Supplement to DraftReport on,the Preliminary EngineeringAnalysisfor (Clothes Washers: Combining Data
Additional Data (Phase II) Additional information was requested on combinations ofdesign options, particularly for design options thatcould be used on both vertical andhorizontal axis washers. In addition, because improved fill control could mean more than one design approach, it was disaggregated into improved fill control and automatic fill control (auto-fill). Data was also provided on an Advanced Controls (soil load sensor) option. The additional data provided by manufacturers is referred to as Phase II data. Additional data was provided on the following design options: * Improved Fill Control

· Horizontal Axis Design Advanced Controls, Soil Load Sensor *, Automatic Fill Control * Horizontal with 50% RMC Horizontal with40% RMC * Horizontal with Automatic Fill Control Vertical Axis, Auto Fill Control, Thermostatically controlled Mixing Valves, 50% RMC

· Vertical Axis, Auto Fill Control, Thermostatically Controlled Mixing Valves, 40% RMC Combining Phase Idatawith Phase I data After Phase II data was submitted, it was combined with Phase Idata into one spreadsheet. Where possible, Phase II data was used. Phase Idata was used when a given design option was not provided for in Phase II. In some cases data from both Phase I and Phase II were used to determine energy usage and/or cost values for adesign option. For example, to determine the energy use ofthe thermostatic mixing valve option (TCMV), the following adjustments were made to the Phase II design option,Auto-fill, TCMV, 50%RMC: 1)energy use due to50% . RMC was calculated and subtracted fromthe dryer energy, 2)energy use due to the auto-fillonly option (Phase II) was subtracted. The TCMV costfrom Phase I data was used.- Now that the energy savings and cost for only TCMV were established option, this design option could be recombined with other design options. Combining Options notalready combined by AHAM Some design options were combined that had not been submitted as combined options by AHAM. Since it isnot technically correct to simply add individual savings ofenergy or water another method had to be established. First, the energy for an uncombined design option had to be determined. Then, the previous design option energy usage could be multiplied by the ratio of the individual design option energy use divided by the baseline energy use. There are three options that were used in this way: (1)Improved Fill Control (2)Auto-fill and (3) Thermostatically Controlled Mixing Valve (TCMV). This is also discussed in the appendix ofthe DraftReporton thePreliminary Engineering Analysis for ClothesWashers. The descriptions below show how the incremental costs were determined for the Draft Reporton thePreliminary Engineering Analysis forClothes Washers. Information is also provided as towhich data was used to calculated the energy use. Phase I and Phase IIrefer to the two sets of data submitted by AHAM discussed in the report. Cost in the descriptions below refers to incremental cost. Phase II refers to the cost submitted by AHAM for the design option or combination of design options on July 6, 1995. Phase I refers to the data supplied by AHAM on May 8, 1995. Energy in the descriptions below refers to hotwater energy with comments added ifother variables are discussed. Phase II and Phase I describe the source ofthe data. The energy values shown are corrected for changes in the testprocedure water inlet temperature and Temperature Use Factors (TUF). Level 0:Baseline Energy: Phase II; 1.554 kWh/cycle Cost: Derived from retail price (Eldrick & Lavidge ELCAP survey) and markup of 1.7 percent. Level Ia:RMC = 50% Energy: Phase II baseline; 1.554 kWh/cycle Cost: Phase I;$9.60 Level 2a:50%RMC, Auto Fill, TCMV Energy: Phase II; 1.339 kWh/cycle Cost: (Phase II- Level la) = ($49.38-$9.6) = $39.78 Level 3a:50% RMC, ImprovedFillControl Energy: Phase II, 1.436 Cost: Improved Fill Control (Phase II) ;$11.58 Level 4a:40% RMC Energy: Phase II; 1.554 kWh/cycle Cost: Phase I, (40%RMC

- 50%RMC) = $18.12 $9.60 = $8.52 Level 5a:40%RMC,Auto-Fill, TCMV Energy: Phase II (Hot water issame as Level 2a) Cost: Phase II

- (Phase I, 40%RMC + 50%RMC); ($58.33-$8.52-$9.6) = $40.21 Level 6a:40%RMC, ImprovedFillControl Energy: Phase II (Hot water is same as Level 3a) Cost: Improved Fill Control (Phase II); $1-1.58Pae3

Level lb:Horizontal Axis Energy: Given in Phase II data, 0.432 kWh/cycle Cost: Horizontal Axis (Phase II) = $101.57 Level 2b: Horizontal Axis, Auto-fill Energy: Given in Phase IIdata, 0.423 kWh/cycle Cost: Auto-fill Control (Phase II) = $34.15 (AHAM option # 17) Horizontal with Auto-fill (AHAM option #23)could have been used, but because there were only three respondents and for statistical reasons, the cost of option #23 was less than the cost ofjust the horizontal axis option by itself, which did not seem reasonable. Level 3b:Horizontal Axis, 50%RMC Energy: Same as horizontal axis given in Phase II Cost: Phase I(Horizontal Axis w/50%RMC

- Horizontal Axis); $110.23

- $101.57 = $8.66 Level4b: Horizontal-Axis,50%RMC, TCMV Energy: Multiply horizontal axis by ratio (1.517/1.554), i.e. (TCMV/baseline) where TCMV is derived Phase II data (see text on page 1). Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16 LevelSb: Horizontal Axis, 50% RMC, TCMV, Auto-fill Energy: Multiply horizontal axis hot water energy by the ratio (1.339/1.554), i.e. [(Auto-fill,TCMV,50%RMC) /baseline)]. where Auto-fill, TCMV, 50%RMC is given in Phase IIdata. Cost: [Phase II (Level 2a),(Auto-fill, TCMV)]

- [Phase I (TCMV)] = $39.78

- $8.16 = $31.62 Same result is reached using: [Phase II(Auto-fill,TCMV,50%RMC)

- Phase I (50%RMC + TCMV)] Level 6b:Horizontal Axis, 40%RMC Energy: Given in Phase II Cost: Phase II(Horiz. Axis w/40%RMC

- Horiz Axis

- Level 3b) = $117.72

- $101.57

- $8.66 = $7.49 Level 7b: Horizontal Axis, 40%RMC, TCMV Energy: Same as Level 4b Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16 Level 8b: Horizontal Axis, 40% RMC, TCMV, auto-fill Energy: Same as level 5b Cost: [Phase II(Auto-fill, TCMV, 40%RMC)]

- [Phase I (TCMV + 50%RMC + 40%RMC)] = (AHAM #25)

- (TCMV + 50%RMC +40%RMC)] = $58.33

- ($8.16 + $9.6 + $8.52) = $32.05 Level c:Horizontal Axis (same as levelIb) Energy: Same as Level lbCost: Phase II (same as Level lb) Level 2c:Horizontal Axis with recirculation Energy: Phase I; Multiply horizontal axis by the ratio ofhot water energy between horiz; w/recirc and horizontal axis with the values taken from Phase I data submittal. Horiz w/recirc = horiz. x (0.37/0.46) = 0.371 Cost: Phase I (horizontal w/recirc.)

- Phase I (horizontal) = $104.53

- $101.25 = $3.28 Level 3c:Horizontal Axis with recirculation, 50%RMC Energy: Same as 2c Cost: Phase II(horizontal axis w/50%RMC

- horizontal axis) = $110.23

- $101.57 = $8.66 Level 4c:Horizontal Axis with recirculation, 40%RMC Energy: Same as 2c Cost: Phase II (horiz. axis w/40%RMC

- horiz. axis w/50%RMC) = $117.72

- $110.23 = $7.49 Level Id: Tighter Tub Tolerance Energy: From Phase I, 1.461 kwh/cycle Cost: Tighter Tub Tolerance (Phase I) = $7.09 Level 2d: TighterTub Tolerance,improvedfillcontrol Energy: Multiply Level Id by [improve fill control,(Phase I)/baseline] ratio 1.350 = 1.461 x (1.436/1.544) Cost: Improved Fill Control (Phase II)= $11.58 Level 3d: TighterTub Tolerance,improvedfillcontrol,TCMV Energy: Mult. Level 2d By TCMV/baseline Ratio Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16 Level 4d: TighterTub Tolerance,TCMV Energy: Multiply Level Id by (TCMV/baseline) ratio Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16 Level Sd: TighterTub Tolerance,TCMV, auto-fill Energy: Multiply Level 4d by [auto-fill,(Phase II)/baseline] ratio Cost: [Phase II, (Auto-fill, TCMV, 50%RMC)]

- [Phase I,(50%RMC + 40%RMC)] = (AHAM#24)

- [Phase I,(50%RMC + 40%RMC)] = $49.38

- ($9.60 + $8.16) = $31.62,_________________________-------.. ------ _ gPage5

Level 6d: TighterTub Tolerance,auto-fill Energy: Multiply Id by (auto-fill/baseline) ratio, where auto-fill is from Phase II data Cost: Phase II (AHAM#17) = $34.15
Level Ie:Increased MotorEfficiency Energy: Phase I Cost: Phase I Level 2e:Direct DriveMotor Energy: Phase I Cost: Phase I Level 3e:Advanced Controls Energy: Phase II Cost: Phase II Level 4e:AddedInsulation Energy: Phase I Cost: Phase I

### Supplement to the DraftReport on the Preliminary EngineeringAnalysisfor Clothes Washers: Determining Energy and Water Usage
Introduction The process ofdetermining energy usage and water usage values from Phase I and Phase II data is described below. Adjustments to the AHAM submitted data were made in a series of spreadsheets. These adjustments are shown below as a series ofsteps performed in chronological order. Some ofthe adjustments were made in order to conform to the latest version ofthe DOE future testprocedure. Step 1: * Copied data submitted by AHAM into a spreadsheet. * Multiplied Hot Watercolumn by (75/70) to adjust for the new hot water inlet temperature of 135°F instead ofthe previous 130°F. * At thispoint all options were referenced to the baseline vertical axis option. * Added aDryerEnergycolumn. Step 2:

· The Phase II data had separate baselines forevery design option that had less than 5 respondents. The following columns were normalized to either the vertical axis washer baseline or the horizontal axis washer baseline (both 5respondents). 1. hotwaterenergy 2. clothescontainercapacity 3. totalgallons

·These columns were adjusted using the following equation: Adjusted Value =AHAM Valuex (5respondentbaselinelbaseline foraparticular designoption) * Inconsistencies stillremained after this process, therefore, additional adjustments were made. 1. Made all vertical axis drum capacities equal to baseline. 2. Made all horizontal axis drum capacities equal (except horizontal with recirculation). 3. Made the water use ofall horizontal combination design options with a design that should not affect water use, equal to the baseline horizontal water use. 4. Adjusted the total water use ofthe horizontalwith auto-filldesign option using difference from the baseline instead ofratios (otherwise it would show an increase in total water use for this design option).Pae2

The Cost/Savings Ratio (CBR) was calculated fortheAdvancedControlsdesign option. Since the CBR was very high (because the hot water savings were very low and the incremental costfor this option was high) itwas decided not to combine this option with any other design options. Step 3: * Divided Phase II design options into vertical and horizontal axis categories. * Added Phase I design options to fill in the gaps (i.e., design option combinations not provided by manufacturers).. * Calculated values to fill in the gaps. Adjusted Total Waterfor Phase I data to conform to Phase II data for options ofRMC 35% & 30%; (these were later dropped from the analysis). Derived (Auto-FillTCMV)

- by using AHAM#25 design option (Auto-fill, TCMV, 50%RMC) and subtracting out the calculated dryer energy. * Derived the hot water energy for TCMV alone

- by using (Auto-Fill,TCMV) calculated above and adding the difference between the baseline vertical axis option and the Phase II, Auto-Fillonly, energy use for hot water. (i.e., 0.181 = 1.574-1.393) * To determine the (TighterTub Tolerance& TCMV) combination, only the hot water energy use needed to be adjusted. (TIT &TCMV) = (PhaseI, TCMV energy)x[(PhaseI, TT energy)/(Phase I, BaselineVertical Axis energy)]
J Step 4:Design options were separated into a,b,c,d,e, categories. Decisions were made as to branch offdesign option combinations. * Combined Auto-Fill and Improved Fill Control design options. (Later itwas decided that these two design options should not be combined.)

. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i - *Step 5: * Combined Horizontal Axis design option combinations. Generally the same order was used as was used previously for spreadsheet AHAM15b (presented at a workshop in July 1995). The updated analysis was essentially the same except that new improved data was used. * Hotwaterenergy was calculated for(Horizontal Axis, TCMV, 50%RMC). Hot Water = (Horizontal Axis) x (1.517/ 1.554) where 1.517 = calculated from TCMV; TCMV = (1.356 + 0.181) x 0.987 where 1.356 = (auto-fill, TCMV,RMC) unadjusted for new TUF's 0.181 = (see Step 3)unadjusted for new TUF's 0.987 = adjustment for new TUF's 1.554 = vertical axis baseline * Hotwater energywas calculatedfor(Horizontal Axis, TCMV, Auto-Fill,50%RMC). Hot Water = 0.46 x (1.339 / 1.554) where 0.46 = horizontal axis 1.339 = (Vert. Axis, Auto-Fill, TCMV, 50%RMC) 1.554= Vertical Axis Baseline (i.e., use ratios of options used by vertical design options and then multiply by the baseline horizontal hot water energy consumption. * Hotwaterenergy for(Horizontal Axis with recirculation) Hot water energy = 0.461 x 0.804 where 0.461 = horizontal axis hot water energy 0.804 = [(Phase I, horz. axis w/recirc.) / (Phase I, horz. axis)] = 0.37 / 0.46 Step 6: * Disaggregated costs were set relative to the last option or the preceding branch (if the last option is a branch). Step 7:DUF (DryerUsage Factor) was changed from 0.844 to 0.84 Step 8:Updated fuel prices to AEO 1996 projections for the year 2000 in 1994dollars. Step 9:* ,£,, , . ...... ........ ... ;.,.J.,........ Page 4

Deleted 35% and 30% RMC options Step 10: Made all clothes container volumes in "e" series equal to the baseline. Step 11: * Generated new "De" column. Recalculated dryer energy for options that have an Improved Moisture Extraction. The new values were based on the Improved Moisture Extraction feature being used 75% ofthe time and the baseline Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) being used 25% ofthe time.:Cg v«H»->-- -^.^-Err at 

### Errata December 11, 1996

I

nDraft ReportonDesignOptions for Clothes Washers (page 4), remove the word "No" from the following: "3) No adverse Impacts onProduct Utility or Product Availability." "4) No adverse Impacts on Health or Safety." 'InDraft Reporton thePreliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers, p. C-2 of Table C.1under the column total gallons the SWA for Baseline should read 38.921 not 39.921. This was a typographic error made in transcribing anExcel spreadsheet into WordPerfect (calculations were not affected).