gt A Department of Energy

E "n'^ J~~ S ~Washington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995

Vince Anderson

Director, Environmental Programs

Whirlpool Corporation

5401 U.S. Highway 41 North

Evansville, IN 47727-0001

Mr. Anderson:

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in

St. Joseph, Michigan on June 19, 1995 at 11:00 a.m..

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data,

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain

additional data during the visit.

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc. LaFrance of my staff at

(202) 586-8423.

Sincerely,

Xk?- Michael J. McCabe, Director

Office of Codes and Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosures

cc:

Freedom of Information Reading Room

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403

U.S. Department of Energy

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Vince Anderson 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

June 12, 1995 ' 

Director, Environmental Programs 

Whirlpool Corporation 

5401 U.S. Highway 41 North 

Evansville, IN 47727-0001 

Mr. Anderson: 

-- This letter confirms the Department of Energy's 'site visit to your company in 

St. Joseph, Michigan on June 19, 1995 at 11:00 a.m., 

The Department has completed 'the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, 

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks- forward to 

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain 

additional data during the visit. 

For further information please contact Mr. P~ Marc. LaFrance of my staff at 

(202) 586-8423. 

Enclosures 

cc: 

Sincerely, 

~V~ 

In-~~ael,{ ~ccabe. Oi rector ~- - Office 6f Codes and Standards 

Office of Building Technologies 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

Docket Numb~r EE-RM-94-403 

U.S. Department of Energy 

* Print,ed with soy ink on recycled paper 
Department of Energy

v('§.( ~ ¥I/~ ^Washington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995

Earl F. Jones, Jr.

Sr. Counsel, Government and Industry

GE Appliances

Appliance Pank 2-225

Louisville, KY 40225

Mr. Jones:

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in

Louisville, Kentucky on June 27, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data,

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain

additional data during the visit.

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at

(202) 586-8423.

Sincerely,

(f/Michae J. McCabe, Director

/ Office of Codes and Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosures

cc:

Freedom of Information Reading Room

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403

U.S. Department of Energy

® Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Earl F. Jones, Jr. 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

June 12, 1995 

Sr. Counsel, Government and Industry 

GE Appliances 

Appliance Pank 2-225 

Louisville, KY 40225 

Mr. Jones: 

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in 

Louisville, Kentucky on June 27, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, 

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to 

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain 

additional data during the visit. 

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at 

(202) 586-8423. 

Enclosures 

cc: 

Sincerely, 

~(7~. , Lrk~~~e~. McCabe, Dir'ector ~ Office of Codes and Standards 

Office of Building Technologies 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 

U.S. Department of Energy 

. -... 

® Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 

/ 
Aind^, % Department of Energy

v(=-(I~~ T^ JSWashington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995

Phil J. Manthei

Speed Queen Company

Shephard Street

P.O. Box 990

Ripon, WI 57971-0990

Mr. Manthei:

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in

Ripon, Wisconsin on June 20, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted,data,

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain

additional data during the visit.

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at

(202) 586-8423.

Sincerely,

ichae J. McCabe, Director

Office of Codes and Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosures

cc:

Freedom of Information Reading Room

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403

U.S. Department of Energy

Printe t nk on re d paer

t.Jm Pnnted with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

-Phil J. Manthei 

Speed Queen Company 

Shephard Street 

P.O. Box 990 

Ripon, WI 57971-0990 

Mr. Manthei: 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

June 12, 1995 

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to_ your company in 

Ripon, Wisconsin on June 20, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted, data, 

which are enclosed -for your review. The Department looks forward to 

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes -to obtain 

additional data during the visit. 

For further-information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at 

(202) 586-8423. 

- Enclosures 

cc: 

Sincerely, 

~~v~-- ~~~e~.· McCabe, Director c7~ Office of Codes and Standards 

Office of Building Technologies 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 

U.S. Department of Energy 

/-

@ Printed with soy ink 'on recycled paper 
AI^^^ ) lDepartment of Energy

[ hA lWashington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995

Douglass C. Horstman

Vice President-Government Affairs

Maytag

1310 G Street, N.W., Suite 720

Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Horstman:

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in

Newton, Iowa on June 22, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data,

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain

additional data during the visit.

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at

(202) 586-8423.

Sincerely,

/1d Michae J. McCabe, Director

Office of Codes and Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosures

cc:

Freedom of Information Reading Room

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403

U.S. Department of Energy

> P 'Pnnted with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Douglass c. Ho~stman 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

June 12, 1995 

Vice President-Government Affairs 

May tag 

1310 GStreet, N.W., Suite 720 

Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. Horstman: 

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in 

Newton, Iowa on June"22, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data, 

which are ~nclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to 

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain 

additional data during the visit. 

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at 

(202) 586-8423. 

Enclosures 

cc: 

Sincerely, 

fln-v~ -h~~~e~: M~cabe, Director 

C;v Office of Codes and Standards 

Office of Building Technologies 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 

U.S. Department of Energy· 

. "' 

* Printed with soy ink ~n recycled paper 
Ad, ^· aDepartment of Energy

2(~~~~II~ hA )Washington, DC 20585

June 12, 1995

Terry V. Thiele

Associate General Counsel

White Consolidated Industries, Inc.

11770 Berea Road

Cleveland, OH 44111

Mr. Thiele:

This letter confirms the Department of Energy's site visit to your company in

Webster City, Iowa on June 28, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.

The Department has completed the initial analyses of the AHAM submitted data,

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain

additional data during the visit.

For further information please contact Mr. P. Marc LaFrance of my staff at

(202) 586-8423.

Sincerely,

'r Michael J. McCabe, Director

'-' Office of Codes and Standards

Office of Building Technologies

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosures

cc:

Freedom of Information Reading Room

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403

U.S. Department of Energy

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Terry V. Thiele 

Associate General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

Washington,' DC 20585 

June 12, 1995 

White Consolidated Industries, Inc. 

11770 Berea Road 

·Cleveland, OH 44111 

Mr. Thiele: 

Thi s 1 etter .confi nns the Department of Energy ISS i te vi sit to your company in 

Webster City, Iowa on June 28, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. 

The Department has completed the initial analyses,of the AHAM submitted data, 

which are enclosed for your review. The Department looks forward to 

discussing the elements of the enclosed analyses, and hopes to obtain 

additional data during the visit. . 

For further information please contact Mr. P., 'Marc LaFrance of my staff at 

(202) 586-8423. 

Enclosures 

cc: 

~y.~ ,l.r Michael J. McCabe, Director ~- Office of Codes and, Standards 

Office of Building Technologies 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

Docket Number EE-RM-94-403 

U.S. Department of Energy 

...... 

* Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
Initial Analyses of AHAM Submitted Standard Clothes Washer Data

Data was provided by AHAM based on two test procedures: the existing DOE test procedure and

the proposed AHAM (version 6) test procedure. Neither of these test procedures account for the

additional energy required to dry the clothes after a spin cycle. LBL analyzed data both with and

without dryer energy included. The data was analyzed and presented four ways:

* Existing DOE Test Procedure, with EF, 416 cycles/yr

* Existing DOE Test Procedure, with MEF from DOE proposed test procedure, 416

cycles/yr

* AHAM proposed test procedure version 6, with EF, 392 cycles/yr

* AHAM proposed test procedure, with modified DOE MEF, 392 cycles/yr

Several calculated values in the analyses require further explanation:

1) Energy Factor -- EF

The calculation of EF is defined the same for DOE and AHAM test procedures:

EF = Clothes Container Volume + ( Hot Water Energy + Mechanical Energy)

2) Modified Energy Factor -- MEF

MEF (from the Proposed DOE Test Procedure) differs from EF in that the energy needed

to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. This "dryer energy" was

calculated differently for the DOE and AHAM based test procedures. Both EF and MEF

are given in units of cubic feet per kWh per cycle.

MEF = Clothes Container Volume - (Hot Water Energy + Mechanical Energy + Dryer

Energy)

3) Moisture Removal (Dryer) Energy -- H,

AHAM submitted shipment weighted average data showing the baseline washer had a Remaining

Moisture Content (RMC) of 62%. This means that the weight of a wet test load weighed 62%

more than a bone dry test load, (1.62 x dry test load).

Proposed DOE Test Procedure

H,= (W2 - WI ) xDf.

Where: W2 = moisture in clothes after spin cycle, lbs/cycle, (varies with RMC)

W, = bone dry test load = (7 lbs x 0.72) + (3 lbs x 0.28) = 5.88 lbs/cycle

Def = 0.5 kWh/lb of moisture (energy required to remove moisture)

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Initial Analyses of AHAM Submitted Standard Clothes Washer Data 

Data was provided by AHAM based on two test procedures: the existing DOE test procedure and 

the proposed AHAM (version 6) test procedure. Neither ofthese test procedures account for the 

additional energy required to dry the clothes after a spin cycle. LBL analyzed data both with and 

without dryer energy included. The data was analyzed and presented four ways: , 

• Existing DOE Test Procedure, with EF, 416 cycles/yr 

• Existing DOE Test Procedure, with MEF from DOE proposed test procedure, 416 

cycles/yr 

• AHAM proposed test procedure version 6, with EF, 392 cycles/yr 

• AHAM proposed test procedure, with modified·DOE MEF, 392 cydes/yr 

Several calculated values in the analyses require further explanation: 

1) Energy Factor -- EF 

The calculation of EF is defined the same for DOE and AHAM test procedures: 

EF = Clothes Container Volume + ( Hot Water Energy + Mechanical Energy) 

2) Modified Energy Factor -- MEF 

MEF (from the Proposed DOE Test Procedure) differs from EF in that the en~rgy needed 

to dry clothes, after a spin cycle, is added to the total energy use. This "dryer energy" was 

calculated differently for the DOE and AHAM based test procedures. Both EF and MEF 

are given in units of cubic feet per kWh per cycle. 

MEF = Clothes Container Volume + (Hot Water Energy + Mechanical Energy + Dryer 

Energy) 

3) Moisture Removal (Dryer) Energy -- Hv . 

AHAM &ubmitted shipment weighted average data showing the baseline washer had a Remaining 

Moisture Content (RMC) of 62%. This means that the weight of a wet test load weighed 62% 

more than a bone dry test load, (1.62 x dry test load). 

Proposed DOE Test Procedure 

Where,; 

.- ; 

,. 

W2 

WI 

De/ 

= moisture in clothes after spin cycle,lbslcycle, (varies wi'th RMC) 

= bone dry.test load = (7 lbs x 0.72) + (3 lbs x 0.28) = 5.88 lbs/cycle 

= 0.5 kWhIlb of moisture (energy required to remove moisture) 

1 
For Example: W2 62%RMC = 1.62 x 5.88 Ibs/cycle = 9.53 Ibs/cycle baseline moist load

W250oMC = 1.50 x 5.88 Ibs/cycle = 8.82 Ibs/cycle

AHAM Proposed Rule Modified to Include Moisture Removal (Dryer) Energy

The dryer energy was similarly defined for the AHAM w/ RMC case. The baseline RMC is still

62%, but the final dry test load has a residual RMC of 4% instead of bone dry. In addition several

other factors have been added:

1) Dryer Utilization Factor (DUF): the ratio of dryer cycles to clothes washer cycles per year.

2) Maximum Clothes Load: the maximum clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9

to 3.0 cubic foot washer the maximum load is 12.1 Ibs (AHAM Proposed Test Procedure). In the

proposed test procedure the load size varies with drum capacity but for this analysis the load size

was kept constant.

3) Average Load Fraction: the P&G average load to maximum load fraction and is 0.52.

The modified DOE moisture removal energy is:,

Hv= (W - W,)x De DDUF x 

Where: W2 = (RMC + 1) x Load, Ibs/cycle

W, = (RMCrsdA + 1) x Load, lbs/cycle, (at RMC,sidI = 4%)

Def = 0.5 kWh/lb of moisture (energy required to remove moisture)

DUF = 0.80

Load = Maximum Clothes Load x Average Load Fraction

= 12.1 lbs/cycle x 0.52

= 6.29 Ibs

For Example: W2 62 %RMC = (0.62 + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle = 10.19 Ibs/cycle

W,4%RMc = (0.04 + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle = 6.54 Ibs/cycle

2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

For Example: W2•

62%RMC = 1.62 x 5.881bs!cycle = 9.53 Ibs!cycle baseline moist load 

W2•

50%RMC = 1.50 x 5.881bs!cycle =,8.82 Ibs!cycle ' 

AHAM Proposed Rule Modified to Include Moisture Remoyal (Dryer) Energy 

The dryer energy was similarly defined for the AHAM wI RMC case. The baseline RMC is still 

62%; but the final dry test load has a residual RMC of4% instead of bone dry. In add~tion several 

other factors have been added: 

1) Dryer Utilization Factor (DUF): the ratio of dryer cycles to clothes washer cycles per year. 

'2) Maximum Clothes Load: the maximum clothes load for a given size clothes washer. For a 2.9 

to 3.0 cubic foot washer the maximum load is 12.11bs (AHAM Proposed Test Procedure). In the 

proposed test procedure the load size varies wilh drum capacity but for this analysis the load size 

was kept constant. 

3) Average Load Fraction: the P&G average load to maximum load fraction and is 0.52. 

The modified DOE moisture removal energy is: , 

Where: 

For Example: W2•

62%RMC 

W],4%RMC 

...... 

= (RMC + 1) x Load, lbs/cycle 

= (RMCresidual + 1) x Load, lbs/cycle, (at RMCresidual = 4%) 

= 0.5 kWhIlb of moisture (energy required to remove moisture) 

= 0.80 

= Maximum Clothes Load x Average Load Fraction 

= 12.1Ibs/cycle x 0.52 

= 6.291bs 

= (0.62 + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle = 10.19 lbs/cycle 

= (0.04 + 1) x 6.29 lbs/cycle = 6.54 lbs/cycle 

2 
Standard Clothes Washer

Existing DOE Test Procedure (1)

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

416 cycles/year Markup 2.0

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use - Existing Test Procedure Electric Gas Combined

Level (4)15)(6) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas

mfg. costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback

$ (8) $ $ kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. cu.ftAWh/cycli Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3)

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 38.9 13.3

I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $199 $397 2.04 0.22 2.26 2.93 1.30 36.0 12.3 1.5 2.6 2.0

2 1+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $207 $414 1.86 0.22 2.08 2.93 1.41 36.0 12.3 2.1 4.0 2.8

3 2+Improved Fill Control $17 $224 $447 1.83 0.22 2.05 2.93 1.43 33.5 11.4 3.4 5.8 4.4

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 38.9 13.4

4 Horizontal Axis Design $101 $293 $586 0.71 0.22 0.94 2.77 2.96 26.1 9.4 3.2 6.2 4.4

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.52 0.26 0.78 2.74 3.52 21.8 8.0 2.9 5.4 3.9

6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $304 $608 0.47 0.26 0.73 2.74 3.74 21.8 8.0 3.0 5.7 4.1

0+Reduce Thermal Mass $48 $239 $479 2:17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8

0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 2.17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5

0+lncrease Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 2.22 0.20 2.42 2.93 1.21 3,8.9 13.4 30.3 30.3 30.3

0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 2.06 0.23 2.28 2.91 1.28 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7

0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 2.22 0.09 2.32 2.94 1.27 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7

(1) Data used was submitted by AHAM

(2) Markup= 2.0

(3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838

Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine

(5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings

(6) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options

(7) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity

(8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations

(9) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash I A 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Standard Clothes Washer 

Existing DOE Test Procedure (1) 

Dryer Energy Unaccounied For 

416 cycles/year Markup 2.0 

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use - Existing Test Procedure 

Ltvel (4')~5)(6) I " 

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) 

I 0+ Tighter tub tolerance 

2 1+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

3 2+lmproved Fill Control 

O· Baseline (Vert. Axis) 

4 Horizontal Axis Design 

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 

6 5+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve ( 

O+Reduce Thermal Mass 

O+Added Insulation 

O+lncrease Motor Efficiency 

O+Suds Saving . 

O+Direct Drive Motor 

(I) Data used was submined by AHAM 

(2) Markup = 2.0 

(3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 

Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 

per unit . Mfg. 

mfg. costs Cost 

$ (8) $ 

$192 

$7 $199 

$8 $207 

$17 $224 

$192 

$101 $293 

$3 $296 

$8 $304 

$48 $239 

$49 $240 

$}O $201 

$28 $219 

$71 $262 

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45;· Gas = 0.55 

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine 

Cost Hot 

(2) Water 

$ kWh/cycle 

$383 . 2.22 

$397 2.04 

$414 1.86 

$447 1.83 

$383 2.22 

$586 0.71 

$592 0.52 

$608 0.47 

$479 n7 

$481 2.17 

$402 2.22 

$438 2.06 

$525 2.22 

(5) When options are combined. adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings 

Machine Total 

Energy Energy 

kWh/cycle kWh/cycle 

0.22 2.44 

0.22 2.26 

0.22 2.08 

0.22 2.05 

0.22 2.44 

0.22 0.94 

0.26 0.78 

0.26 0.73 

0.22 2.41 

0.22 2.41 

0.20 2.42 

0.23 2.28 

0.09 2.32 

(6) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options 

(7) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity 

(8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars. actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations 

(9) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

Oothes 

Container 

cu. ft. 

2.93 

2.93 

2.93 

2.93 

2.93 

2.77 

2.74 

2.74 

2.94 

2.94 

2.93 

2.91 

2.94 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash 11 A 

Electric Gas Combined 

Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas 

Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback 

cu.ft.JkWhlcycle Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 

1.20 38.9 ·13.3 

1.30 36.0 12.3 1.5 2.6 2.0 

1.41 36.0 12 .. 3 2.1 4.0 2.8 

1.43· 33.5 11.4 3.4 5.8 4.4 

1.20 38.9 13.4 

2.96 26.1 9.4 3.2 6.2 4.4 

3.52 21.8 8.0 2.9 S.4 3.9 

3.74 21.8 8.0 3.0 5.7 4.1 

i.22 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8 

1.22 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5 

1.21 3\8.9 13..4 30.3 30.3 30.3 

1.28 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7 

1.27 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7 

6/9/95 
Existing DOE Test Procedure

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Total Total Life Cycle Cost -- EF (1)

Level Electric Gas Energy Use Electric Gas Electric Gas

: $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate

2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15%

0 Baseline(Vert. Axis) (4) $70 $26 $7 $46 $123 $79 $1,877 $1,528 $1,087 $1,340 $1,116 $834

I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $113 $73 $1,779 $1,456 $1,048 $1,286 $1,079 $816

2 I+Themiostatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $108 $71 $1,728 $1,421 $1,033 $1,278 $1,076 $821

3 2+Improved Fill Control $57 $21 $7 $40 $104 $68 $1,713 $1,417 $1,043 $1,270 $1,078 $835

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $123 $79 $1,877 $1,528 $1,087 $1,340 $1,116 $834

4 Horizontal Axis Design $22 $8 $7 $31 $60 $46 $1,318 $1,147 $931 $1,146 $1,015 $849

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $50 $40 $1,202 $1,060 $879 $1,077 $964 $821

6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 $8 $26 $49 $39 $1,202 $1,063 $888 $1,087 $976 $834

O+ReduceThermal Mass ' $68 $25 $7 $46 $121 $78 $1,953 $1,609 $1,173 $1,428 $1,207 $926

0+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 $46 $121 $78 $1,955 $1,611 $1,175 $1,430 $1,208 $928

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $122 $78, $1,888 $1,541 $1,102 $1,351 $1,129 $849

0+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $114 $73 $1,822 $1,499 $1,090 $1,325 $1,118 $856

0+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 $3 $46 $118 $74 $1.967 $1,631 $1,204 $1,430 $1,219 $951

(1) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl IA 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Existing DOE Test Procedure 

Dry€i' Eii€i'gy Unaccounied For 

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy 

Level .... " Electric Gas 

) : $/yr $Iyr 

0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) (4) $70 $26 

I 0+ Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 

2 1+ ThemlOstatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 

3 2+Improved Fill Control $57 $21 

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 

4 Horizontal Axis Design $22 $S 

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 

6 5+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 ( 

O+Reduce Thermal Mass $6S, $25 

O+Added Insulation $68 $25 

O+lncrease Motor Efficiency $70 $26 

O+Suds Saving $64 $24 

O+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 

(I) Clothes Washer Life = 14,1 years 

Machine Water 

Energy Use 

$Iyr $Iyr 

$7 $46 

$7 $43 

$7 $43 

$7 . $40 

$7 $46 

$7 $31 

$8 $26 

$8 $26 

$7 $46 

$7 $46 

$6 $46 

$7 $42' 

$3 $46 

Total ·Total Life Cycle Cost -- EF (1) 

Electric Gas Electric Gas 

$Iyr $Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Rate 

2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 

$123 $79 $1.877 $1,528 $1.087 $1.340 $1.116 $834 

$113 $73 $1.779 $1,456 $1.048 $1.286 $1.079 $816 

$108 $71 $1.728 $1,421 $1.033 $1.278 $1.076 $S21 

$104 $68 $1.713 $1,417 . $1.043 $1.270 $1.078 $835 

$123 $79 $1.877 $1,528 $1.087 $1.340 $1.116 $834 

$60 $46 $1.3IS $1,147 $931 $1.146 $1.015 $849 

$50 $40 $1.202 $1,060 $879 $1.077 $964 $821 

$49 $39 $1.202 $1,063 $888 $1.087 $976 $834 

$121 $78 $1.953 $1.609 $1.173 $1,428 $1.207 $926 

$121 $78 $1.955 $1.611 $1.175 $1,430 $1.208 $928 

$122 $78, $1.888 $1.541 $1.102 $1.351 i $1.129 $849 

$114 $73 $1.822 $1.499 $1.090 $1.325 $1.118 $856 

$1l8 $74 $1.967 $1.631 $1.204 $1.430 $1.219 $951 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\washllA 6/9/95 
Standard Clothes Washer -- DOE Test Procedure--EF

$1,900

$1,800

$1,700

$1,600

5 $1,500 0

.0%

2 3 -0-2%

--0-6%

* $1,300 6-- 15%

3 $1,200

$1,100 $1,100- - 4 .

$1,000 -

$900

$800

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11

a

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

$1,900 

$1,800 

$1,700 

$1,600 . 

,-. 

~ $1,500 ...,. 

Q\ 

Q\ 

.-4 

'-' 

... $1,400 til 

Q 

U 

Q,I 

Cl $1,300 ~ 

U' 

• 

~ 

;::s $1,200 

$1,100 

$1,000 

$900 

$800 

1.0 

·' . .. 

0 

1.5 

Standard Clothes Washer -- DOE Test Procedure--EF 

2.0 2.5 

Energy Factor 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash II 

a 

3.0 

5 6 

3.5 4.0 

~2% 

-0--6% 

-A-15% 
Clothes Washer -- Standard

Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC Added (1)

416 cycles/yr Markun 2

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Existing Test Procedure Hv Total MEF Water Use Electric Gas Combine<

Level (4)(5)(6)(8) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft. per Per Cycle (13) Payback Payback Elect.&Gz,

mfg. costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container cu. ft. per RMC with ME kWh/cycle Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumin. Payback

_$ (12) $ (12) $ (12) kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons cu. ft. cap. years (3) years (3) years (3)

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 13.3

1 0+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $199 $397 2.04 . 0.22 2.26 2.93 1.30 1.82 4.08 0.72 36.0 12.3 1.5 2.6 2.0

2 I+RMC=50% $10 $208 $416 2.04 0.23 2.26 2.93 1.29 1.47 3.73 0.78 36.0 12.3 1.7 2.0 1.8

3 I+RMC = 40% $9 $217 $433 2.04 0.24 2.27 2.93 1.29 1.18 3.45 0.85 36.0 12.3 1.7 2.0 1.9

4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $225 $450 1.86 0.24 2.10 . 2.93 1.40 1.18 3.27 0.89 36.0 12.3 1.9 2.4 2.2

5 4+RMC=35%. $22 $247 $494 1.86 0.25 2.11 2.93 1.39 1.03 3.14 0.93 36.0 12.3 2.8 3.5 3.2

6 4+RMC=30% $4 $251 $502 1.86 0.28 2.14 2.93 1.37 0.88 3.02 0.97 36.0 12.3 2.8 3.4 3.1

7 6+lmproved Fill Control $17 $268 $536 1.83 0.28 2.11 2.93 1.39 0.88 2.99 0.98 33.5 11.4 3.3 3.9 3.6

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $192 $383 2.22 0.22 2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 13.3

8 Horizontal Axis Design $101 $293 $586 0.71 0.22 0.94 2.77 2.96 1.82 2.76 1.00 26.1 9.4 3.2 6.2 4.4

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.52 0.26 0.78 2.74 3.52 1.82 2.60 1.05 21.8 8.0 2.9 5.4 3.9

10 9+RMC = 50% $10 $306 $611 0.52 0.27 0.78 2.74 3.50 1.47 2.25 1.21 21.8 8.0 2.7 4.6 3.5

11 9+RMC=40% $9 $314 $628 0.52 0.27 - 0.79 2.74 3.46 1.18 1.97 1.39 21.8 8.0 2.7 4.2 3.3

12 1 i+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $322 $645 0.47 0.27 0.75 2.74 3.67 1.18 1.92! 1.42 21.8 8.0 2.8 4.4 3.5

13 12+RMC = 35% $22 $344 $689 0.47 0.29 0.76. 2.74 -3.59 1.03 1.79 1.53 2i.8 8.0 3.1 4.8 3.9

14 12+RMC = 30% ' $4 $349 $697 0.47 0.32 0.79 2.74 3.46 0.88 1.67 1.63 21.8 8.0 3.1 4.7 3.8

0+Reduce Thermal Mass $48 $239 $479 2.17 0.22 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 13.6 59.8 162.9 91.8

0+Added Insulation $49. $240 $481 2.17 0,22 2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 13.6 61.0 165.9 93.5

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 2.22 0.20 2.42 2.93 1.21 1.82 4.25 0.69 38.9 13.4 30.3 30.3 30.3

0+Suds Saving (9) $28 $219 $438 2.06 0.23 2.28 2.91 1.28 1.82 4.10 0.71 35.6 12.3 6.1 9.7 7.7

0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 2.22 0.09 2.32 2.94 1.27 . 1.82 4.13 0.71 38.9 13.6 33.7 33.7 33.7

(1) Data used was submitted by AHAM (5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings

(2) Markup = 2.0 (6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines

(3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 (7) Based on a baseline RMC of 62% and DOE proposed test procedure

Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 (8) Some design options were not combined with others due to high payback

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 (9) Sud Savings omitted because of limited application; also requires a separate wash tub

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 (10) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 (II) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine (13) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl IB 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Clothes Washer -- Standard 

Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC Added (1) 

416 cycles/yr Markup 2 

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Existing Test Procedure Hv Total MEF Water Use Electric 

Level (4)(5)(6)(8) 

. '. 

0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) 

I 0+ Tighter tub tolerance 

2 I+RMC = 50% 

3 I+RMC=40% 

4 3+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

5 4+RMC=35% 

6 4+RMC=30% 

7 6+lmproved Fill Control 

0 Baseline (Ven. Axis) 

8 Horizontal Axi~ Design 

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 

10 9+RMC = 50% 

11 9+RMC=40% 

12 II + Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

13 12+RMC=35% 

14 12+RMC = 30% . 

O+Reduce Thermal Mass 

O+Added Insulation 

O+Increase Motor Efficiency 

O+Suds Saving (9) 

O+Direct Drive Motor 

(I) Data used was submitted by AHAM 

(2) Markup = 2.0 

(3) Elect. (94$1kWh) = 0.0838 

Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 

per unit Mfg. 

mfg. costs Cost 

$ (12) $ (12) 

$192 

$7 $199 

$10 $208 

$9 $217 

. $8 $225 

$22 $247 

$4 $251 

$17 $268 

$192 

$101 $293 

$3 $296 

$10 $306 " 

$9 $314 

$8 $322 

$22 $344' 

$4 $349 

$48 $239 

$49 $240 

$\0 $201 

$28 $219 

$71 $262 

Water !feater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 

Fuel Pric~ Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.0 I 

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine 

Cost Hot 

(2) Water 

$ (12) kWh/cycle 

$383 2.22 

$397 2.04 

$416 2.04 

$433 2.04 

$450 1.86 

$494 1.86 

$502 1.86 

$536 1.83 

$383 2.22 

$586 0.71 

$592 0.52 

$611 0.52 

$628 0.52 

$645 0.47 

$689 0.47 

$697 0.47 

$479 2.17 

$481 2.17 

$402 2.22 

$438 2.06 

$525 2.22 

Machine 

Energy 

kWh/cycle 

0.22 

0.22 

0.23 

0.24 

0.24 

0.25 

0.28 

0.28 

0.22 

0.22 

0.26 

0.27 

0.27 

0.27 

0.29 

0.32 

0.22 

0,22 

0.20 

0.23 

0.09 

Total Dothes' Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft. per Per Cycle (13) 

Energy Container cu. ft. per RMC ~ithMEI kWh/cycle Total 

kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons 

2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 

2.26 2.93 1.30 1.82 4.,,08 0.72 36.0 

2.26 2.93 1.29 1.47 3.73 0.78 36.0 

2.27 2.93 1.29 1.18 3.45 0.85 36.0 

2.10 2.93 1.40 1.18 3.27 0.89 36.0 

2.ll 2.93 1.39 1.03 3.14 0.93 36.0 

2.14 2.93 1.37 0.88 3.02 0.97 36.0 

2.11 2.93 1.39 0.88 2.99 0.98 33.5 

2.44 2.93 1.20 1.82 4.27 0.69 38.9 

0.94 2.77 2.96 1.82 2.76 1.00 26.1 

0.78 2.74 3.52 Ui2 2.60 1.05 21.8 

0.78 2.74 3.50 1.47 2.25 1.21 21.8 

0.79 2.74 3.46 1.18 1.97 1.39 21.8 

0.75 2.74 3.67 1.18 l.92i 1.42 21.8 

0.76. 2.74 .3.59 1.03 1.79 1.53 2i.8 

. 

0.79 2.74 3.46 0.88 1.67 1.63 21.8 

2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 

2.41 2.94 1.22 1.82 4.21 0.70 38.9 

2.42 2.93 . 1.21 1.82 4.25 0.69 38.9 

2.28 2.91 1.28 1.82 4.10 0.71 35.6 

2.32 2.94 1.27 1.82 4.13 0.71 38.9 

(5) When options are combined. adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings 

(6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines 

(7) Based on a baseline RMC of 62% and DOE proposed test procedure 

(8) Some design options were not combined with others due to high payback 

(9) Sud Savings omitted because of limited application; also requires a separate wash tub 

Gallons per 

cu. ft. cap. 

13.3 

12.3 

12.3 

12.3 

12.3 

12.3 

12.3 

11.4 

13.3 

9.4 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 ' 

8.0 

8.0 

13.6 

13.6 

13.4 

12.3 

13.6 

Payback 

Cumm . 

years (3) 

1.5 

1.7 

1.7 

1.9 

2.8 

2.8 

3.3 

3.2 

2.9 

2.7 

2.7 

2.8 

3.1 

3.1 

59.8 

61.0 

30.3 

6.1 

33.7 

(10) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options 

(II) No adjustments were made for the diffe~nces in venical and horizontal drum capacily 

(12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations 

(13) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11 B 

Gas Combine, 

Payback Elect.&G~1 

Cumm. Paybac~ 

years (3) years (3) 

2.6 2.0 

2.0 1.8 

2.0 1.9 

2.4. 2.2 

3.5 3.2 

3.4 3.1 

3.9 3.6 

6.2 4.4 

5.4 3.9 

4.6 3.5 

4.2 3.3 

4.4 3.5 

4.8 3.9 

4.7 3.8 

162.9 91.8 

165.9 93.5 

30.3 30.3 

9.7 7.7· 

33.7 33.7 

6/9/95 
Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC Added

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Elect. Total Total Life Cycle Cost --RMC I MEF

Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas

$/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr yr yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate

_ ___________ .______4 _ ____2% '_ . . 6% 15% 2% 6% 15%

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162

I O+Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $57 $171 $130 $2,475 $1,990 $1,376 $1,983 $1,613 $1,144

2 I+RMC=50% $64 $23 $7 $43 $46 $160 $119 $2,362 $1,908 $1,333 $1,870 $1,530 $1,101

3 I+RMC=40% $64 $23 $7 $43 $37 $151 $110 $2,270 $1,841 $1,298 $1,777 $1,464 $1,066

4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $37 $145 $108 $2,219 $1,806 $1,283 $1,769 $1,461 $1,071

5 4+RMC=35% $58 $21 $8 $43 $32 $141 $104 $2,211 $1,810 $1,302 $1,761 $1,465 $1,091

6 4+RMC= 30% $58 $21 $9 $43 $28 $137 $100 $2,174 $1,784 $1,290 $1,725 $1,439 $1,078

7 6+Improved Fill Control $57 $21 $9 $40 $28 $133 $97 $2,159 $1,780 $1,301 $1,717 $1,441 $1,092

$0 $0 $ $0 $ 0 0 $ 0

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162

8 , HorizontalAxisDesign $22 $8 $7 $31 $57 $117 $103 $2,015 $1,681 $1,259 $1,842 $1,549 $1,178

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $57 $107 $97 $1,899 $1,594 $1,208 $1,774 $1,498 $1,149

10 9+RMC= 50% $16 $6 $8 $26 $46 $96 $86 $1,785 $1,511 $1,164 $1,661 $1,416 $1,106

II 9+RMC = 40% $16 $6 $9 $26 $37 $87 $77 $1,693 $1,445 $1,130 $1,568 $1,349 $1,071

12 1 +Thermostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 $9 $26 $37 $86 $77 $1,693 $1,448 $1,138 $1,579 $1,361 $1,084

13 12+RMC= 35% $15 .$5 $9 $26 $32 $82 $73 $1,687 $1,454 $1,159 $1,573 $1,366 $1,105

14 12+RMC = 30% $15 $5 $10 $26 $28 $78 $69 $1,651 $1,428 $1,146 $1,536 $1,341 $1,093

O+Reduce Thermal Mass $68 $25 $7 $46 $57 $178 $135 $2,650 $2,143 $1,501 $2,125 $1,741 $1,254

O+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 .$46 $57 $178 $135 $2,651 $2,145 $1,503 $2,127 $1,742 $1,256

0+lncrease Motor Efficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $57 $179 $135 $2,585 $2,075 $1,430 $2,048 $1,663 $1,177

O+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $57 $171 $130 $2,519 $2,033 $1,418 $2,022 $1,652 $1,184

O+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 $3 $46 $57 $176 $132 $2,664 $2,165 $1,532 $2,127 $1,753 $1,279

(1) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 B 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC Added 

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Elect. Totil Total Life Cycle Cost --RMC I MEF 

Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric GlI!l Electric Gas 

.' . $Iyr $Iye $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Rate ... - 2% . 6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 

I 0+ Tighter tub tolerance $64 $23 $7 $43 $57 $171 $130 $2,475 $1,990 $1,376 $1.983 $1,613 $1,144 

2 I+RMC=50% $64 $23 $7 $43 $46 $160 $119 $2,362 $1,908 $1,333 $1.870 $1,530 $1,101 

3 I+RMC=40% $64 $23 $7 $43 $37 $151 $110 $2,270 $1,841 $1,298 $1,177 $1,464 $1,066 

4 3+Thennostatic Mixing Valve $58 $21 $7 $43 $37 $145 $\08 $2,219 $1,806 $1,283 $1,769 $1,461 $1.071 

5 4+RMC= 35% $58 $21 $8 $43 $32 $141 $\04 $2,211 $1,810 $1,302 $1,761 $1,465 $1,091 

·6 4+RMC=30% $58 $21 $9- $43 $28 $137 $100 $2,174 $1,784 $1,290 $1,725 $1,439 $1,078 

7 6+lmproved Fill Control $57 $21 $9 $40 $28 $133 $97 $2,159 $1,780 $1,301 $1,717 $1,441 $1,092 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) $70 $26 $7 $46 $57 $180 $136 $2,573 $2,062 $1,415 $2,036 $1,650 $1,162 

8 , Horizontal Axis Design $22 $8 $7 $31 $57 $117 $\03 $2,015 $1,681 $1,259 $1,842 $1,549 $1,178 

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $16 $6 $8 $26 $57 $107 $97 $1,899 $1,594 $1,208 $1,774 $1,498 $1,149 

10 9+RMC = 50% $16 $6 $8 $26 • $46 $96 $86 $1,785 $1,511 $1,164 $·1,661 $1,416 $1.106 

11 9+RMC = 40% $16 $6 $9 $26 $37 $87 $71 $1,693 $1,445 $1,130 $1,568 $1,349 $1.071 

12 II + Thennostatic Mixing Valve $15 $5 $9 $26 $37 $86 $77 $1,693 $1,448 $1,138 $1,579 $1,361 $1,084 

13 12+RMC=35% $15 .$5 $9 $26 $32 $82 $73 $1,687 $1,454 $1,159 $1.573 $1,366 $1,105 

14 12+RMC=30% $15 $5 $\0 '$26 $28 $78 $69 $1,651 $1,428 $1,146 $1,536 $1,341 $1,093 

O+Reduce Thennal Mass $68 $25 $7 $46 $57 $178 $135 $2,650 $2,143 $1,501 $2,125 $1,741 $1,254 

O+Added Insulation $68 $25 $7 .$46 $57 $178 $135 $2,651 $2,145 $1,503 $2,127 $1,742 $1,256 

O+Increase Motor Efficiency $70 $26 $6 $46 $57 $179 $135 $2,585 $2,015 $1,430 $2,048 $1,663 $1.177 

O+Suds Saving $64 $24 $7 $42 $57 $171 $130 $2,519 $2,033 $1,418 $2,022 $1,652 $1,184 

O+Direct Drive Motor $70 $26 $3 $46 $57 $176 $132 $2,664 $2,165 $1,532 $2,127 $1,753 $1.279 

(I) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash II B 6/9/95 
Standard Clothes Washer -- DOE Test Procedure -- MEF

$2,600 ,i

$2,400

$2,200

$2,000

$1,600 8 \

1

$1,400 - i 1 12 13 14

$1,200t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -- --22%

$1,200

$1,000

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Modified Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl b

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Standard Clothes Washer· -- DOE Test Procedure -- MEF ~ 

· ~.'\. 

$2,600 ;~~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------, 

$2,400 

$2,200 

,-. 

~ 0 $2,000 'o:t 

Q\ 

Q\ 

.-I 

'-' 

- -<>-2% ~ 

U $1,800 --0-6% ~ 

'ti ~15% ;... 

U I 

~ $1,600 ;::s 

$1,400 II 12 13 14 

$1,200 

$1,000 

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 

Modified Energy Factor 

c:\clean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash I b 
Standard Clothes Washer D ATTAA~ 'u'^.sbA -.---- I Proposedjacu rL 1 CeL r it l'O ed-ue 1)

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

392 cycles/year Markup 2.0

Design Desi'n Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Proposed Test Procedure Electric Gas Combined

Level (4)(5)(6) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot - Machine Total Clothes Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas

mfg. costs Cost (2) . Water Energy Energy Container Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback

$ $ $ kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. cu.ftAWhWcycic Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3)

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 38.9 13.4

I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $199 $397 1.38 0.22 1.60 2.93 1.83 36.0 12.3 2.5 3.4 2.9

2 1+Improved Fill Control $17 $215 $431 1.24 0.22 1.46 2.93 2.00 33.5 11.4 3.7 5.6 4.6

3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $224 $447 1.21 0.22 1.43 2.93 2.05 33.5 13.4 4.6 7.2 5.8

0 Baseline $192 $383 1.47 0:22 1.69 2:93 1.73 38.9 13.4

4 Horizontal Axis Design $101 $293 $586 0.43 0.25 0.65 2.77 4.23 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.35 0.26 0.61 2.74 4.50 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3

6 5+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $304 $608 0.34 0.26 0.60 2.74 4.58 21.8 13.4 4.4 7.5 5.7

0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 1.60 0.22 1.84 2.94 1.60 38.9 13.6 NA NA NA

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10 $201 $402 1.47 0.20 1.67 2.93 1.75 38.9 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2

0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 1.52 0.22 1.75 2.91 1.67 .35.6 12.3 27.8 18.5 21.8

0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 1.47 0.09 1.70 2.94 1.73 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8

(1) Data used was submitted by AHAM

(2) Markup =2.0

(3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838

Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine

(5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings

(6) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options

(7) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity

(8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations

(9) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 1A 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Standard Clothes Washer 

D_", __ 6'O""..1 .4 IT........ ,.., ......... 4. T'I __ - - ~ ____ - /11 '\ 

""' a UI'U"'~U 1"11.-1.1"111'.1, J. C~ .. C l'U\:CUUI-': \.J.) 

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For 

392 cycles/year Markup 2.0 

Design . oesi~ Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Proposed Test Procedure 

I 

1.e",,1 (4)(5)(6) 

.' 

0 Bao;eline (Ven. Axis) (4) 

I 0+ Tighter tub tolerance 

2 I +Improved Fill Control 

3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

0 Baseline 

4 Horizontal Axis Ocsign 

5 HolZ. Axis w/recirculation r 6 5+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

O+Added Insulation 

O+Increase Motor Efficiency 

O+Suds Saving 

O+Direct Drive Motor 

( I) Data used was submitted by AHAM 

(2) Markup =2.0 

(3) Elect. (94$IkWh) = 0.0838 

Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 

Water Cost ($11000 gal.) = 2.84 

per unit Mfg. 

mfg. costs Cost 

$ $ 

$192 

$7 $199 

$17 $215 

$8 $224 

$192 

$\01 $293 

$3 $296 

$8 $304 

$49 $240 

$10 $201 

$28 $219 

$71 $262 

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine 

Cost Hot 

(2) Water 

$ kWh/cycle 

$383 1.47 

$397 1.38 

$431 1.24 

$447 1.21 

$383 1.47 

$586 0.43 

$592 0.35 

$608 0.34 

$481 1.60 

$402 1.47 

$438 1.52 

$525 1.47 

(5) When options are combined. adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings 

Machine Total 

Energy Energy 

kWh/cycle kWh/cycle 

0.22 1.69 

0.22 1.60 

0.22 1.46 

0.22 1.43 

0:22 1.69 

0.25 0.65 

0.26 0.61 

0.26 0.60 

0.22 1.84 

0.20 1.67 

0.22 1.75 

0.09 1.70 

(6) Auto Fill Control and Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options 

(7) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity 

(8) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars. actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations 

(9) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

Qothes 

Container 

cu. ft. 

2.93 

2.93 

2.93 

2.93 

2,93 

2.77 

2.74 

2.74 

2.94 

2.93 

2.91 

2.94 

c:\clean3\cJthwash\spdsht\washIIA 

Electric Gas Combined 

Energy Water Use Per Cycle (9) Payback Payback Elect.&Gas 

Factor Total Gallons per Cumm. Cumm. Payback 

cu.ft.lkWhicycle Gallons cu. ft. capacity years (3) years (3) years (3) 

1.73 38.9 13.4 , 

1.83 36.0 12.3 2.5 3.4 2.9 

2.00 33.5 11.4 3.7 5.6 4.6 

2.05 33.5 13.4 4.6 7.2 5.8 

1.73 38.9 13.4 

4.23 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1 

4.50 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3 

4.58 21.8 13.4 4.4 7.5 5.7 

1.60 38.9 13.6 NA NA NA 

1.75 38.9 . 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2 

1.67 ~5.6 '12.3 27.8 18.5 . 21.8 

1.73 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8 

6/9/95 
Proposed AHAM Test Procedure

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For

Design Design Option'" Hot Water Energy Machine Water Total Total Life Cycle Cost - EF (1)

Level ' Electric Gas Energy Use Electric Gas Electric Gas

$/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr $/yr Diccount Rate Discount Rate

2% 6% 15% 2% 6% 15%

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $43 $16 $7 $43 $93 $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760

I 0+Tighter tub tolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $87 $62 $1,463 $1,214 $899 $1,148 $973 .$751

2 I+lmproved Fill Control $37 $13 $7 $37 $80 $57 $1,411 $1,182 $893 $1,128 $965 $759

3 2+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $36 $13 $7 $37 $79 $57 $1,415 $1,189 $903 $1,140 $978 $773

_ . _________ $0 $0 $0 $0

0 Baseline $43 $16 $7 $43 $93 $66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760

4 Horizontal Axis Design $13 $5 $7 $29 $49 $41 $1,185 $1,045 $868 $1,086 $969 $821

5 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $42 $36 $1,106 $986 $834 $1,027 $926 $797

6 5+Thernostatic Mixing Valve $10 $4 $8 $24 $42 $36 $1,119 $1,000 $849 $1,042 $941. $813

0+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $97 $67 $1,663 $1,387 $1,038 $1,299 $1,108 $866

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $93 $65 $1,531 $1,267 $934 $1,196 $1,011 $776

0+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $91 $63 $1,550 $1,290 $962 $1,203 i $1,025 $798

0+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $89 $62 $1,613 $1,359 $1,037 $1,278 $1,102 $879

(1) Clothes Washer Life= 14.1 years

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash I IA 6/9/95

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 1A 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Proposed AHAM Test Procedure 

Dryer Energy Unaccounted For 

Design Design Optio~ " Hot Water Energy 

Level ) , Electric Gas 

'"' $Iyr $Iyr 

0 Baseline (Vert. Axis) (4) $43 $16 

1 OT Tighter tub tolerance $41 $15 

2 I Tlmproved Fill Control $37 $13 

3 2T Thennostatic Mixing Valve $36 $13 

$0 $0 

0 Baseline $43 $16 

4 Horizontal Axis Design $\3 $5 

5 HolZ. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 , 6 5T Therin~tatic Mixing Valve $10 $4 

OTAdded Insulation $47 $17 

OTlncrease Motor Efficiency $43 $16 

OTSuds Saving $45 $17 

OTDirect Drive Motor $43 $16 

(I) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years 

Machine water Total 

Energy Use Electric 

$Iyr $tyr $Iyr 

$7 $43 $93 

$7 $40 $87 

$7 $37 $80 

$7 $37 $79 

$0 $0 

$7 $43 $93 

$7 $29 $49 

$8 $24 $42 

$8 $24 $42 

$7 $43 $97 

$6 $43 $93 

$7 $40 $91 

$3 $43 $89 

Total Life Cycle Cost -- EF (1) 

Gas Electric Gas 

$Iyr Diccount Rate Discount Raie 

2% ·6% 15% 2% 6% 15% 

$66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 

$62 $1,463 $1,214 $899 $\,148 $973 . $751 

$57 $\,411 $1,182 $893 $\,128 $965 $759 

$57 $1,415 $1,189 $903 $1,140 $978· $773 

$66 $1,519 $1,254 $918 $1,184 $997 $760 

$41 $1,185 $1,045 $868 $\,086 $969 $821 

$36 $1,106 $986 $834 $1,027 $926 $797 

$36 $1,119 $1,000 $849 $\,042 $941 . $8\3 

$67 $1,663 $1.387 $1,038 $1,299 $1,108 $866 

$65 $1,531 $1,267 $934 $1,196 $1,011 $776 

$63 $1,550 $1,290 $962 $\,203 i $1,025 $798 

$62 $1,613 $1,359 $1,037 $\,278 $1,102 $879 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash II A 6/9/95 
Standard Clothes Washer -- Proposed AHAM Test Procedure -- EF

$1,600 /,

$1,500

$1,400

$1,300

$1,200 - % -- 2%

--0-6%

$1,loo -- 15%

$1,000 4

6

5

$900

$800

$700 I .

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 1 a

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Standard Clothes Washer -- Proposed AHAM Test Procedure _. EF 

~ '. " $1,600 I·~~~--------------------------------------------------------------------~-------' 

$1,500 

$1,400 

$1,300 ,-. 

fA-

~ ~ r 

'-' $1,200 .. til 

o 

U 

~ 

~ $1,100 

U 

~ 

:s 

$1,000 

o 

5 

$900 ~:------_____ ~ __ ~ 

$800 

~ 

$700 

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 

Energy Factor 

c:\c1ean3\c1thwash\spdsht\wash 11 a 

6 

5.0 

-<>-2% 

-0-6% 

~15% 
Clothes Washer -- Standard

Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added (1)

392 cycles/yr Markup 2.0

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Proposed Test Procedure Hv Total MEF Water Use Electric Gas Combine(

Level (4)(5)(6)(8)(11) per unit Mfg. Cost Hot Machine Total Clothes Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu. ft. per Per Cycle (13) Payback Payback Elect.& G:

mfg. costs Cost (2) Water Energy Energy Container cu. ft. per RMC with ME kWh/cyclc Total Gallons per Cuini. CumInI. Payhack

__ .. _, $$ (12) $ (12) $ (12) kWh/cycle kWh/cycle kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle (7) Gallons cii. ft. cap. years (3) years (3) years (3)

0 Baseline (vert. axis) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 0.93 38.9 13.3

I 0+RMC = 50% $10 $201 $402 1.47 0.23 1.70 2.93 1.73 1.16 2.85 1.03 38.9 13.3 2.2 2.2 2.2

2 0+RMC = 40% $9 $210 $419 1.47 0.23. 1.70 2.93 1.72 0.91 2.61 1.12 38.9 13.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

3 2+Tighter tub tolerance $7 $217 $433 1.38 0.23 1.62 2.93 1.81 0.91 2.52 1.16 36.0 12.3 2.3 2.5 2.4

4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $225 $450 1.34 0.23 1.58 2.93 1.86 0.91 2.48 1.18 36.0 12.3 2.9 3.2 3.1

5 4+lmproved Fill Control $17 $242 $483 1.21 0.23 1.44 2.93 2.03 0.91 2.35 1.25 33.5 11.4 3.4 4.0 3.7

.6 5+RMC = 35% $22 $264 $527 1.21 0.24 1.45 2.93 2.02 0.78 2.23 1.31 33.5 11.4 4.3 5.1 4.7

7 5+RMC = 30% $4 $268 $536 1.21 0.27 1.48 2.93 1.98 0.65 2.13 1.37 33.5 11.4 4.2 4.9 4.6

0 Baseline (vert. axis) $192 $383 1.47 0.22 1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 0.93 38.9 13.3

8 Horizontal Axis Design $101' $293 $586 0.43 0.25 0.68 2.77 - 4.06 1.46 2.14 1.29 26.1 9.4 4.6 8.2 6.1

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $3 $296 $592 0.35 0.26 0.61 2.74 4.50 1.46 2.07 1.32 21.8 8.0 4.1 7.0 5.3

10 9+RMC = 50% $10 $306 $611 0.35 0.27 0.61 2.74 4.46 1.16 1.77 1.54 21.8 8.0 3.8 5.9 4.7

II 9+RMC = 40% . $9 $314 $628 0.35 0.27 0.62 2.74 4.40 0.91 1.53 1.79 21.8 8.0 3.7 5.3 4.4

12 9+RMC = 35% $22 $336 $672 0.35 0.28 0.63 2.74 4.33 0.78 1.41i 1.94 21.8 8.0 4.1 5.8 4.9

13 9+RMC=30% $4 $341 $681 0.35 0.31 0.66 2.74 4.13 0.65 1.32 2.08 21.8 8.0 4.1 5.7 4.8

14 13+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $8 $349 $697 0.34 0.31 0.65 2.74 4.20 0.65 1.31 2.09 21.8- 8.0 4.3 6.0 5.1

0+Added Insulation $49 $240 $481 1.60 0.22 1.84 2.94 1.60 . 1.46 3.28 0.90 38.9 13.6 NA NA . NA

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $10 . $201 $402 1.47 0.20 1.67 2.93 1.75 1.46 3.13 0.94 38.9 13.4 30.6 31.6 31.2

0+Suds Saving $28 $219 $438 1.52 0.22 1.75 2.91 1.67 1.46 3.21 0.91 35.6 12.3 27.8 18.5 21.8

0+Direct Drive Motor $71 $262 $525 1.47 0.09 1.70 2.94 1.73 1.46 3.01 0.98 38.9 13.6 35.8 35.8 35.8

(1) Data used was submitted by AHAM (7) Based on:

(2) Markup = 2.0 (a) Modified DOE test procedure for RMC

(3) Elect. (94$/kWh) = 0.0838 (b) Baseline RMC of 62%

Gas (94$/MBTU) = 6.03 (c) Residual RMC of 4%

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 (d) 12.1 lb load x 0.52 avg. load ratio = 6.29 Ibs adjusted clothes load

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 (e) DUF = 0.8

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elect. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 (8) Some design options were not combined with others due to high payback

Fraction Water Heaters: Elect. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 (9) Sud Savings omitted because of limited application; also requires a separate wash tub

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine (10) Auto Fill Control arid Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options

(5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings (11) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity

(6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines (12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations

(13) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11 B 6/9/95

Clothes Washer -- Standard EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added (1) 

392 cycleslyr Markup 2.0 

Design Design Option Increm. Total Retail Energy Use -- Proposed Test Procedure Hv Total MEF W31erUse Electric 

Level (4)(5)(6)(8)(11) 

. '. 

0 Baseline (vert. axis) 

I O+RMC= 50% 

2 O+RMC = 40% 

3 . 2+ Tighter tub tolerance 

4 3+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

5 4+ImprovedFilI Control 

6 5+RMC=35% 

7 5+RMC = 30% 

0 Baseline (vert. axis) 

8 Horizontal Axis Design 

r 9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation 

10 9+RMC=50% 

II 9+RMC = 40% 

12 9+RMC= 35% 

13 9+RMC = 30% 

14 13+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

O+Added Insulation 

O+lncrease Motor Efficiency 

O+Suds Saving 

O+Direct Drive Motor 

(I) Data used was submitted by AHAM 

(2) Markup = 2.0 

(3) Elecl. (94$1k~h) = 0.0838 

Gas (94$IMBTU) = 6.03 

Water Cost ($/1000 gal.) = 2.84 

per unit Mfg. 

mfg. costs Cost 

$ (12) $ (12) 

$192 

$10 $201 

$9 $210 

$7 $217 

$8 $225 

$17 $242 

$22 $264 

~4 $268 

$1.92 

$101 '. $293 

$3 $296 

$10 $306 

$9 $314 

$22 $336 

$4 $341 

, $8 $349 

$49 $240 

$10 S201 

$28 $219 

$71 $262 

Water Heater Efficiency: Elect. = 1.00; Gas = 0.75 

Fuel Price Multiplier: Elecl. = 0.90; Gas = 1.01 l . 

Fraction Water Heaters: Elecl. = 0.45; Gas = 0.55 

(4) Baseline data assumed to be for vertical axis machine 

Cost Hot 

(2) Water 

$ (12) kWh/cycle 

$383 1.47 

$402 1.47 

$419 1.47 

$433 1.38 

$450 1.34 

$483 1.21 

$527 1.21 

$536 1.21 

$383 1.47 

$586 0.43 

$592 0.35 

$61\ 0.35 

$628 0.35 

$672 0.35 

$681 0.35 

$697 0.34 

$481 1.60 

$402 1.47 

$438 1.52 

$525 1.47 

(5) When options are combined, adjustments are made to avoid double counting savings 

(6) The same RMC data was used for vertical and horizontal axis machines 

Machine 

Energy 

kWh/cycle 

0.22 

0.23 

0.23. 

0.23 

0.23 

0.23 

0.24 

0.27 

0.22 

0.25 

0.26 

0.2,7 

0.27 

0.28 

0.31 

0.31 

0.22 

0.20. 

0.22 

0.09 

Total Clothes Energy Factor ref.=62% Energy cu.~. per Per Cycle (13) 

Energy Container cu. fl. per RMC with MEl 

kWh/cycle cu. ft. kWh/cycle (7) kWh/cycle 

1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 . 3.15 

1.70 2.93 1.73 1.16 2.85 

1.70 2.93 . 1.72 0.91 2.61 

1.62 2.93 1.81 0.91 2.52 

1.58 2.93 1.86 0.91 2.48 

1.44 2.93 2.03 0.91 2.35 

1.45 2.93 2.02 0:78 2.23 

1.48 2.93 1.98 0.65 2.13 -

1.69 2.93 1.73 1.46 3.15 

0.68 2.77 4.06 1.46 2.14 

0.61 2.74 4.50 1.46 2.07 

0.61 2.74 4.46 1.16 1.77 

0.62 2.74 4.40 0.91 1.53 

0.63 2.74 4.33 0.78 1.41i 

0.66 2.74 4.13 0.65 1.32 

0.65 2.74 4.20 0.65 1.31 

1.84 2.94 1.60 1.46 3.28 

1.67 2.93 1.75 1.46 3.13 

1.75 2.91 1.67 1.46 3.21 

1.70 2.94 1.73 1.46 3.01 

(7) Based on: 

(a) Modified DOE test procedure for RMC 

(b) Baseline RMC of 62% 

(c) Residual RMC of 4% 

kWh/cycle Total 

(7) Gallons 

0.93 38.9 

1.03 38.9 

1.12 38.9 

1.16 36.0 

1.18 36.0 

1.25 33.5 

1.31 33.5 

1.37 33.5 

0.93 38.9 

1.29 26.1 

1.32 21.8 

. 1.54 21.8 

1.79 21.8 

1.94 21.8 

2.08 21.8 

2.09 21.8· 

0.90 38.9 

0.94 . 38.9 

0.91 35.6 

0.98 38.9 

(d) 12. I Ib load x 0.52 avg. load ratio = 6.291bs adjusted clothes load 

(e) DUF=0.8 

(8) Some design options were not combined with others due to high payback 

(9) Sud Savings omitted because of limited application; also requires a separ31e wash tub 

Gallons per 

cu. ft. cap. 

13.3 

13.3 

13.3 

12.3 

12.3 

11.4 

11.4 

11.4 

13.3 

9.4 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

8.0 

13.6 

13.4 

12.3 

13.6 

Payback 

CUIIlIII . 

years (3) 

2.2 

2.3 

2.3 

2.9 

3.4 

4.3 

4.2 

4.6 

4.1 

3.8 

3.7 

4.1 

4.1 

4.3 

NA 

30.6 

27.8 

35.8 

(10) Auto Fill Control arid Advanced Sensor/Control may be added when data is gathered on these design options 

(II) No adjustments were made for the differences in vertical and horizontal drum capacity 

(12) Dollar values are shown in rounded dollars, actual values as provided by AHAM are used in all calculations 

(13) No detergent savings are expected as water use is reduced 

c:\cIean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash 11 B 

Gas Combine! 

Payback Elecl.&G: 

CUflllll. Payhad 

years (3) years (3) 

2.2 2.2 

2.3 2.3 

2.5 2.4 

3.2 3.1 

4.0 3.7 

5.1 4.7 

4.9 4.6 

8.2 6.1 

7.0 5.3 

5.9 4.7 

5.3 4.4 

5.8 4.9 

5.7 4.8 

6.0 5.1 

NA NA 

31.6 31.2 

18.5 21.8 

35.8 35.8 

6/9/95 
Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Elect. Total Total Life Cycle Cost --RMC/ MEF

Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas

$.yr $/yr $ /yr $ /yr $/yr /yr $/yr Discount Rate - Discount Rale

______,,____ __2% 6% __ 15% 2% 6% 15%

0 Baseline (vert. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008

I 0+RMC= 50% $43 $16 $7 $43 $34 $128 $100 $1,957 $1,594 $1,135 $1,623 $1,338 $977

2 0+RMC= 40% $43 $16 $7 $43 $27 $120 $93 $1,887 $1,544 $1,110 $1,552 $1,288 $953

3 2+Tighter tub tolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $27 $115 $89 $1,831 $1,504 $1,091' $1,516 $1,263 $943

4 3+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $40 $15 $7 $40 $27 $114 $88 $1,832 $1,510 $1,101 $1,527 $1,275 $957

5 4+Improved Fill Control $36 $13 $7 $37 $27 $107 $84 $1,782 $1,479 $1,095 $1,507 $1,268 $966

6 5+RMC= 35% $36 $13 $7 $37 $23 $103 $81 $1,784 $1,491 $1,119 $1,509 $1,280 $990

7 5+RMC= 30% $36 $13 $8 $37 $19 $100 $78 $1,759 $1,473 $1,112 $1,484 $1,263 $982

0 Baseline (vert. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008

8 , Horizontal Axis Design $13 $5 $7 $29 $43 $92 $84 $1,710 $1,448 $1,115 $1,612 $1,372 $1,069

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $43 $85 $79 $1,632 $1,389 $1,082 $1,553 $1,329 $1,045

10 9+RMC=50% $10 $4 $8 $24 $34 $77 $70 $1,545 $1,327 $1,051 $1,465 $1,266 $1,014

II 9+RMC= 40% $10 $4 $8 $24 $27 $69 $63 $1,474 $1,277 $1,027 $1,395 $1,216 $989

12 9+RMC = 35% $10 $4 $8 $24 $23 $66 $59 $1,476 $1,288 $1,05i $1,397 $1,228 $1,013

13 9+RMC= 30% $10 $4 $9 $24. $19 $63 $57 $1,450 $1,271 $1,043 $1,371 $1,210 $1,006

14 13+Thermostatic Mixing Valve $10 $4 $9 $24 $19 $63 $57 $1,463 $1,284 $1,058 $1,386 $1,225 $1,022

0+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $43 $140 $110 $2,189 $1,790 $1,285 $1,825 $1,511 $1,114

0+Increase Motor Efficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $43 $136 $108 $2,056 $1,670 $1,181 $1,722 $1,414 $1,024

0+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $43 $134 $106 $2,076 $1,693 $1,209 $1,729 $1,428 $1,046

0+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $43 $132 $105 $2,138 $1,762 $1,285 $1,804 $1,505 $1,127

(1) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash I B 6/9/95

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

, Proposed AHAM Test Procedure with RMC Added 

Design Design Option Hot Water Energy Machine Water Elect. Total Total Life Cycle Cost ··RMC I MEF 

Level Electric Gas Energy Use Dryer Electric Gas Electric Gas 

.'. $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr $Iyr Discounl Rale Discounl Rate ;, 

1% 6% 15% 1% 6% 15% 

0 Baseline (ven. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $136 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $1,710 $1,400 $1,008 

I O+RMC = 50% $43 $16 $7 $43 $34 $128 $100 $1,957 $1,594 $1,135 $1,623 $1,338 $977 . 

2 O+RMC = 40% $43 $16 $7 $43 $27 $120 $93 $1,887 $1,544 $1,110 $1,552 $1,288 $953 

3 2+ Tighter tub lolerance $41 $15 $7 $40 $27 $115 $89 $1,831 $1,504 $1,091' $1,516 $1,263 $943 

4 3+ Thermostatic Mixing Valve $40 $15 $7 $40 $27 $114 $88 $1,832 $1,510 $1,101 $1,527 $1,275 $957 

5 4+Improved Fill Control $36 $\3 $7 $37 $27 $107 $84 $1,782 $1,479 $1,095 $1,507 $1,268 $966 

6 5+RM~=35% $36 $13 $7 $37 $23 $103 $81 $1,784 $1,491 $1,119 $1,509 $1,280 $990 

7 5+RMC = 30% $36 $13 $8 $37 $19 $100 $78 $1,759 $1,473 $1,112 $1,484 $1,263 $982 

0 Baseline (ven. axis) $43 $16 $7 $43 $43 $1~6 $109 $2,045 $1,657 $1,166 $\,710 $1,400 $1,008 

8 r Horizontal Axis Design $\3 $5 $7 $29 $43 $92 $84 $1,710 $1,448 $1,115 $1,612 $1,372 $1,069 

9 Horz. Axis w/recirculation $10 $4 $8 $24 $43 $85 $79 $1,632 $1,389 $1,082 $1,553 $1,329 . $1,045 

10 9+RMC=50% $10 $4 $8 $24 $34 $77 $70 $1,545 $1,327 $1.051 $1,465 $1,266 $1,014 

II 9+RMC=40% $10 $4 $8 $24 $27 $69 $63 $1,474 $1,177 $1,027 $1,395 $1,216 $989 

12 9+RMC=35% $10 • $4 $8 $24 $23 $66 $59 $1,476 $1,288 $I,05i $1,397 $1,228 $1,013 

13 9+RMC= 30% $10 $4 $9 $24. $19' $63 $57 $1,450 $1,271 $1,043 $1,371 $1,210 $1,006 

14 13+ Thermostatic Mixing VaIve $10 $4 $9 . $24 $19 . $63 $57 $1,463 $1,184 $1,058 $1,386 $1,225 $1,022 

. O+Added Insulation $47 $17 $7 $43 $43 $140 $110 $2,189 $1,790 $1,285 $1,825 $1,511 $1,114 

O+lncrease Molor Efficiency $43 $16 $6 $43 $43 $136 $108 $2,056 $1,670 $1,181 $1,722 $1,414 $1,024 

O+Suds Saving $45 $17 $7 $40 $43 $\34 $106 $2,076 $1,693 $1,209 $1,729 $1,428 $1,046 

O+Direct Drive Motor $43 $16 $3 $43 $43 $132 $105 $2,138 $1,762 $1,285 $1,804 $1,505 $1,127 

(I) Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years 

c:\Clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash II B 6/9/95 
Standard Clothes Washer -- AHAM Proposed Test Procedure -- MEF

$2,100

$1,900

$1,700

0%0l 0

|f8 $1. 0 50 2" 1 ' 45~ '- 4 -60-- 2%. $1,500 - 6%

-6- 15%

$1,300

. 11 2 3 14

$1,100

$900 . I I I I I I

0.8 0.9 1.0 .1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6. 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2

Modified Energy Factor

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\wash I b

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Standard Clothes Washer -- AHAM Proposed Test Procedure -- MEF 

$2,100 

$1,900 

$1,700 ,-.. 

~ 

~ 

Q\ 0 Q\ 

.-I 

'-' 

... 

"-' -<>-2% 

Q 

U $1,500 --0-:6% ~ 

1j 3 ~ --tr-15% 

u 

. 

.... 

~ 

. ~ 

$1,300 to 

$900 

0.8 0.9 1.0 .1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 . . 1.7 1.8 1,.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 

Modified Energy Factor 

c:\clean3\clthwash\spdsht\washl1 b 
Engineering Analysis Methodology

For purposes of using as an example I will outline the procedure used in analyzing a Standard size Clothes Washer,

using the existing DOE test procedure with the MEF from the proposed DOE test procedure..

* Starting Parameters

Cost Data: Cost data for design options was provided by AHAM; incremental cost is used where appropriate

Markup = 2.0 (manufacturer's cost x 2.0 = retail price)

Used in previous analyses

Cycles per year:

DOE proposed standard: 416

AHAM proposed standard: 392 (average of last seven years of Procter & Gamble survey data)

Fuel Prices:

Based on Annual Energy Outlook published by Energy Information Agency (EIA).

Prices are based on projected prices in the year 2000, in 1994 dollars.

Electricity Price = $0.0838/kWh

Gas Price = $6.03/MBTU

Fuel Price Multipliers:

Developed at LBL to adjust for regional variations in fuel use and corresponding variations in fuel price. Fuel

prices are multiplied by these factors to give an adjusted fuel price.

Water and Sewage Cost:

Prices from the 1994 Ernst & Young database were weighted for population by Al Dietemann of Seattle Water

Department. Prices have not been adjusted for future predicted price increases.

Water/Sewage Disposal Cost = $2.84/kgal.

Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years (from previous 1990 TSD, from AHAM information)

'Water Heater Efficiencies:

From DOE test procedure

Electric = 1.00

Gas - 0.75

'Water Heater Type:

The DOE Energy Factor is currently based on electric water heater use. Where analysis was done based on

actual distribution of gas and electric water heaters, the following breakdown (provided by AHAM) was used.

Fraction Electric = 0.45

Fraction Gas = 0.55

Remaining Moisture Content:

The remaining moisture content for both DOE and AHAM analysis was based on a baseline reference of 62%

RMC.

For DOE tests the clothes weight was determined according to the Proposed Test Procedure; 5.88 Ibs weighted

cloth, with 0.5 kWh/lb required to remove remaining moisture.

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Engineering Analysis Methodology 

For purposes of using as an example I will outline the procedure usect in analyzing a Standard size Clothes Washer, 

using the existing DOE test procedure with the MEF from the proposed DOE test procedure .. 

• Starting Parameters 

Cost Data: Cost data for design options was provided by AHAfv1; incremental cost is used where appropriate 

Markup = 2.0 (manufacturer's cost x 2.0 = retail price) 

Used in previous analyses 

Cycles per year: 

DOE proposed standard: 416 

AHAM proposed standard: 392 (average of last seven years of Procter & Gamble survey data) 

Fuel Pri,;:es: 

Based on Annual Energy Outlook published by Energy Information Agency (EIA). 

Prices ar:e based on projected prices in the year 2000, in 1994 dollars. 

Electricity Price = $0.0838/kWh 

Gas Price = $6.03IMBTU 

Fuel Price Multipliers: 

Developed at lBl to adjust for regional vilriations in fuel use and corresponding variations in fuel price. Fuel 

. prices are multiplied by these factors to give an adjusted fuel price. 

Water and Sewage Cost: 

Prices from the 1994 Ernst & Young database were weighted for population by Al Dietemann of Seattle Water 

Department. Prices have not been adjusted for future predicted price increases. 

Water/Sewage Disposal Cost = $2.84/kgal. 

Clothes Washer Life = 14.1 years (from previous 1990 TSD, from AHAM information) 

Water Heater Efficiencies: 

From DOE test procedure 

Electric' ~ 1.00 

Gas::: 0.75 

Water Heater Type: 

The DOE Energy Factor is currently based on electric water heater use. Where analysis was done based on 

actual distribution of gas and electric water heaters, the following breakdown (provided by AHAM) was used. 

Fraction Electric = 0.45 

Fraction Gas = 0.55 

Remaining Moisture Content: 

The remaining moisture content for both DOE and AHAM analysis was based on a baseline reference of 62% 

RMC. .. . 

For I;)OE tests the clothes weight was determined according to the Proposed Test Procedure; 5.88 lbs weighted 

clotli. with 0.5 kWhllb required to remove remaining moisture. 

~. 
* General Assumptions

When design options were combined, the same costs were used in combining an option to vertical and

horizontal axis machines. AHAM has been asked to provide more cost data for combined design options. For

example, there may be inherent cost savings in adding a design option such as a lower Reduce Moisture

Content to a machine depending on if it is vertical or horizontal. Also, certain costs may possibly be shared for

a given design option.

No adjustments to energy savings have been made for differences in drum capacity. The range of drum

capacities are relatively small. Other factors can also influence laundry load handling capability. The DOE

Test Procedure uses the same test load for all standard size washers.

* Adjustments to AHAM data before Design Options are Combined

Set water use for all RMC design options to baseline water use. These values differed only because of

statistical reasons due to shipment weighted averages and number of manufacturers responding.

Set Total Gallons equal for "Reduce Thermal Mass", "Added Insulation", "Direct Drive Motor". These design

options shouldn't affect water consumption.

Equalize Clothes Container volume where they differ for statistical reasons only. Recalculate the Energy

Factor.

Set the "Reduce Thermal Mass" and " Added Insulation" mechanical energy use to the baseline value.

Set "Direct Drive Motor" hot water usage to the baseline value.

* Design Options Not Analyzed in Combination with Others -- Long Payback

Some design options were not combined with others but are included as separate options from the baseline.

Some of these had very long paybacks and were not analyzed in combination with the others for reasons of

simplifying the analysis. Those options not analyzed in combination with the others for reasons of long

payback times are listed below:

a) Reduce Thermal Mass

b) Added Insulation

c) Increase Motor Efficiency

d) Direct Drive Motor

* Design Options Not Analyzed in Combination with Others -- Other Reasons

Suds Saver:

This option currently requires the use of an external wash tub. This option is currently available to consumers

but is not very popular. No reason to believe previous analysis on this item has changed.

* Design Options to be Analyzed Pending the Submittal of Data

AHAM has been asked to provide additional data on these design options:

Advanced Sensor/Control or Adaptive Control:

This option would vary wash parameters automatically based on measuring soil load

2

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

• . General Assumptions 

When design options were combined, the same costs were used in combining an option to vertical and 

horizontal axis machines. AHAM has been asked to provide more cost data for combined design options. For 

example, there may be inherent cost savings in adding a design option such as a lower Reduce Moisture 

Content to a machine depending on if it is vertical or horizontal. Also, certain costs may possibly be shared for 

a given design option. 

No adjustments to energy savings have been made for differences in drum capacity. The range of drum 

capacities are relatively small. Other factors can also influence laundry load handling capability. The DOE 

Test Procedure uses the same test load for all standard size washers. 

• Adjustments to AHAM data before Design Options are Combined 

Factor. 

Set water use for all RMC design options to baseline wat~! use. These values differed only because of 

statistical reasons due to shipment weighted averages and number of manufacturers responding. 

Set Total Gallons equal for "Reduce Thermal Mass", "Added Insulation", "Direct Drive Motor". These design 

options shouldn't affect water consumption. 

Equalize Clothes Container volume where they d~ffer fQr statistical reasons only. Recalculate the Energy 

Set the "Reduce Thermal Mass" and " Added Insulation" mechanical energy use to the baseline value. 

Set "Direct Drive Motor" hot water usage to the baseline value. 

• Design Options Not Analyzed in Combination with Others •• Long Payback 

Some design options were not combined with others but are included as separate options from the baseline. 

Some of these had very long paybacks and were not analyzed in combination with the others for re~ons of 

simplifying the analysis. Those options not analyzed in combination with the others for reasons of long 

payback times are listed below: . 

a) Reduce Thermal Mass 

b) Added Insulation 

c) Increase Motor Efficiency 

d) Direct Drive Motor 

• Design Options Not Analyzed in Combination with Others •• Other Reasons 

Suds Saver: 

This option currently requires the use of an external wash tub. This option is currently available to consumers 

but is not very popular. No reason to believe previous analysis on this item has changed. 

• Design Options to be Analyzed Pending the Submittal of Data 

AHAM lias been asked to provide additional data on these design options: :" 

Advan~St;nsor/Control or Adaptive Control: 

This option would vary wash parameters automatically based on measuring soil load 

2 
Auto Fill:

This option would automatically adjust water level based on clothes load

Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC provision added.

Analysis Considerations

* Initial Considerations

The design option with the lowest payback period becomes the first ranked option. In this case this was tighter

tub tolerance. Since the entire tub annulus is not submerged in a horizontal axis washer this design option was

not used with horizontal axis machines. This necessitated a split in the analysis between vertical and horizontal

axis machines. This developed into two basic analysis: vertical and horizontal axis machines. When the

horizontal axis option is used the tighter tub tolerance option drops out-and horizontal axis becomes the first

option. Technically RMC should become the next option because it had a lower payback than the horizontal

axis option but a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost/performance of adding on a RMC feature.

* Baseline (vertical axis)

Retail Cost: Verbal by Wayne Morris of AHAM (based on marketing research survey)

Manufacturer cost = retail cost / markup

E.F.: Used value submitted by AHAM based on shipment weighted average

Design Levels 1-7 (Vertical Axis)

* Level 1: Tighter Tub Tolerance

Used values submitted by AHAM

* Level 2: Level 1 + RMC = 50%

Machine energy increases, used values provided by AHAM.

Hot water energy use remains unchanged from previous design option

Total Energy column = Mechanical + Hot Water Energy

Dryer energy is accounted for in modified energy factor (MEF)

Level I total water use (lowering RMC doesn't change water use)

* Level 3: Level 1 + RMC = 40%

Machine energy increases, used AHAM value (see Level 2)

Add incremental cost to go from 50% to 40% RMC

* Level 4: Level 3 + Thermostatic Mixing Valve

Hot Water use is decreased by a percentage: (TMV hot water/ Baseline hot water) * (level 3 hot water)

Machine energy remains the same

* Level 5: Level 4 + RMC =35%

Hot water usage stays the same

Machine Energy changes; AHAM value

3

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

Auto Fill: 

This option would automatically adjust water level based on clothes load 

Existing DOE Test Procedure with RMC provision added. 

Analysis Considerations 

• Initial Considerations 

• 

The design option with the lowest payback period becomes the first ranked option. In this case this was tighter 

tub tolerance. Since the entire tub annulus is not submerged in a horizontal axis washer this design option was 

not used with horizontal axis machines. This necessitated a split in the analysis betwee~ vertical and horizontal 

axis machines. This developed into two basic analysis: vertical and horizontal axis machines. When the 

horizontal axis option is used the tighter tub tolerance option drops out and horizontal axis becomes the first 

option. Technically RMC should become the next option because it had a lower payback than the horizontal 

axis option but a horizontal axis machine may affect the cost/performance of adding on a RMC feature. . ,-

• Baseline (vertical axis) 

Retail Cost: Verbal by Wayne Morris of AHAM (baSed on marketing research survey) 

Manufacturer cost = retail cost I markup 

E.F.: Used value submitted by AHAM based on shipment weighted' average 

Desia:n Leyels 1-7 (Vertical Axis) 

• Levell: Tighter Tub Tolerance 

Used values submitted by AHAM 

• Level 2: Levell + RMC = 50% 

Machine energy increases, used values provided by AHAM. 

Hot water energy use remains unchanged from previous design option 

Total Energy column = Mechanical + Hot Water Energy 

Dryer energy is accounted for in modified energy factor (MEF) 

Levell tota] water use (lowering RMC doesn't change water use) 

• Level 3: Levell + RMC = 40% 

• 

• 

Machine energy increases, used AHAM value (see Level 2) 

Add incremental cost to go from 50% to 40% RMC 

Level 4: Level 3 + Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

Hot Water use is decreased by a percentage: (TMV hot water/ Baseline hot water) * (level 3 hot water) 

Machine energy remains the same 

Level 5: Level 4 + RMC = 35% 

Hot water usage stays the same 

Machine Energy changes; AHAM value 

3 
MEF value changes

* Level 6: RMC = Level 4 + 30%

Hot water usage stays the same

Machine Energy changes; AHAM value

MEF value changes Machine energy increases

* Level 7: Level 6 + Improved Fill Control

Hot Water use changes: (IFC hot water / Baseline hot water)* (Level 6 hot water)

Other parameters stay constant

Total water use decreased by percentage: (IFC gals./baseline gals.)*( Level 6 gallons)

Design Levels 8 - 13 (Horizontal Axis)

* Level 8: Horizontal Axis Design

Used AHAM values

* Level 9: Horizontal Axis with recirculation

Even though this option had a lower payback than horizontal axis, it was placed after horizontal since it is a

kind of horizontal axis machine with further features. It is understood that the design may be significantly

different than horizontal axis and not necessarily a simple add on feature.

Used actual values submitted by AHAM (did not combine with Level 8)

* Level 10: Level 9 + RMC = 50%

Hot Water usage remains unchanged

Mechanical Energy (in kWh/cycle) = 0.26 + (0.227 - 0.221) = Level 9 + (difference between baseline and

RMC = 50%)

where:

0.260 = horiz. axis w/recirculation

0.227 = for 50% RMC design option only

0.221 = baseline mechanical energy

* Level 11: Level 9 + RMC = 40%

Same methodology as Level 10

* Level 12: Level 11 + Thermostatic Mixing Valve

Mechanical Energy remains unchanged from Level 11

Hot Water Energy = (original TMV hot water /baseline hot water)*( Level 11 hot water)

i.e. hot water is reduced by a percentage of previous design option hot water use

* Level 13: Level 11 + RMC = 35%

Machine energy increases (same methodology as other RMC design options)

Hot Water usage remains unchanged from previous design option

* Level 14: Level 12 + RMC = 30%

Machine energy increases (same methodology as other RMC design options)

Hot Water usage remains unchanged from previous design option

4

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 33

MEF value changes 

• Level 6: RMC = Level 4 + 30% 

Hot water usage stays the same 

Machine Energy changes; AHAM value 

MEF value changes Machine energy increases 

• Level 7: Level 6 + Improved Fill Control 

Hot Water use changes: (IFC hot water I Baseline hot water)* (Level 6 hot water) 

Other parameters stay constant 

Total water use decreased by percentage; (IFC gals.!baseline gals.)*( Level 6 gallons) 

Desien Levels 8 - 13 (Horizontal Axis) 

., Level 8: Horizontal Axis I)esign 

Used AHAM values \' --

• Level 9: Horizontal Axis with recirculation 

Even though this option had a lower payback than horizontal axis, it was placed after horizontal since it is a 

kind of horizontal axis machine with further features. It is understood that the design may be significantly 

different than horizontal axis and not necessarily a simple add on feature. 

Used actual values submitted by AHAM (did not combine with Level 8) 

• Level 10: Level 9 + RMC = 50% 

Hot Water usage remains unchanged 

Mechanical Energy (in kWh/cycle) = 0.26 + (0.227 - 0.221) = Level 9 + (difference between baseline and 

RMC = 50%) 

where: 

0.260 = horiz. axis w/recirculation 

0.227 = for 50% RMC design option only 

0.221 = baseline mechanical energy 

• Level 11: Level 9 + RMC = 40% 

Same methodology as Level 10 

• Level 12: Level 11 + Thermostatic Mixing Valve 

Mechanical Energy remains unchanged from Level 11 

Hot Water Energy = (original lMV hot water !baseline hot water)*( Level 11 hot water) 

i.e. hot water is reduced by a percentage of previous design option hot water use 

• Level 13: Level 11 + RMC = 35% 

Machine energy increases (same methodology as other RMC design options) 

Hot Water usage remains unchanged from previous design option 

• Level 14: Level 12 + RMC = 30% 

Machine energy increases (same methodology as other RMC design options) 

Hot Water usage remains unchanged from previous design option 

4