Supplement to Draft Report on, the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for

(Clothes Washers: Combining Data

Additional Data (Phase II)

Additional information was requested on combinations of design options, particularly for design

options that could be used on both vertical and horizontal 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 with 40% 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 I data with Phase I data

After Phase II data was submitted, it was combined with Phase I data into one spreadsheet.

Where possible, Phase II data was used. Phase I data 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 a design option. For example, to determine the

energy use of the 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 to 50% .

RMC was calculated and subtracted from the dryer energy, 2) energy use due to the auto-fill only

option (Phase II) was subtracted. The TCMV cost from 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 not already combined by AHAM

Some design options were combined that had not been submitted as combined options by AHAM.

Since it is not technically correct to simply add individual savings of energy 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 of the

Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers.

The descriptions below show how the incremental costs were determined for the Draft Report on

the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers. Information is also provided as to
which data was used to calculated the energy use. Phase I and Phase II refer 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 hot water energy with comments added if other

variables are discussed. Phase II and Phase I describe the source of the data. The energy values

shown are corrected for changes in the test procedure 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, Improved Fill Control

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 is same as Level 2a)

Cost: Phase II - (Phase I, 40%RMC + 50%RMC); ($58.33-$8.52-$9.6) = $40.21

Level 6a: 40% RMC, Improved Fill Control

Energy: Phase II (Hot water is same as Level 3a)

Cost: Improved Fill Control (Phase II); $1-1.58
Pae 3

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 II data, 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 of just 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

Level 4b: 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

Level Sb: 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 II data.

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 level Ib)

Energy: Same as Level lb
Cost: Phase II (same as Level lb)

Level 2c: Horizontal Axis with recirculation

Energy: Phase I; Multiply horizontal axis by the ratio of hot 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: Tighter Tub Tolerance, improvedfill control

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: Tighter Tub Tolerance, improvedfill control, TCMV

Energy: Mult. Level 2d By TCMV/baseline Ratio

Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16

Level 4d: Tighter Tub Tolerance, TCMV

Energy: Multiply Level Id by (TCMV/baseline) ratio

Cost: TCMV (Phase I) = $8.16

Level Sd: Tighter Tub 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: Tighter Tub 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 Motor Efficiency

Energy: Phase I

Cost: Phase I

Level 2e: Direct Drive Motor

Energy: Phase I

Cost: Phase I

Level 3e: Advanced Controls

Energy: Phase II

Cost: Phase II

Level 4e: Added Insulation

Energy: Phase I

Cost: Phase I
Supplement to the Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for

Clothes Washers: Determining Energy and Water Usage

Introduction

The process of determining 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 of steps performed in chronological

order. Some of the adjustments were made in order to conform to the latest version of the DOE

future test procedure.

Step 1:

* Copied data submitted by AHAM into a spreadsheet.

* Multiplied Hot Water column by (75/70) to adjust for the new hot water inlet temperature

of 135°F instead of the previous 130°F.

* At this point all options were referenced to the baseline vertical axis option.

* Added a Dryer Energy column.

Step 2:

· The Phase II data had separate baselines for every 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 5 respondents).

1. hot water energy

2. clothes container capacity

3. total gallons

·These columns were adjusted using the following equation:

Adjusted Value = AHAM Value x (5 respondent baselinel baseline for a particular design option)

* Inconsistencies still remained 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 of all 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 of the horizontal with auto-fill design option using

difference from the baseline instead of ratios (otherwise it would show an increase

in total water use for this design option).
Pae 2

The Cost/Savings Ratio (CBR) was calculated for the Advanced Controls design option.

Since the CBR was very high (because the hot water savings were very low and the

incremental cost for this option was high) it was 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 Water for Phase I data to conform to Phase II data for options of RMC

35% & 30%; (these were later dropped from the analysis).

Derived (Auto-Fill TCMV) - 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-Fill only, energy use for hot water.

(i.e., 0.181 = 1.574-1.393)

* To determine the (Tighter Tub Tolerance & TCMV) combination, only the hot water

energy use needed to be adjusted.

(TIT & TCMV) = (Phase I, TCMV energy) x [(Phase I, TT energy) / (Phase I, Baseline Vertical Axis energy)]

J

Step 4:

Design options were separated into a,b,c,d,e, categories. Decisions were made as to

branch off design option combinations.

* Combined Auto-Fill and Improved Fill Control design options. (Later it was decided that

these two design options should not be combined.)

. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

*
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.

* Hot water energy 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

* Hot water energy was 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.

* Hot water energy 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 (Dryer Usage Factor) was changed from 0.844 to 0.84

Step 8:

Updated fuel prices to AEO 1996 projections for the year 2000 in 1994 dollars.

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% of the time and the baseline Remaining Moisture

Content (RMC) being used 25% of the time.
:Cg v«H»->-- at -^.^-Err 

Errata

December 11, 1996

I n Draft Report on Design Options for Clothes Washers (page 4), remove the word "No"

from the following:

"3) No adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product Availability."

"4) No adverse Impacts on Health or Safety."

'In Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis for Clothes Washers, p. C-2 of

Table C. 1 under the column total gallons the SWA for Baseline should read 38.921 not

39.921. This was a typographic error made in transcribing an Excel spreadsheet into

WordPerfect (calculations were not affected).