ldlar11_1• 

RIJJll l 1.11111 .. 
This report has been reprocluced directly from the best available 

copy. 

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific 

and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831; 

prices available from (423) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401. 

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 .energy star .gov. 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an 

agency of the 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 

Government or any agency thereof. 

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is operated by Lockheed 

Martin Energy Research Corp. for the U.S. Department of Energy 

under Contract No. 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, Jeff and 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, 

Eleanor Mosteller, Robert and Cindy Myers, Kathy Nissen, 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 of the 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 BernSabetha Vet 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 thank the 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 of the study. Maytag contributed 

these washers along with other items needed for the field study as part of a Cooperative Research 

and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Maytag and Lockheed Martin Energy Research 

Corporation, manager of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. · 

The authors would also like to thank Marc Lafrance and Bill Noel of the U.S. Department of 

Energy for their help and support in this project. 

Finally, we would like to thank the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in particular Cliff Pugh 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. 

Without the help and assistance of these organizations and individuals, the project would not have 

been possible. 

- iii -
CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii 

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ vii 

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ix 

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... xi 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... xii 

I. OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVE OF THE FIELD 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. OVERALL FINDINGS AND IMPACTS ......................................................................... 19 

4.1 IMPACTS ON LOAD SIZE ................................................................................ 19 

4.2 WATER CONSUMPTION .................................................................................. 20 

4.3 ENERGY CONSUMPTION ................................................................................ 22 

4.4 DETERGENT USE AND CONSUMPTION ...................................................... 26 

4.5 IMPACTS ON USE OF OTHER ADDITIVES .................................................. 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 METER MODIFICATION ................................................................. A. I 

APPENDIX B. EXAMPLES OF REPORTS TO PARTICIPANTS ........................................... A.2 

Initial Phase I Report ............................................................................................................. A.3 

Interim Phase II Report .......................................................................................................... A.5 

Phase I and II Comparison Report (third page ot) ................................................................. A.7 

Letter Accompanying Comparison Report ............................................................................ A.8 

APPENDIX C. INTEGRITY AND QUALITY OF DATA ....................................................... A-11 

- v -
FIGURES 

3.1 Panorama view of Bern, Kansas (from grain elevator) ............................................................. 7 

3.2 H-axis washer with study participant Jill Meyer ....................................................................... 8 

3.3 Washer manufacturer representative: Mike Cox ....................................................................... 8 

3.4 Bern study liaison team: Betty Lortscher, Tim Krehbiel, Diane Fitzgarrald ............................ 8 

3.5 Downtown area and local industries in Bern ............................................................................ 9 

3.6 Dependence of loads washed per week 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) of the study ..................... 15 

4.1 Distribution of load weights in phase I and 11 ......................................................................... 19 

4.2 Average water consumption by participant for phases I and 11 ............................................... 21 

4.3 , Distribution of water use in phases I and 11.. ........................................................................... 22 

4.4 Average washer energy use by participant for phases I and 11 ................................................ 24 

4.5 Distribution of energy use in phases I and 11... ........................................................................ 25 

4.6 Average water and energy consumed by phase I and II washers ............................................ 25 

4. 7 Distribution of detergent brands A-F and Tide HE in phases I and 11... .................................. 27 

4.8 Detergent use by load .............................................................................................................. 28 

4.9 Changes in detergent concentration ........................................................................................ 28 

4.10 Distribution of wash 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 water district standpipe (Nemaha County) ...................................................... , ............. 34 

4.17 Water utilization in Bern during first superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for phase I washers ....... 36 

4.18 Water utilization in Bern and RWD during first superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for phase I 

washers ........................................................................................................................ , ........... 36 

4.19 Collective water consumption of participants' washers during both SWSs ............................ 37 

5.1 Washing factors that determine water consumption ............................................................... 40 

5.2 Impact of load weight on water consumption and savings produced ...................................... 41 

5.3 Impact of detergent type/concentration on average water use ................................................ 41 

5.4 Washing factors that affect customer satisfaction ................................................................... 42 

5.5 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction of phase I washer on its vintage .................................... 44 

5 .6 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction of phase I I washer based on experience with phase I 

washer (by vintage) ................................................................................................................. 44 

5. 7 Relative cleaning performance of phase I washers versus initial soiled level of laundry ....... 46 

5.8 Relative cleaning performance of phase II washers versus initial soiled level of laundry ...... 47 

5.9 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction on detergent in phase II ................................................ 48 

5. I 0 Changes in satisfaction with cleaning performance of phase I and II washers ....................... 49 

5.11 Washing factors that affect customer satisfaction ................................................................... 49 

5 .12 Dependence of dampness satisfaction with load weight for phase 11 ...................................... 50 

5.13 Dependence of dampness satisfaction with load weight for phase 1 ....................................... 50 

5 .14 Dependence of dampness satisfaction on max. extract and extra rinse cycles (phase II 

washers) .................................................................................................................................. 51 

5.15 Dependence of remaining moisture content on load weight ................................................... 52 

6.1 Projected impact of washer replacement on water consumption ............................................ 54 

6.2 Projected impact of washer replacement on energy consumption .......................................... 55 

- VII -
TABLES 

3.5.2 Project Schedule for Bern Study ........................................................................................ 16 

4.1 Average Energy and Water Consumption in Phases I and 11 ............................................. 26 

C.1 Completeness of Phase I and II Data Records ................................................................ A.12 

C.2 Quality (percent of total records) of Phase I and II Hot and Cold Water Calculations ... A.14 

C.3 Quality (percent of total records) of Phase I and II Pre-Wash and Post-Wash Weight 

Calculations ..................................................................................................................... A.14 

0.1 Hot and Cold Water Temperatures Measured at Each Participant's Washer .................. A.15 

- viii -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

It comes as a surprise to many that conventional domestic clothes washers use about 40 gallons of 

water - water weighing more than 300 pounds - to wash a load of clothes 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 of the highest end-uses of 

water in today's homes. About 35 billion loads of laundry are washed annually in the U.S. and 

this consumes 2.6% of the total residential energy use 1

• Only a relatively small amount of energy 

is used by the clothes washer itself to 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 water and 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 of water at the bottom of the 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 of energy and water could be saved through the replacement of conventional vaxis washers with the h-axis design. The objectives of this project were: 

• to evaluate the energy and water savings of high-efficiency, h-axis washers in a 

community which has been converted to the new design, 

• to demonstrate 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, I 03 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 of wash done by 

all of the participants over a wide range of real-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 of about 38%. The haxis washer's energy consumption 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 content of damp loads removed from the h-axis washers was, on average, 7% lower than 

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 adapt easily to the 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 other factors) remained largely unchanged from phase I to phase II. 

These findings demonstrate convincingly that the tumble-action technology (h-axis design) is 

much more energy and water-efficient than 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 of water for each load. Although small for 

an individual load, the fact that 35 billion loads of laundry are washed annually in the U.S. results 

in a substantial quantity of water 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 of these benefits. 

To help build awareness of these 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 of high-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 of the 

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 setting of washer set on cold water wash and cold water 

rinse -----·-----·-··--·-··---.. -·-·-·-·-·-·-------· --------·-·-·-·-·-------·-----·-----------·--------···----·-·-----------·----·---·--·--·-·---·-----·--·--··--·-·------·-·-·--· Cold old water use of washer 

~:~~ii~-~~~-~~~~~:~~~=~~~~~~~~[Q~?~~!i!1Y!:·;;~~~~i~~=~~~-~~Y~9.J?~~~~!~si~~~~ii!~~~~~~~~~=~=~~=~-~-~~~~=~~ DOE I U.S. Department of Energy 

~~~~-:~~-~~~~~--~----~--~--~:-.-.-~~----=~I~~~~~~~1-t~~~;~~;J~:~;~~:~:~~~~:~~~~:~~~:~~t;~~~~-~~;.~~--~~~~: gal or gals I A measure of water use in gallons. One gallon is equivalent to 

l 3.7854 liters ·---·---------~--·-···-·--·----------+--------·----------·-------~---------·-··--·-------------·-···-----·--·--·-···-·------·------·--·--·-· 

__ Q.~!!_<>.!!.~!~~.!:\_«! __________________ I _Q'!!!'?!:l~--Qf_ W~!~~~-~~_p-~!__°-_y_~-~-~!._.Qf __ !C?._<:!_~-~-!?_Y._ __ !h~~~h~!.-···-·-··-------··-···---·--·- gpm Gallons per minute refers to the rate of water use (gallons) over a 

H/C 

H-axis 

m ~1_1_':1_~~---!!~-~ R~~!Q9.________________________________________________ -------·---------·-------------·--····-·--·-· Temperature setting of washer set on hot water wash and cold water 

rmse 

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

, Horizontal-axis washer design in which the axis of rotation of the 

I washer drum is horizontal to the floor on which the washer sits 

__!!~!-·-·-----··---·-------··-·-------.J. _ _l::!~!--~~t~!.- U5-~-~f ~~s_li_~~----·----·-·-----·--··-·---------·--·--·--·-·-·-·--·-·---·-··-.. ···-···-····-··--·-·· I.D. I Identification number or customer number assigned 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 or lbs I A pound which is a measurement of weight equal to 2.2046 

----·-·--------- L~i_l9graf1:!_S --·-·-------·------·-····--·-----------------------·------ Load or load cycle or I A complete wash/rinse/spin cycle of a 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 or a unit of weight equal to one-sixteenth of a pound or 

------··-·-·--·-·----··-·---·-------------- l _l!E.P..~9-~_i:!:i_i_t!~!Y. __ ~_~_:_3-_?.__g_!._'1._'!1_5-:. ____ -------···--·------------------·----------··-····--·-··-·-··· Phase I First two months of the Bern Washer Study using conventional vaxis washers --·-·---·----·--·-·-·------·-·-·--··-·-·-·-·-·- -·--·---·------·-·-·---------·--------·-·----·-··-·-·-·-------·-·-·-------·-·----·-----·-·-------·--·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-··---·----

Phase II ast three months of the Bern Washer Study using new h-axis 

ashers 

-·-·---------·----·-·--··-···--·-··---·-·-·-·-·-·--·;·--····--··-·-·-·----·--··-·-·-·-·-··--·----·-·-·-·----·-·--·-·-·-·----·--··---·-·--·--·---·-··----··-·-·---···---·---------·--·-··---·-·--·-··-··-·-·-·-·-

RM C emaining moisture content or moisture 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 I Temperature utilization factor which refers to the percent of loads 

--··---·---·-·----··--------·--··-----·----·-·-·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 of washer set on warm water wash and cold 

: water rinse ·-·-·-·-·--·-·-----·--·-·----·-·---····--·-·--·-·-·-·-- ····--·-·-·---~-.. ------···-----·-·---·-·-·----·-.. ·-·-··-·-----....... --.. -·-·-·-·--·--·-·-··--.. -· ... -·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·"·-·-·-·-·-·-.. -·--·-··---·-·--·· 

W/W Temperature setting of washer set on warm water wash and warm 

water rinse 

- XII -
1. OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVE OF THE FIELD 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 of water rather than being 

immersed in a tub of water as is conventionally done with most washers made and sold in the 

United States. Estimates have shown that these machines should use about 40% of the energy 

needed for a conventional clothes washer and have about 60% of the water consumption of a 

conventional, vertical axis washer. Further, information suggests that the high spin speed of haxis 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 or electric - 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 of these machines can be made known to justify the higher price. 

Accordiryg to a survey conducted through a consortium of utilities and DOE, 17% of households 

who own a washing machine intend to purchase a new machine in the next two years. Of this 

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 of the fact that only 2% of the 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 

of awareness 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% of respondents 

were aware of horizontal-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 of the benefits of high-efficiency washers is the key to transforming the market. 

Tiie Bern Wasller Study - To (I) evaluate the real-world performance of h-axis washers 

and (2) to help bring about increased awareness of the benefits of h-axis washers, a small town, 

Bern, Kansas was located and used as a test bed for evaluating the performance and acceptability 

of h-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 

changeover to the h-axis machines. 

- 1 -
- 2 -
2. HOW THE STUDY WAS 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 of Reclamation (providing municipal water metering and onsite personnel to help monitor Bern's community water systems). The study involved: 

• establishing criteria for the field test site, 

• locating the site (community) which best fulfilled the criteria, 

• conducting the field study, and 

• reporting the findings as through this report. 

Further dissemination of project results to target audiences remains an important objective. 

- 3 -
------------~-----------------

-4-
3. INITIATING THE PROJECT 

3.1. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA 

It was anticipated that much of the success of the 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 the town included the following: 

• A small size. The available resources (funds, equipment, instrumentation and 

personnel) limited the number of participants in the study to about 80 to I 00. This represents the 

number of clothes washer sites (e.g. homes) which could be instrumented and used to evaluate the 

performance of the existing washer as well as the h-axis model. It was also important that a large 

fraction of the total number of washers 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 of clothes 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 I 00 to 130 homes and have a 

population in the range of 200 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 of the study was to determine the 

impact of clothes 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 that the town selected for the study have these features. 

• Presence of a water problem. It was felt that interest and participation would be 

enhanced by conducting the study in a community which either had experienced a water problem 

or was 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 outstripping the capacity of the water providers, or lack of availability 

of fresh water - all were candidate considerations in the site selection. 

• Participant willingness and enthusiasm. 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 of laundry washed. This approach was taken because the expense of 

distributed automatic data acquisition systems was far beyond the study's resources, and because 

some of the information needed for the study required input from the participants. 

2 Appliance Magazine, 44th Annual Report, Statistical Review, April 1997, p. 86. 

- 5 -
3.2. SITE SELECTION PROCESS 

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 or towns. Through this association and with the assistance of other groups, we 

contacted all of the state rural water associations and/or state environmental agencies requesting a 

listing of sites, which met the criteria for the study. A list of potential sites was screened, and 

where information was missing, calls to the appropriate state agency or town official were made. 

In some cases, site visits were made. The town of Bern, Kansas was selected based on a high 

ranking of all of the criteria mentioned. 

3.3. BERN KANSAS 

Located about 75 miles west of St. 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 of the town, its industries, and some of the 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 of Bern obtained their water from individual wells. However, in 1954, 

Bern elected to drill several community water wells, erect a 50,000-gallon water tower and install 

underground water mains to serve the town. Subsequently, Bern installed three sewage treatment 

lagoons (cells) to handle wastewater generated by the town. Further, a Rural Water District 

(R WD) was formed, wells sunk and more than 70 miles of piping was installed to provide water 

to the residents living just outside of the city of Bern. 

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 water production for the City 

of Bern and the RWD declined dramatically. Based on its limited water availability, the RWD 

and city of Bern were both identified by the State of Kansas 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 

of water, several patrons of the R WD 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 of Nebraska 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 

$4 7,600, and a neighboring community of Oneida paid $7,600. An emergency grant of$ I 54,000 

was awarded by special appropriation by the Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing. 

Rates were increased by the city of Bern as a result of the increased debt and need to conserve 

water. This was in November 1990. Monthly rates adopted then remain in force today for the 

residents of Bern: 

- 6 -
Monthly Min. $8.50 for first 2000 gallons, 

$2.75 per 1000 for the next 4,000 gallons, 

$1.60 per 1000 for the next 6,000 gallons, 

$1.40 per 1000 for all water over 12,000 gallons. 

Rates in the RWD, which uses much more water per user, were increased more dramatically to 

curtail use: 

Monthly Min. (Debt Service) is $12.50, no water, 

$3.00 per 1000 gallons for all water use. 

Fig. 3.l Panorama view of Bern, Kansas (from grain elevator). 

The RWD subsequently reduced the rates to the following: 

Monthly Min. of $12.50, no water 

$2.50 per 1000 gallon for the first 10,000 gallons 

$1.35 per 1000 gallons for all use over l 0,000 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 water availability problems. 

- 7 -
Fig. 3.2 ff-axis washer with study 

participant Jill Meyer. Fig. 3.3 Washer manufacturer 

representative: Mike Cox. 

Fig. 3.4 Bern study liaison team: Betty Lortscher, Tim Krehbiel, and Diane Fitzgarrald. 

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 of the 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. The city of Bern continues 

to operate three wells. The city and RWD water lines, which surround the city, are tied together 

so that the city and RWD can share water resources if needed. 

- 8 -
Fig. 3.5 Downtown area and local industries in Bern (grain elevator, city hall, cafe, and 

meat plant). 

- 9 -
3.4. PARTICIPANT SELECTION 

Information about the project, a survey form and invitation to JOm the project were 

mailed to each of the 175 homeowners in Bern and the surrounding rural water district. The 

residents were made aware of the project's goals of measuring the performance of high-efficiency 

clothes. washers using the entire town as a test bed and for developing other information to 

determine the impact on the community of a changeover to high-efficiency clothes washers. The 

homeowners were told that if they were selected, they should be prepared to help collect data of 

each load of laundry washed during a five-month period. For the 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 washer if they so desired. 

The initial plan was to select about 90 homes with clothes washers to participate in the study. 

With the help of a three-person volunteer Bern Washer Study Team (see Fig. 3.4), information 

from applicants including laundry habits, customer profiles, types of existing 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 of the project and answer 

questions. A total of I 04 participants (washer owners) elected to join 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 vet clinic and one in Bern's meat 

plant. All of those electing to join the study ( 1) had a water meter and purchased water either 

from the city of Bern or from the rural water district, (2) currently had a clothes washer, and (3) 

were sufficiently interested in the study to commit to a 5-month data collection period. 

Bern's Laundromat had six coin-operated, commercial washers and an equal number of dryers. A 

decision was made to collect data on three of these washers for the two-month baseline period, 

then to replace these with three coin-operated, commercial, h-axis washer for the balance of the 

study. In all other cases, the replacement washer was Maytag's domestic h-axis model. Of the 

I 04 who joined initially, one single homeowner elected to withdraw about three weeks into the 

study, leaving 103 participants. Notably, all 103 completed the study. 

At the initiation of the project, the participants were surveyed to gain demographic, life-style and 

laundry behavior information. Some of the findings from this survey included: 

General information: 

The average Bern household is comprised of two adults and two children; in 

some cases, households have as many as 2 adults and 5 children; 

21 % of the households cited housewife/homemaker as the primary occupation of 

the female head of household; 

40% of the households cited farming as the primary occupation of the male head 

of household; 

About 47% of the participants live in the Bern city limits; the remainder lives 

around Bern and is tied into the surrounding rural water district. 

Laundry behavior and equipment: 

The majority of washers (71 % ) were located on the first floor of the home; 

- I 0 -
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 dispenser indicated that they never use it; 

The majority of washers (60%) also have a bleach dispenser; of this fraction, 

48% of the participants sometimes use the dispenser, and 45% indicated that they 

never use the dispenser; 

88% of the participants used an electric dryer; 11 % used a gas dryer and 1 % did 

not own a dryer; the average age of a 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 of detergent on hand; 

The number of loads washed per week depended on the household size; estimates 

made by Bern residents indicated that the average Bern household washed 11 

loads/week- see Fig. 3.6. 

Individual participant estimates are shown 

11.2 Average Loads Per Week 

3.5 Average Persons in Household Best fit 

~ 0 

0 

Note: The averages are based on a survey 

that was conducted prior to 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 of loads washed per week 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 of washer brands on a national basis3

• 

The distribution of washers 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 

3 Appliance Magazine, 441

h Annual Report, Statistical Review, April I 997. 

- 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 washer market in the U.S. and in Bern. 

In addition to providing brand information on their washers, the participants also indicated the 

age of their 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 of washers in Bern according to their age. For example, the age of the oldest washer in 

the study was 28 years; therefore 100% of the washers in Bern were 28 years old or younger. 

Further, about 10% of Bern's washers were 2 years old or newer (shown as the intercept on the 

left side in Fig. 3.8). Moreover, half (50%) of Bern's washers were no older than 8 years. The 

distribution of washer ages 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

• If the 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 

older than what a typical lifetime estimate would otherwise suggest. 

4 Appliance Magazine, Appliance Life Expectancy/Replacement Picture, 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 washer ages. 

3.5. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 

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 

of potential impacts that a replacement, h-axis washer could have including, 

o Changes in water consumption and its effect on the customer and water/sewer utility; 

o Changes in energy consumption of the washer itself and in the amount of hot water used; 

D Changes in load weights. For the same "throughput" of laundry, the weight of each load 

determines the number of loads of wash needed to be done; 

Q Changes in detergent use and patterns; 

o Changes _in the "dryness" of loads removed from the washer. The ability of the washer 

to extract water in the final spin affects the energy needed by the dryer; 

Q Changes in customer satisfaction 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 of laundry 

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 of the 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 I and the other during 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 water consumption 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 periodically by project staff and used to check digital readout recordings made 

by participants. 

Weighing Scale - Each participant was given a scale for weighing wash loads. For most of the 

study, the scales with a measurement precision of± 1 oz., were used twice for each load: first, for 

obtaining the pre-wash weight of each load and a second time for determining the post-wash load 

weight which was the weight of the load after washing but before drying. All recorded weights 

included the weight of the clothes and the laundry basket. As part of the analysis, load weights 

were detennined by subtracting the weight of the basket from recorded weights. 

Laundry Basket - Each participant was given a standard laundry basket to use for weighing the 

loads. This simplified determination of load 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 

of the 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 of the study. These temperatures were 

measured once again during the changeover to the h-axis washer. 

Washer Energy Consumption - The electrical energy consumption (kWh required to operate a 

washer's motor and controls for a cycle) of most of the 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 of the washer energy consumption of the 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 of the 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 of laundry, and a set of instructions for data entry 

and managing the notebook. Sample data sheets for phase I and phase II of the 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 of the 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 -
BERN WASHER STUDY ---.111er111·e11ee11vmr.:.aa 

EJ Weigh load with scale. 

BEFORE WASH • 

• 

DI rMonth--,- Day Ir li~e--, 

I.._ ___ _.._; ___ :!_ . I (Calendar on 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 

'Y Wash Temperature 

OHot 

OWerm 

OCold 

'Y Rinse Temperature 

OW.rm 

OCold 

AFTER WASH IDclo"• dry;n!Jl 

~ Satisfaction with dampness of load after wash cycle? 

O Completaty satisfied O Not very satisfied 

O Very satisfied 0 Not at ell satisfied 

0 Somewhat Mtlsfted 

• 

BERN WASHER STUDY------=-=-

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? 

Oln dryeo'? 

[JI Detergent 

T Amount Ccupol T Brand O Wisk 0 Sunlight . 

O•t• Ot Oto1< 011deHE OAll OOtherClistl 

TType 

OPowder 

OLlquid 

I w I 0 1

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

OCheer OPu""' 

AFTER WASH . CBeforedryingl 

ii Water Used 'Y <Record numbe111 from metara In 

HOT ....., botowJ COLD 

111111111_11111 

~ Satisfaction whh dampneu of load after wash cycle? 

0 Completoly astlsfled 0 Not very eetisfted 

0 Vtwy satisfied 0 Not ot all 68lisfled 

0 Somewhat satisfied 

.II! How will this load be dried? 

0 Drye< 0 Clolhestlne 0 Some dryer/some line 

El! Weigh damp load with scale. "' 

C!2 Satisfaction with overall cleanablllty of load? 

0 Completely satisfied 

0 Very satisfied 0 Somewhat satisfied 

0 Not very satisfied 

0 Not et all satisftMI 

25510 

••• • 

Fig. 3.9 Data sheets for phase I (in background) and II (in foreground) of the study. Hidden 

area of phase I datasheet is identical to corresponding area in phase II datasheet. 

- 15 -
I 0, participants could indicate satisfaction with the dampness and cleanliness of the load after 

washing. 

3.5.2.Schedule 

The schedule for the study is given in Table 3.5.2. 

Table 3.5.2 Project Schedule for Bern Study. 

Project Schedule 

May 23, 1997 Selection and notification of study participants in Bern 

May 28 Town meeting - Bern High School Gym 

June 2 - 6 Installation of instrumentation on current washers; distribution of 

notebooks; initiation of phase I data collection 

June 27 Installation of metering 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 of I 0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. to determine the 

impacts of a heavy washday on the community's water use. 

July 28 -August I Removal of current washer; Neptune washer installation; re-installation 

of instrumentation; initiation of phase 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/water consumption found at that point in the study. 

October 31 - November 4 Removal of instrumentation 

November 4 - December 31 Data analysis 

January 15, 1998 Final study draft report completed; to be followed by published final 

report 

Recognizing that the key element of the project was continued interest and participation by the 

people of and 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 of providing relevant and important feedback to participants. A sample of 

one of these reports is provided in Appendix B. 

3.6. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 

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 of a 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 of data in rows and columns). Access provides a 

number of routines 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 of this flexibility was the use of 

Excel to create pre-wash water meter readings from the ending water meter readings of the 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. 

At the outset of the 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 lower right-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 of typical datasheets, there was a reverse side where the cumulative gallons of water as 

read from the register of each water meter could be entered. This was done twice (beginning and 

end) for each phase of the 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 of detergent in a cycle could be specified in 'Ii-cup 

increments up to 2 cups. Examples of handwritten data fields are date, time and load weights. 

Each of the phase I data records consisted of 21 data fields. Each of the 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 of weeks 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 spreadsheet file 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: either as 

- 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 data records were imported into Access. 

Some of the tables of data and information also contained a listing of participant 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 of the 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 of information for the study consisted 

of the following six steps: 

o Data entry by the Bern participants on pre-formatted data sheets; 

o Optical scanning of the data sheets supplemented by keyboard entries to generate a data 

table; 

o Formatting and importing the data table into Excel; 

o Conversion of the spreadsheet to comma-delimited ASCII file; 

o Importing this file into Access; 

D Creating SQL queries to assign data records 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 of the study, and the results are reported in the 

next section of this report. 

The integrity and quality of the data collected from the Bern participants during both phases I and 

II of the study is discussed in Appendix C. 

- 18 -
4. OVERALL FINDINGS AND 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 of loads. In the following sections of this report, we examine first some of the 

overall impacts and findings between phases I and lJ of the study, and second, a more detailed 

examination of the influence of individual 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 water than 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 of the two could characterize the size of a load of laundry. 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 of clothing worn and washed most often, and over the course of 

the study, the lifestyles for most of the participants remained fixed. This meant that load weights 

used in the study, were a good indicator of load size. 

Participants measured and recorded load weights for each load washed during phases I and II. 

Fig. 4.1 shows the distribution of these 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 

o to 2 2 to 4 4to6 

Phase/ 

'-------1 7,569 (99.0%) out of 7,645 records 

Phase/I 

12,991 (98.3%) out of 13,213 records 

6 to 8 8to 10 10 to 12 12 to 14 more than 

14 

Load Weight Groups (lbs) 

Fig. 4.1. Distribution of load weights in Phase I and II. 

- 19 -
In phases I and II, most of the 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 I washers in each load category less than 8 pounds than 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) of laundry 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 

of the study and throughout both phases at a rate of about 0.04 lb/load per week. Consequently, 

the average load weight for the first two months of the study (phase I) is a little smaller than the 

average load weight for the last three months of the study (phase II). The finding that the 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 of washer. 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 or down in laundry "throughput" (weight per load) as a result of washer type were not found. 

4.2. WATER CONSUMPTION 

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 of the 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 meter readings was converted into gallons of water. 

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 of the water use over all participants in I gallon bin 

groupings (such as 0 to I gallon) yields the distribution curves for phase I and 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 of 41.5 gallons/load. In phase II, the total water consumption ranged 

from 17 gallons/load to about 3.7 gallons/load with an average of 25.8 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 

--m 45 

:::> 

s 

~ 40 

Cl) 

gi 35 

i 

ct 30 

25 

20 

do, ~ j 

\' ~ 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) Phase II. 

Fig. 4.2 Average water consumption by participant for phases I and II. 

- 21 -
Ill 

"D 

m 

.9 

-0 

'#. 

14% 

12% +--~~~~~#-lr-~--1 

- Phase I (vertical-axis washers) 

- Phase II (horizontal-axis washers) 

10% 

8% Average of 25.8 for Phase II ---- I -- - -

6% 

4% 

2% 

03-l....-...-...-"""~:...,~_J~~~~~~~:±::::::::::::::::::::::~~;;;;:::::::::;i;;.11111;1!~===~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Water Use (gallons) in 1 gal bins 

Fig. 4.3 Distribution of water use in phases I 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 of the 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 of the experiment. The hot and cold water temperatures were entered into a spreadsheet 

to be included in the analyses. The amount of hot 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 of the 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 of energy purchased by the participants to heat the water used by these washers. 

From the survey administered to participants at the outset of the project, 64% of the 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 water distribution piping in homes, it can be shown that only about 64% of the 

energy purchased for water heating 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. A count of the energy use over all participants in 0.1 kWh bin groupings (such 

5 BTS Core Databook, version 2, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs. For copy or information, 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 of washers in Bern. Some of this variability was due to the 

washer, while the rest of the 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 of the replacement of all 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 I and 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 these two numbers of records 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 check on 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 of datasheets where information was provided and the information appeared reasonable. 

For example, of the 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 of records 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 water readings were provided on data sheets for at least 92% of the time. 

These results show that, on average, the h-axis washer used 62.2% of the 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% of the energy used by a typical v-axis washer in the study, resulting in energy· 

savings of 57.6%. These results as well as the distribution of energy consumption are shown in 

Fig. 4.6. 

With both washers, the majority share of the 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 of the haxis washer is less than half of the 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 

together to 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) Phase I. 

,, 

..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) Phase II. 

Fig. 4.4 Average washer energy use by participant for phases I and II. 

- 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 of 2.26 for 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 of energy use in phase I and II. 

Phase I vertical 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 I vertical axis 

washers 

•Average Machine 

Energy 

•Average Thermal 

Ener 

Phase II horizontal axis 

washers 

(b) Average energy consumption. 

Fig. 4.6 Average water and energy consumed by phase I and II washers. 

- 25 -
# 

l 

2 

Table 4.1 Average Energy and Water Consumption in Phases I and II. 

Phase I 1 Phase II 

Calculation Units Data Records Data Records 

Total Records 7645 7645 13213 13213 -- ------+---- -- -- ------- - . - - ------ Number of Loads 7633 7633 13130 13130 -- -- -~---·----- -------- ----- 3 Total Hot Water U_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 Laundry Weight pounds _ ____ __1Q03~_ _]J2'} __ 8906~ _ 12759 

7 No. of Participants Reporting_ _ ____ _1_03___ _ _ _____ _1_0~ ___ _ 

8 Average Load Weight lb/load __ 6_.6_5 ___ _ _ __ __6.~~----

_9_~umber of wash day_s_ _ _?ays_____ _ 61 __ ____ I 05 

10 Average Hot Water Temperature °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 ! _ _ _ _ 

----------------- -- ----- % Water Savings** 37.8 

% Energy Savings** ------ - ------- ------! 

*The temperature differences for each participant are given in Appendix D. 

**Comparison o,fitems 14 and 15, respectively,for water and energy. 

4.4. DETERGENT USE AND CONSUMPTION 

57.6 

Changes in detergent use 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 of the 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 use for the phase I washers was about a Y2 cup/load. 

A heavy concentration of ordinary detergent may not be desired for an h-axis washer because of 

the high degree of tumbling present that can lead to oversudsing. There are three ways in which 

any tendency for oversudsing can be minimized. One approach would be for the h-axis washer to 

be designed to sense any oversudsing condition and to alter its cycle, perhaps using an extra rinse, 

to eliminate it. The Maytag Neptune washer used in phase II of the 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. 

The market 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 continue to use their customary brand and type of detergent in 

the new, h-axis washer, or they 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 of the 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 of detergent brands A-F and Tide HE in phases I and II. 

The amount of detergent used by participants depended on the individual, the weight of the wash 

load and there were some differences as well between phases I and II. Figure 4.8 shows the 

distribution of loads 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. It can be seen that about 30% of loads were washed using 'A cup of 

detergent and that about 80% of all loads were washed using l/2 cup of detergent or less. In phase 

II, participants tended to favor using Y2 cup of detergent rather than 'A or% cup, whereas in phase 

I, the distinction is less sharp. Surprisingly, there were some (albeit few) loads washed using 2 

cups of detergent. 

The relation between detergent concentration (cups of detergent relative to load size) and the 

distribution of loads is shown in Fig. 4.9. As expected, this histogram is similar in shape to the 

one in Fig. 4.8. The most frequently found detergent concentration in phase I ranged from 0.06 to 

0.08 cups of detergent per pound of load 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 of the individual washing 

habits of each of the participants (some use less, some more 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%) out of 7,645 records 

Phase II 

12,393 (93.8%) out of 13,213 records 

0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 

Detergent Amount (Cups/Load) 

Fig. 4.8 Detergent use by load. 

,-u.-__,• Phase I 1---------------------j 

Iii Phase II 

Phase I 

6,979 (91.3%) out of 7,645 records 

Phase II 

12,336 (93.4%) out of 13,213 records 

Detergent Concentration (Cups/Lb) Groups 

Fig. 4.9 Changes in detergent concentration. 

- 28 -
4.5. IMP ACTS ON USE OF OTHER ADDITIVES 

In addition to detergent use, there are a variety of additives 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% of all loads, and there was little difference in use of bleach between 

phases. A fabric softener was used for about 60% of the loads on phase II and for as many as 

43% of loads 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 of phase I washers due to their age. For 

the most part, differences in how wash additives were used were more a function of habits and 

customs of the individual participants and less a function of the phase of the study. 

4.6. IMP ACTS ON LAUNDRY HABITS 

The wash cycle of the h-axis washer is a little longer than the wash cycle for a typic"al v-axis 

washer. To detennine whether this made much difference in when participants washed loads, we 

analyzed the distribution of loads according to day of the week. If the somewhat longer cycle 

times made much of a difference, it might be seen through this distribution. Saturdays followed 

by Mondays as shown in Fig. 4.10 continued to be the days of the 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. Tuesday through Thursdays continued to be light laundry days during 

both phases of the 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 of loads washed by participants using 

each of these settings is shown at the left. The TUFs used in both phases of the study were close 

to the 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% of the 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 of hot water and washed a larger fraction of the 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 to the extent shown. Hot water was used for the wash cycle more often in phase II 

than in phase I, and wann water was used for washing more frequently in phase I than in phase II. 

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

- 29 -
Phase/ 

6,851 (89.6%) out of 7,645 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 Distribution of wash loads through the week. 

cc 

•Phase 1 

ilPhase 2 

•DOE Test 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. CLEANING PERFORMANCE 

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 or for 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 of cleaning performance was evaluated by participants based 

on visual inspection of laundry loads removed from the washers. Visual inspection of loads 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 of clothing 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 of times and would be aware of any substantive changes in cleaning. The "cleanabilty" 

index used in the study was indicative of participants' reaction to the overall cleanliness of each 

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 of the washer on a scale of five 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 of their 

washers increased significantly as a result of the changeover to the phase II washer. Details on 

the relative influence of factors such as the phase I washer vintage on cleaning satisfaction are 

given in Section 5.2. 

4.9. IMP ACTS ON LOAD DAMPNESS 

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 at the conclusion of a wash cycle. An indication of "not at all satisfied" would mean that 

at the end of the 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 of a 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 if the dryer is controlled by a sensor 

which detects either the moisture or temperature of the air exiting the dryer. Information on 

satisfaction with load dampness was submitted for 94% of the 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 some degree of dissatisfaction 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 cleaning performance. 

100% 

90% 

80% 

V> 

V> 

Cl) 70% c 

Q. 

E 

m 60% c 

.s::. 

'i - 50% c 

0 

;: 

u 40% m 

-

V>-

~~ 30% !/) 36% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Phase I Phase II 

Fig. 4.13 Overall satisfaction with dampness. 

- 32 -

ii Completely 

Satisfied 

•very 

Satisfied 

Dsomewhat 

Satisfied 

•Not Very 

Satisfied 

•Not At All 

Satisfied 

Phasa I 

7, 196 {94.1%) out 

of 7,645 records 

Phase II 

12,338 (93.4%) out 

of 13,213 records 

([] Completely 

Satisfied 

•very 

Satisfied 

DSomewhat 

Satisfied 

•Not Very 

Satisfied 

•Not At All 

Satisfied 

Phasa/ 

7,211 (94.3%) out 

of 7,645 records 

Phase/I 

12,439 (94.1%) out 

of 13,213 records 
4.10. ThfPACTS ON DRYING HABITS 

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 of each. 

The distribution of loads and how they were to be dried is shown in Fig. 4.14. About 70% of all 

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 

changeover to the h-axis washer. This information could be useful 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 study phase, any savings due to lower RMC should be lowered by that 

same decrement. 

50% 

Ill 

-g 40% 0 

....I 

0 

~ 30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Dryer only 

Phase I 

100 % of 7,645 records 

Phase II 

100 % of 13,213 records 

Clothesline only Dryer and Clothesline Not Indicated by 

Participant 

Fig. 4.14 How loads were dried. 

4.11. MUNICIPAL UTILITY ThfPACTS 

The water used by clothes washers comes from the same source as all of the drinking water to a 

house. After each wash/rinse cycle, most of the 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 of wastewater 

from the washer. In the study, the systems for supplying water and disposing of waste water were 

different depending on whether a participant lived in Bern proper or in the region which 

surrounds the city. Both water and sewer services are provided to residents who live in the town. 

Water is provided from a few community wells, some far away. One large (50,000-gallon) water 

tower located inside the city limits is used to provide most of the 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 of water and biological breakdown of wastes. 

In the area surrounding Bern itself, water comes to residents in two ways: through their individual 

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 

water distribution system. 

Fig. 4.15 Bern's 50,000-gallon tank. Figure 4.16 Rural Water District 

standpipe (Nemaha County). 

Wastewater from residents of the 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. 

The impacts of clothes washers on the water utilities (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 of clothes 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 input could be determined. The 

- 34-
water discharge from each tank was determined by monitoring the water level inside the tank as it 

dropped throughout the day. Tank water levels were measured indirectly through use of pressure 

transducers that had been installed in the water lines at the base of each water tower. The water 

pressure at the location of the transducer is directly proportional to the height of the water in the 

tank. The amount of water discharged from the tank over any time interval was determined from 

changes in pressure sensed by the transducer over this same time interval and the diameter of the 

tank. Based on this procedure, the volume of water supplied to the city of Bern as well as to the 

RWD was determined throughout the day on each of the SWSs. 

The flowrate of wastewater from Bern was determined through instrumentation that was installed 

at the lagoon. This instrumentation consisted of a sensor to measure the height of wastewater 

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 of water passing through the weir. This instrumentation was connected to a 

battery-powered datalogger, and data on the rate of wastewater generation on both SWSs were 

collected and compared with the rate of fresh water consumption of the city of Bern. 

There were two main objectives of the SWS concept. The first was to determine the impacts that 

clothes washers have on water utilities as compared with all of the other water uses present in 

households. The idea was to encourage participants to postpone most of their week's washing 

until Saturday when many loads would be done signifying a large wash day. The second 

objective of the Superwash concept was to determine the differences in water consumption of the 

collection of washers between phases I and II. This gives an idea of the impact that a large-scale 

changeover to h-axis washers can have on a community's water utilities. 

The impact of a 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 water tank 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 of water were used and discharged down the drains of the residents 

of the city. The total flows to the lagoon and from the water tank were about the same, and this 

indicates that there was no outside watering done. The source of noise 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 shows the clothes washer water consumption with a beginning 

time of 9:30 a.m. It can be seen that over the day, the 48 v-axis washers in the city used about 

18-20% of the total water used by the town. Moreover, these washers accounted for the same 

fraction of total 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 show that on that day, study participants who lived 

inside Bern washed 164 loads of clothes weighing 1,027 pounds using 72 cups of detergent. 

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 of water, and that clothes washers, based on measurements from the 

I 03 individual washers, used about 12,000 gallons of water (22% of the total). During that time, 

all I 03 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% of the 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 city water tank 

11:00AM 1:00 PM 

Time of Day 

.. .. .. ... 

___ ..... -

Used by 

clothes washers 

In city 

~ 

3:00 PM 5:00 PM 

Fig. 4.17 Water utilization in Bern during first Superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for phase I 

washers. 

..-

ii 

s 

Cl) 

l/l 

:::> 

... 

Cl) 

iii 

~ 

~~ 

-

-

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

9:00AM 

From city and 

rural water tanks ~ 

11:00 AM 

Used by all 

clothes washers 

in study 

1:00 PM 

Time of Day 

3:00 PM 5:00 PM 

Fig. 4.18 Water utilization in Bern and RWD during first Superwash Saturday, 6/28/97 for 

phase I 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% of its total water consumption in clothes 

washing. The fraction of wastewater generated by clothes 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 of the 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 of this test was to 

gather the data needed to compare the water consumption of the 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 of clothing 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 of loads done 

by city washers as compared to all of the loads washed. On the first SWS, 32% of all loads were 

washed in the city whereas on the second SWS, 40% of all 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 of water needed by washers during those two similar days. In this figure, the 

cumulative water consumption of all washers for all loads of wash 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 of water- 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 of 9113, and the 

impact of this picnic on washing behavior can be seen as many of the participants and picnicgoers attended to washing chores earlier in 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 

Figure 4.19 Collective water consumption of participants' washers during both SWSs. 

- 37 -
- 38 

-
5. ANALYSES OF FINDINGS AND IMPACTS 

In this study, phase I washers spanning a range of ages,.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 of this report were based on the "average" phase I washer in the Bern Study. 

This "average" washer was found to be about 8 years old, to consume 11.6 gallons of hot water 

and 29.9 gallons of cold 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 

parameters to determine their influence on the findings. Although there are a number of analyses 

that could be conducted from information provided in the study, we chose to perform a limited 

number of analyses. 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 of the phase 

I baseline 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 of these questions. 

5.1. WATER CONSUMPTION 

The amount of water consumed by a washer is determined by a number of factors as shown in 

Fig. 5.1. Some of these factors are fixed and depend on the design of the washer itself while 

others depend on how the washer is used and operated by customers. 

• Machine. Three principal characteristics of a washer affect its water consumption, 

and these include the type of washer (v-axis or h-axis), the age of the 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 of a 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 that controls 

the level of water in the tub for the washing and deep rinse cycles. Since clothes tend 

to displace water in the tub of a v-axis washer during a fill cycle, the water needed to 

reach each water level setting depends on the size and makeup of the load in the tub. 

The h-axis washer is designed to operate without using a switch for setting the 

washer according to load size, i.e. the washer regulates the amount of water needed to 

wash and rinse each load - less water for smaller loads and more water for larger 

ones. Therefore, for both types of washer, 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: 

their nonnal brand or the low sudsing Tide HE. 

Type Age Settings Size 

Type Amount 

Fig. 5.1 Washing factors that determine water consumption 

In a prior section of this report (Section 4), we looked at the influence of washer type on water 

consumption. We found that the v-axis washers of phase 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 of water 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 of load than did the 

v-axis model and this relative improvement in 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 of water consumption to load weight. The notes further indicate that much of the 

water consumption for either washer can be explained by this single parameter model. 

- 40 -
60 45% 

-Phase I 43% 

50 -o-Phase II 

-o-water Savings 41% 

-% Water Savings 

Phase I 39% 

6,814 (89.1%) out 

:ii' 

=::: 

; 40 

of 7, 645 records 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% 

.l!l 20 Ill 

3:: 

29% 

10 

27% 

0 25% 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

Load Weight (lb) 

Fig. 5.2 Impact of load weight on water consumption and savings produced. 

Based on data from the study, we explored relationships between detergent type/amount and 

water consumption, and the results of this investigation are shown in Fig. 5.3. 

16 

14 

:ii' 

s 

; 12 

~ "C 

§ 10 

..!!! 

0 

"D 

c 8 :::J 

0 

Q. 

a; 

Q. 6 

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%)out of 7,645 records 

Phase II 

11, 107 (84.1 %)out of 13,213 records 

1.5 1.75 2 

Fig. 5.3 Impact of detergent type/concentration on average water use. 

- 41 -
In Fig. 5.3, there are four relations shown: one for the phase I washers, the second for all of the 

phase II washers without regard for the type of detergent 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 simply reiterate 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 the Tide 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 of either type of detergent 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 of factors that can affect the cleaning performance of a washer and customer 

satisfaction with cleaning as shown in Fig. 5.4. While many of these factors are identical to ones 

identified previously, there are additional ones that affect customers' perception of the cleaning 

performance of a washer. 

Type Age Settings Size Soil level 

Type Amount 

Fig. 5.4 Washing factors that affect customer'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 of detergent 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 of the changeover to the new h-axis washer from 

differences that could be attributed to these other factors. 

• Initial soil level. How clean a load appears when removed from a washer depends to some 

extent on the initial soil level of the load going into the washer. We assumed that over the 

extended period of the study and the large number of loads analyzed (more than 20,000), the 

average soil level in a typical load and the distribution of loads 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 of the study. 

• Bleach use. Bleach and other additives can affect the appearance of loads removed from the 

washer and a customer's perception of cleaning performance. From the loads studied and 

analyzed, there were no significant changes in the use of bleach. About I 0% of the loads in 

each phase were washed using bleach. 

• Effects of Washer Age. Each participant in the study judged cleaning performance based on 

their experience with their original phase I washer. It seems reasonable to anticipate that 

participants with older phase I washers would see more cleaning improvement with a phase II 

washer than would participants who's original washer was newer. It is reasonable to assume 

that: the newer the 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-year old 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 of these 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 

notable to 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% 

o to 1 1to5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 

Age Range 

20 to 25 25 to 27 

11 Completely Satisfied 

•Very Satisfied 

D Somewhat Satisfied 

•Not Very Satisfied 

• Not At All Satisfied 

7,271 (95. 1%) out of 

7, 645 records 

Fig. 5.5 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction of phase 1 machine on its vintage. 

Oto 1 1 to 5 5 to 1 o 1 o to 15 15 to 20 20 to 25 25 to 27 

Age Range 

l.l Completely Satisfied 

•Very Satisfied 

o Somewhat Satisfied 

12,363 (93.6%) out 

of 13,213 records 

Fig. 5.6 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction of phase II washer based on 

experience with phase I washer (by vintage). 

-44-
• Effect of Temperature Settings. Wash and rinse temperatures can affect the cleaning 

performance of a washer. Participants were asked to indicate how they set the wash and rinse 

temperatures for their washers as they washed clothes. In most of the 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 of each 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 of the 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 at the bottom of Fig. 5.7 indicate how these satisfaction levels 

varied according to wash/rinse temperature settings. As before, cleaning satisfaction tended 

to be according to the initial soil level of the load. 

The results of initial 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 of the Figure), participants 

were at least very satisfied with 90% or better of all loads across all initial soil levels. For 

lightly soiled loads, the satisfaction level is about 98%. The four charts at the bottom of the 

figure show how cleaning performance depends on the wash/rinse temperature selections. 

Over all temperature setting combinations and all initial soil levels, participants' assessment 

of the overall cleaning performance of the h-axis washer was superior to their phase I washer. 

• Effect of High Efficiency Detergent. During phase II of the 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% of all 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 of this analysis are shown in Fig. 5.9. Also, the satisfaction responses 

for those loads for which there wasn't a detergent brand 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 of Tide HE, participants were at a minimum very satisfied with 96% 

of all loads that they washed using this low-sudsing detergent, whereas with the conventional 

detergent, 92% of all loads delivered this same satisfaction level. These results are based on 

data from 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 

Iii Completely 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 

(b) HoUCold temperature setting. 

Very 

Heavy 

Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None 

(d) Warm/Cold temperature 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/Warm temperature setting. 

Very 

Heavy 

Heavy Moderate Light Very Light None 

(e) Cold/Cold temperature setting. 

Fig. 5.7 Relative cleaning performance of phase I washers versus initial soiled level of laundry. 

- 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 

Ill Completely 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 temperature setting. (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/Cold temperature setting. (e) Cold/Cold temperature setting. 

Fig. 5.8 Relative cleaning performance of phase II washers versus initial soiled level of laundry. 

-47 -
80% 

70% 

., 60% "C 

.. 

0 50% ...J 

0 

?ft. 40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

ndeHE Others None or More than One 

Specified 

Detergent Types 

!! Completely Satisfied 

•very Satisfied 

0 Somewhat Satisfied 

•Not Very Satisfied 

•Not At 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 

None or More Than One 

894 (7.2%)out of 12,377 

Fig. 5.9 Dependence of cleaning satisfaction on detergent in phase II. 

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 

starting from 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. MOISTURE REMOVAL PERFORMANCE 

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 of the remaining moisture content (RMC) in a load is load weight. Therefore, it would 

be anticipated that with higher load 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-pound load weight range. 

-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 

Ill Completely 

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 performance of phase I and II washers. 

Type Settings Size 

Type 

Fig. 5.11 Washing factors that affect 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 of the 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 about 4% of all 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 minor differences in satisfaction levels. 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

rn 60% ,, 

as 

0 

...I 50% 

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 10 to 15 15 to 20 20to 27 

Load Weight (lb) 

All 

Ill Completely 

Satisfied 

•Very 

Satisfied 

DSomewhat 

Satisfied 

•Not Very 

Satisfied 

•Not At All 

Satisfied 

12,943 (94.1%) out 

of 13,213 records 

Fig. 5.12 Dependence of dampness satisfaction with load weight for phase II. 

38% l-----1353 1-----l 

34% 33% 

Oto 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 

Load Weight (lb) 

50% 

20 to 27 All 

lfil Completely 

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 of dampness satisfaction with load weight for phase I. 

- 50 -
100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

(/) 60% "ti 

~ ...I 50% 

0 

'if!. 40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Settings 

Ill Completely 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%) 

No Max or Extra Rinse 

2,418 (18.3%) 

Fig. 5.14 Dependence of dampness satisfaction on max. extract and extra 

rinse cycles (phase II machines). 

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 of the 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. For the 6-7 pound average load weight in phase II, the RMC of the 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 were based on the condition of loads as they were prepared for washing. Laboratory 

measurements of RMC are based on pre-wash conditions where the clothes are bone-dry. 

- 51 -
97.2 % of total records - Phase I 

0.65 +-----'-----------------J28. 1% of total records - Phase II (max) 

13.2 % of total 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 of remaining moisture content on load weight. 

- 52-
6. CONCLUSIONS 

The major impetus of this study was quantifying the water and energy savings offered by a large 

concentration in a community of horizontal-axis (h-axis) washers over conventional vertical-axis 

(v-axis) washers. Close to 35 billion loads of laundry are washed annually nationwide in the U.S 

consuming 2.6% of the total residential end-use energy

7

• The results of this study indicate that vaxis washers on average use over 40 gallons of water and over 7, 700 Btu or 2.25 kWh of end-use 

energy per load of wash and that h-axis washers provide close to 38% water and 58% energy 

savings over these v-axis washers. Based on these averages, close to 1.4 trillion gallons of water 

and 270 trillion Btu of energy are used by these v-axis washers annually nationwide and complete 

replacement of these washers with h-axis washers could save over 500 billion gallons of water 

and over 150 trillion Btu of energy annually. 

In addition to demonstrating the h-axis washer as an extremely efficient technology, this study 

evaluated and quantified many of the potential impacts of a changeover to 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 of washers on 

the utilities that supply water. Overall, the study showed that the changeover to the h-axis washer 

had little impact on the way in which customers washed and dried clothes. Customer laundry 

patterns such as days of the 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 W IC temperature setting and 9% less loads were washed using a 

H/C temperature setting in phase II than in phase I. 

The study showed that, on average, participants' overall satisfaction with the cleaning 

performance of the h-axis washer over their original v-axis washer was much improved. The 

fraction of loads 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 of the 

use of the high-efficiency detergent over the conventional detergent in phase II of the study. 

With either type 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 of loads 

removed from the h-axis washer than from the typical, phase I v-axis washer. Participants 

appeared to be completely satisfied with the level of dryness in 9% of the phase I loads and 43% 

of the phase II, h-axis loads. This subjective measurement was corroborated by calculations of 

remaining moisture content which showed that the h-axis washer - particularly if aided by the 

high-speed spin setting - performed a better job of moisture 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: A New 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% of the 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 the results plotted. 

In each Figure, the trendline showing the total water or energy that would have been consumed if 

the I washers had remained in place is shown. The presence of two 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 continue to save the community of Bern more than 50,000 gallons of water - 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 of superior cleaning 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. The h-axis technology was shown to use much less water and energy than the 

phase I conventional washers while at the same time, was found to improve cleaning performance 

and produced a high level of overall customer satisfaction. 

800,000 .-----------------------------------, 

700,000 

Phase 1 l Projecie~Ti;Jct~-;savings Due 

6,855 {89. 7%) of 7,645 records >--------~riz°-~~l {.ll(is Washers >---~~--< 

Phr.se II 

600,000 11 ?6~t 8(J. o~ ... J ot ; :;· :;- t 3 

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 impact of washer replacement on water consumption. 

- 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 

::::> 

>-

Dl 20,000 .. 

! 

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 of washer replacement on 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 of water 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 of laundry. 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 inherent accuracy of the water meter. 

Water consumption of clothes washers in the Bern Study was determined with conventional 

nutating disk water meters of the 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 of the meter itself. 

@ 

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 of the number of nutations per gallon of water 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. 

The reed 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, 

were placed into a single box and the box was placed in a convenient location in the laundry room 

of each 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 successive loads. 

-A. I -
Appendix B. Examples of Reports to Participants 

The following pages are colorized examples of the individualized study reports sent to the I 03 

Bern Study participants during phases I and II of the study and at the end (comparison of phases I 

and II). Each report includes six graphics on the first page (first two pages in the case of the 

comparison report), which provide percentages on: 

(I) load frequency by day of the week, 

(2) load frequency by hour of the day, 

(3) initial soil level of the laundry prior to washing, 

(4) methods used to dry the cleaned laundry, 

(5) hot water use by machine temperature setting, and 

(6) cold water used by machine temperature setting. 

Only the actual temperature settings used by the participant are shown for (5) and (6). Therefore, 

not all of the 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 for the loads washed by the 

participant. The totals include: 

• number of loads or cycles washed by participant 

• weight of these loads 

• amount of water used 

• amount of energy used (calculated from thermal and machine energy) 

• amount of moisture that would have to be removed by dryer or other drying method 

The averages include: 

• weight of laundry or washed clothes per load cycle 

• water used per load or cycle 

• washer energy in kilowatt-hours used per cycle 

• ratio of load weight to water use in pounds per gallon 

• ratio of load weight to energy use in pounds per kilowatt-hours 

Only one report was issued to the study participants for phase I (vertical-axis washers) since most 

of the data was collected by the time the report was issued. Pages A.3 to A.4 provide an example 

of the initial report on phase I customer #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 of the interim report on phase 

II for the customer #I. Final individual reports comparing phases I and II for all of the data 

collected during both phases was issued along with this Bern washer study final report. Page A. 7 

shows the third page of the final report that 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. l 0. The letter 

provides a description of all the calculated values given in the comparison table of the third page 

of the individual report. The first two pages of the final report aren't shown since their layout is 

the same as the first pages of the 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 0 ~ ~::~====-==:l:::==I==~.~==== 0% +--....-, --'-r-• .-._,,,--.-.._,., __ .__,__......., 

Fig. Sa. Madline Hot Water 

Consumption 

.! ~ 251 t 

~ H ~ lj 0 +· 

:~I=:=====~;;========= ~---.,..., ----....---•--.....---.....-----. 

~v ~v ~~ .!' ~ 

~~ Machine Setting 

Karen Aeschliman 

1 

Fig. 2. Your Load Timing 

During The Day 35%,..-------------

Fig. 4. How You 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--~~--~~- <C ~ :::l 81 ..... 10 0 +-"---.,..., +-. --------_----- ----....---'--,---~-~ 

Page 1 of 2 

- A.3 -

~f.> # .!' o~ ~~ ~ 

Machine Setting 
I Bern 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 
I Bern 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%..----------

i;: 111403 I d 

g 1g;: +--~, __ ;).._,_,. ....... .,....-..~. -• ..... 1 .~ ';!. 0~0 .p~ ~~~ -~~ ,J,~~ #~~ 

~ '>OJ '>OJ ~,p ~~ ~0 

~0(\ ~0(\ 

Fig. Sa. Machine Hot Water 

Consumption 

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

: & if ~! = ::g 3.0 +-_ I --111-----1_--- I ~ I!! "5! ill ....... ~ 2.0 1.0 +----------- +-----------------

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

cf1 ~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 251 20 +-.----.....-------

H er ::::> H: 0 11 I I 

c)v ~\v ~~ 

I 

~v ~ -§'o 

.;:,~ 

Machine Setting 

Page 1 of 2 

- A.5-

I 

_ __J 
I Bern 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 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.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 or gall 

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 or kwh} 

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 or lb} 

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 and Efficiency_ 

Total Number of 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 of Letter to Participants enclosed with Ph I and II Comparison Report 

Dear Ms. Aeschiliman, 

We have completed the analysis of the data collected by you during the Bern Washer Study. 

Close to five months worth of data 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 of wash. Enclosed with 

this letter are two documents that provide you with the findings of the study. The first is the final 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory report that covers the results of all of the data and discusses the 

water used and saved, the energy used and saved, customer satisfaction, dampness satisfaction, 

and many other issues. The second is an individualized report similar to what you have received 

before. 

Your own individual report shows how much water and energy you saved by 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 of the water and energy use, and efficiency of the old washers 

(phase I) versus the new washers (phase II). Each page has been colorized to better distinguish 

phase I (in blue) from phase II (in green) results. 

With regard to the third page of the individual report, information for phases I and II is given in 

the first and second columns, respectively. Your savings (or average differences) provided by the 

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 of loads 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-one calculations given on this page and, for easy reading, they have been broken down 

into four major categories of information: water use, energy use, load weights, and loads & 

efficiency. 

Water Use 

Total Hot, Total Cold, and Total Hot + Cold: The values in the first two columns show the total 

gallons of water (hot, cold, and hot plus cold) used during each phase of the 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 if they are divided by the number of wash 

loads (shown near the end of the first two columns) performed during each phase of the study. 

See below. 

Average Hot and Average Cold Per Load, and Average Load Hot+ Cold: The values in the first 

two columns show the average gallons of water (hot, cold, or hot 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 of wash loads (given later). These values are good indicators of how much hot, 

-A.8 -
cold, or total water was used, on average, for each load of wash. 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 hot plus cold water, respectively, than the phase I washers. 

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 per day and week, respectively. 

Energy Use 

Total Energy: The values given in the first two columns show the total kilowatt-hours of energy 

(electrical energy of washer motor plus thermal energy of hot 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 difference between the hot water and cold water faucets at the 

washer. As indicated above, the third column is only a difference and may or may not represent 

a savings. 

Average Energy Per Load: The values given in the first two columns show the average kilowatthours of energy used for each load of wash. They were calculated by dividing the total energy 

used by the total number of wash 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 equivalent of 1.2 kilowatt-hours less energy than the phase I washers. 

Average Daily Energy Use, Average Weekly Energy Use: The values in the first two columns 

show the average kilowatt-hours of energy 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. 

Load Weights 

Total Weight of Loads: The values shown in the first two columns are the total weight of clothes 

washed by your washers during each phase of the 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 if they are divided by the number of wash loads performed during each phase of the 

study. See below. 

Average Load 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 of wash loads (given later). The third column is the difference in average load 

weight between 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 of the 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 of the laundry after washing. This 

value represents the amount of water in pounds remaining in the clothes after washing. It is the 

amount of moisture that has to be removed from the clothes either by drying them in the dryer or 

out on the clothesline. The phase I and II values should only be compared if the totals are divided 

by the number of wash loads performed during each phase. For example, 2.0 and 2.5 pounds per 

load for phase I and II, respectively could be compared if the total remaining moisture is 200 and 

300 pounds and the number ofloads is 100 and 120 for phase I 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 but divided by the 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 of the percent of moisture 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 of water after 

washing and would weigh 160 pounds. 

Loads & Efficiency 

Total Number of Loads: The values shown in first two columns are the total number of wash 

loads based on the number of datasheets you turned in during phase I and II of the 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 or pounds of laundry per gallon of 

water use for phases I and II of the study. The values were calculated by dividing the total weight 

of all the clothes washed by the total (hot plus cold) water used in each of the phases. The third 

and fourth column show your average 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 of how much load weight (pounds of clothes) can be washed for 

every gallon of water. For example if the 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 of energy for phases I and II. The average lb/kWh is another efficiency indicator 

of the 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 phase II washers saved 4.4 lb/kWh over the phase I washers. The ratio gives you 

some idea of how much load (weight) can be washed for every kilowatt-hour of energy used. For 

example if the values are 3.0 and 7.0 for phases I and II, respectively, then 1 kilowatt-hour will 

w.ash 3 and 7 pounds of clothes for phases I and II, respectively. 

Thank you again for your participation in this important research study. 

Sincerely, 

John Tomlinson and D. Tom Rizy 

Attachment (3-page phase I and II comparison report) 

-A.10-
Appendix C. Data Integrity and Quality 

Overall the completeness of the data was very good with any one field of infonnation being 88% 

complete or better (see Table C.1) with the exception of the "did you" field which was an 

optional field. The quality of the data (see Tables C.2 and C.3) was also very good as well with 

an extremely small percentage of the data consisting of outliers (out of range values). These 

outliers are due to out of place (in tenns of date and time) records, incomplete data, or incorrectly 

entered infonnation or a combination of the three. The completeness and quality of the data is 

discussed more in detail below. 

Completeness of Recorded Data 

Part of the quality of the data is the completeness of the data records. The completeness of each 

data sheet or record refers to the number of nonblank entries in each data field or cell as 

compared to the total number of data records that was turned in. The completeness of the data set 

was examined by counting the number of nonblank entries for each of the possible data fields and 

comparing it to the total number records turned in. A total of 20,858 data sheets or records were 

turned in by the study participants over the five-month long data collection period of the study 

(two-months during phase 1 and three-months during phase II). Each data sheet consists of 22 to 

32 individual fields or cells of data. For phase I, the maximum was 22 for a wash load without 

the analog readings from the faces of the water meters and 26 with the readings. For phase II, the 

maximum was 28 for a wash load without the analog readings and 32 with the readings. The 

cells of data consist of: 

a) sequence number or the order in which each data sheet was scanned and 

entered into the database ( l field), 

b) lithocode or unique 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 of pre-wash laundry ( l field), 

g) "did you" or pre-wash preparations such as pretreat stains, use of bleach, 

presoak, use of fabric softener (1 field in phase 1, 6 fields in phase II), 

h) detergent amount {I field), 

i) detergent brand (1 field), 

j) detergent type (1 field), 

k) machine temperature, load, and cycle settings (4 fields for phase I, 5 for 

phase II), 

I) digital hot and cold water readings (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 meter reading (4 readings) 

Table C.1 shows the total number of records turned in by the study participants for each phase of 

the study. Also, the number of nonblank or filled-in values for each cell as well as percent of the 

total records that this represents is shown in this table. For example, 7585 or 99.2 % out of a total 

of 7645 records were filled in for the "date" field. 

-A.11 -
Table C.1 Completeness of Phase I and II Data Records. 

~-·· ~ 

# Data Record % 

Total Records 76451 132131 

Records with Lithocodes 7645' 100.0% 132111100.0% 

Customers 103 103 

I 

1 Date & Time 

Date 75851 99.2% 130171 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 ! 

Amount 6998 91.5% 123931 93.8% 

Brand 6724 88.0% 12071 91.4% 

Type 7262 95.0% 12455 94.3% 

6 Machine Settings 

Cycle (Ph I) or Fabrics (Ph II) 74621 97.6% 12862 97.3% 

Load Size (Ph I} or Wash/Rinse (Ph II 73851 96.6% 12859 97.3% 

Wash Temperature (Ph I} or Options (Ph II} 73751 96.5% 10512 79.6% 

Rinse Temperature (Ph I) or Quick/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 How will this load be dried? 73191 95.7% 125861 95.3% 

Analog Readings: 

Cold Register 2071 152 

Cold Needle 209 144 

Hot Register 210 1491 

Hot Needle 207 141 

-A.12 -
Overall the completeness of the data is very good at 88% or better with the exception of the "did 

you" field. The completeness of the "did you" field for phase I is lower than for phase II because 

the possibility of multiple 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 of the data records of phase I and II represent a load of wash. A small percent of 

them represent only the analog water readings at the beginning and end of each 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 of wash. 

Integrity of Data 

A second area of data quality is the reasonableness or integrity of the 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 of the digital file. 

Many of these misentered readings showed up as values that were too small or too large. The 

values showed up as null (blank) values if no 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 order to 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 a table of pre-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 of the records by both customer#, date, and by time. Thus water use, either hot 

or cold, was calculated by subtracting the pre-reading of this table from the post-reading of the 

data records for the same record. An incorrect entry for either of these 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 of the 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 

group the data by customer, date, and/or time. 

Table C.2 and C.3 describe the quality of the 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% of the data records in phase I and II were found to be of extremely good quality for 

water use calculations, since they fell within the 0 to 60 gallon range. Over 95% of the data 

records in phase I and II were found to be of extremely good quality for load weight calculations, 

since they fell with the 0 to 20 pounds range. Reasonableness of the calculations was determined 

by grouping the calculations into four groups. For the water use calculations, these are ( 1) less 

than 0 gallons, (2) 0 to 60 gallons, (3) greater than 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 

Access queries to eliminate gross outliers. The limit of 0 to I 00 gallons was used for the cold and 

hot water use calculations, instead of 0 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 water use and load weight both without these limits and with the 

previously stated limits is shown on the right side of each table. 

Table C.2 Quality (percent of total records) of Phase 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 For Calculation (0 to 60) (0 to 100) 

Phase I 

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 

Phase II 

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 used to calculate the total and average water use in the study. They were used to eliminate 

any unreasonable calculations due to incorrectly entered water readings (by participant or key punch 

operator) or sorting problems with readings due to incorrectly entered date or time. 

Table C.3 Quality (in percent of total records) of Phase I and Il Pre-Wash and PostWash Weight Calculations. 

% in Weight (lb) Range Average Load Weights 

Greater Than Limits 

20 and Less Not Enough Data (greater 

Less than 0 0 to 20 Than 40 For Calculation No Limits than 0)* 

Phase I 

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 

Phase II 

Pre Wash 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 used to calculate the total and average load weights in the study. They were used to 

eliminate any unreasonable calculations due to incorrectly entered load weight data (by participant 

or keypunch operator). 

-A.14-
Appendix D. Individual Water Tap Temperatures and Differences at Each Washer 

The water temperatures of both the hot and cold water taps (or faucets) at each participant's 

washer were measured at the beginning of this study. The individual water temperatures 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 of laundry washed by each participant. 

Table D.1 Hot and Cold Water Temperatures Measured at Each Participant's Washer. 

Temperature Measurements and 

Difference, °F) 

Participant Customer No Hot Water I Cold Water Hot Minus Cold 

1 1 113 60 53 

___ 2121- 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-
Table D.1 Hot and Cold Water Temperatures Measured at Each Participant's Washer (cont.). 

Temperature Measurements and 

Difference Of) 

Participant Customer No Hot Water Cold Water Hot Minus Cold 

34 34 126 60 66 

351 351 137 60 77 

361 361 1101 

~ 53 

37 37 122 8 64 

381 381 1491 571 92 

39 39 150 63 87 

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 57 134 60 74 

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 -
Table D.1 Hot and Cold Water Temperatures Measured at Each Participant's Washer (cont.). 

Temperature Measurements and 

Difference °F) 

Participant Customer No Hot Water 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 -