# TEST REPORT:

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

CLOTHES WASHER TEST PROCEDURE

J uly 2015

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Office Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 205852 This d ocument was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of Navigant Consulting, Inc.3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 4

2. TEST CLOTH LOADIN G METHODS

................................ ................................ ................. 4

2.1 Current Appendix J2 Method

................................ ................................ ............................... 4

2.2 NOPR Method

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5

2.3 Discussion of Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6

3. TEMPERATURE INDIC ATOR LABELS

................................ ................................ ............ 9

3.1 Temperature Accuracy

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9

3.2 Consistency and Durability

................................ ................................ ................................ 12

3.3 Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 14

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.1. Baseline Unit Test Results

– Current Appendix J2 Method

................................ ........ 5

Table 2.1.2. Max

- Tech Unit Test Results

– Current Appendix J2 Method

................................ ..... 5

Table 2.2.1. Baseline Unit Test Results

– NOPR Method

................................ ............................... 6

Table 2.2.2. Max

- Tech Unit Test Re sults

– NOPR Method

................................ ............................ 6 Table 2.3.1. Comparison of Total Water Consumption, Machine Electrical Energy, and

RMC for Each Loading Meth od

................................ ................................ .............. 6 Table 2.3.2. Comparison of Loading Times and Cycle Times for Each Loading Method

.............. 7 Table 3.1.1. Results from Temperature Label Accuracy Test

................................ ....................... 11 Table 3.2.1. Wash Cycles Tested to Confirm Consistency and Durability of Labels

................... 12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.3.1: Machine Electrical Energy Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units

...................... 7 Figure 2.3.2: Wa ter Consumption Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units

................................ 8 Figure 2.3.3: RMC Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units

................................ ........................ 8 Figure 3.1.1. Schematic of Temperature Label Accuracy Test

................................ ..................... 10 Figure 3.1.2. Photo of Temperature Label and Thermocouples

................................ .................... 10 Figure 3.1.3. Measured Temperature versus Indicated Temperature

................................ ............ 11 Figure 3.2.1. Placement of Three Labels in Front

- Loading Unit, Test #1

................................ ..... 12 Figure 3.2.2. Labels from Front

- Loading Hot, Whites Wash Cycle

................................ .............. 13 Figure 3.2.3. Labels from Front

- Loading Extra Hot, Sanitize Cycle

................................ ............ 13 Figure 3.2.4. Placement of Labels in Top

- Loading Unit

................................ ............................... 14 Figure 3.2.5. Labels from Top

- Loading Hot, Normal Cycle

................................ ......................... 144

1. I NTRODUCTION

This test report accompanies the clothes washer t est p rocedure f inal r ule

. S ection 2 of this

report describes the results of the comparison of two test cloth loading method s for front

- loading

clothes washers . S ection 3 describes the results from testing the a ccuracy, consistency and

durab ility of adhesive temperature indicator labels.

2. TEST CLOTH LOADING METHODS

Section 2.8.3 of both the appendix J1 and appendix J2 test procedures instruct the testing party to load the energy test cloths into the clothes washer by grasping them in the cent er, shaking them to hang loosely, and then “put them into the clothes container” prior to activating

the clothes washer. I n the April 25, 2014 notice of proposed rulemaking for the clothes washer test procedure (“April 2014 NOPR”, 79 FR 23062 , 23065 ) DOE proposed provid ing additional specificity for the test cloth handling and loading instructions to improve the overall clarity and consistency of test cloth loading procedures.

DOE proposed using a modified version of the loading instructions for towel s and pillowcases provided in the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) HLW

- 1

- 2010 test method, Performance Evaluation Procedures for Household Appliances

. 1 Like DOE’s current test cloth loading instructions, the AHAM procedure involves graspi ng the towel/pillowcase in the center and shaking it so that it hangs loosely. The AHAM procedure further describes placing the towels/pillowcases into the drum with alternating orientations.

In response to comments received by DOE on its proposal, as d iscussed in the final rule that this test report accompanies, DOE conducted investigations into the proposed changes to the test cloth loading instructions for front

- loading clothes washers. DOE performed comparative testing on two front

- loading clothes wa shers: one with baseline efficiency and one with max

- tech efficiency. On each clothes washer, DOE conducted 10 wash cycles using the current test procedure ( hereafter referred to as the “current appendix J2 method”), and 10 wash cycles using the revised pr ocedure described in the proposed amendments ( hereafter referred to as the “NOPR method”). DOE used the cold wash/cold rinse temperature selection for all cycles

.

2.1 Current Appendix J2 M ethod

For the current appendix J2 method, DOE loaded each cloth individually according to instructions provided in section 2.8.3 of appendix J1 and appendix J2: “Load the energy test cloths by grasping them in the center, shaking them to hang loosely, and then put them into the clothes container prior to activating the clothes washer.” Each cloth was loaded loosely into the drum without being placed in any particular orientation, resulting in a random arrangement of

cloths inside the drum. For each cycle, DOE measured the following:

1 AHAM has since published an updated version of this test met hod, AHAM HLW

- 1

- 2013, which is available at http://www.aham.org/ht/d/Store/name/MAJOR/pid/5132 . The test cloth loading instructions are the same in both the

2010 and 2013 versions of this t est method.5

 Time required to load all the cloths into the drum ( minutes (min) : seconds (sec) )

 Total cycle time, excluding cloth loading time (min)

 Total water consumption (gal lons (gal) )

 Machine electrical energy consumption ( kilowatt

- hours ( kWh ) )

 Remaining moisture content (RMC) (%)

Table 2.1

. 1 shows the results of the test runs conducted on the baseline unit using the current appendix J2 method

. Table 2.1

. 2 shows the results performed on the max

- tech unit using the current appendix J2 method

.

Table 2.1

. 1

. Baseline Unit Test Results

– Current Appendix J2 Method

Test Run Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time to Load ( min : sec ) 5:15 3:56 4:01 3:38 3:59 3:46 4:03 4:30 4:15 3:57

Cycle Time ( min ) 59 65 62 61 66 60 60 75 65 60

Water Consumed (

gal ) 16.83 16.60 16.50 16.10 17.31 16.43 16.69 16.67 16.89 15.37

Machine Energy ( kWh ) 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13

RMC ( % ) 46.4 47.1 47.1 46.4 47.8 47.1 46.4 46.4 47.8 44.0

Table 2.1

. 2 . Max

- Tech Unit Test Results

– Current Appendix J2 Method

Cycle Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time to Load ( min : sec ) 4:39 5:15 5:10 4:58 5:10 5:08 4:59 4:56 5:20 5:14

Cycle Time ( min ) 53 56 52 53 55 56 48 55 50 49

Water Consumed (

gal ) 11.91 12.23 12.11 12.31 12.51 12.53 12.72 12.91 11.88 12.27

Machine Energy ( kWh ) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12

RMC ( % ) 35.5 33.9 34.4 35.5 35.0 35.0 34.0 35.0 35.5 35.5

2.2 NOPR M ethod

For the NOPR method, DOE loaded each cloth lengthwise, from front to back, using alternating orientations for adjacent pieces of cloth. The clothes were loaded evenly across the width of the clothes container, completing each cloth layer across its horizontal plane before

addi ng a new layer

. DOE measured the same parameters for each test run as described above.

Table 2.2

. 1 and Table 2.2

. 2 show the results for test run s performed on the baseline and max

tech units, respectively , using the NOPR method

.6

Table 2.2

. 1 . Baseline Unit Test Results

– NOPR Method

Test Run Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time to Load ( min : sec ) 5:12 4:59 4:37 4:39 4:58 4:48 4:31 5:10 4:33 4:47

Cycle Time ( min ) 66 62 61 60 59 64 58 62 57 72

Water Consumed (

gal ) 16.06 17.24 16.79 16.11 16.82 16.89 16.62 15.89 15.82 17.09

Machine Energy ( kWh ) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.15

RMC ( % ) 47. 8 47. 1 47. 8 46. 4 47. 1 47. 8 47. 1 47. 1 47. 1 46. 1

Table 2.2

. 2 . Max

- Tech Unit Test Results

– NOPR Method

Test Run Number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time to Load ( min : sec ) 5:55 5:40 5:50 6:00 5:59 6:05 6:10 6:15 6:00 6:10

Cycle Time ( min ) 50 52 53 54 55 56 54 53 54 48

Water Consumed (

gal ) 9.39 12.51 12.69 12.48 13.28 12.66 10.96 11.80 12.36 11.01

Machine Energy ( kWh ) 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12

RMC ( % ) 3 5

. 0 33. 9 3 5.0 35.5 34.4 32.5 39.3 31.4 3 5.0 39. 9

2.3 D iscussion of R esults

Table 2.3

. 1 summarizes the results of the current appendix J2 method and the NOPR

method tests by providing the range, average, and standard deviation for total water consumption, machine electrical energy, and RMC. Table 2.3

. 2 summarizes the measured loading times and cycles times associated with each method.

Table 2.3

. 1 . Com parison of Total Water Consumption, Machine Electrical Energy, and RMC for Each Loading Method

Washer Type Loading Method Total Water Consumption ( gal ) Machine Electrical Energy ( kWh ) Remaining Moisture Content ( % )

Range Avg; SD (%) Range Avg; SD (%) Range Avg; SD (%)

Baseline Current Appendix

J2 Method 15.4

– 17.3 16.5; 3.0 % 0.13

– 0.15 0.14; 4.4% 44

– 48 47; 2. 2 %

NOPR Method 15.8

– 17.2 16.5; 3.0 % 0.13

– 0.15 0.14; 3. 9 % 46

– 48 47; 1. 2 %

Max

- Tech Current Appendix

J2 Method 11.9

– 12.9 12.3; 2. 6 % 0.12

– 0.14 0.13; 3. 3 % 34

– 36 35; 1. 6 %

NOPR Method 9.4

– 13.3 11.9; 9.2% 0.12

– 0.14 0.13; 4.6% 31

– 40 35; 7.1%7

Table 2.3

. 2 . Comparison of Loading Times and Cycle Times for Each Loading Method

Washer Type Loading Method Loading Time ( min : sec ) Wash Cycle Time ( min ) Average

Total

Time ( min ) Range Avg Range Avg

Baseline Current Appendix

J2 Method 3:38

– 4:15 4:08 59

– 75 63 67

NOPR Method 4:31

– 5:12 4:49 57

– 72 62 66

Max

- Tech Current Appendix

J2 Method 4:39

– 5:20 5:04 48

– 56 53 58

NOPR Method 5:40

– 6:15 6:00 48

– 56 53 59

The results for machine energy, water consumption and RMC shown in Table 2.3

. 1 are graphically represented in Figure 2.3

. 1

, Figure 2.3

. 2 , and Figure 2.3

. 3 , respectively. In each plot, the center points represent the averages, and the bars represent the obs erved ranges.

Figure 2.3

. 1 : Machine Electrical Energy Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Machine Electrical Energy (kWh) Baseline Model

0.11

0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Max

- Tech Model8

Figure 2.3

. 2 : Water Consumption Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units

Figure 2.3

. 3 : RMC Results for Baseline and Max

- Tech Units 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Water Consumption (gal) Baseline Model

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Max

- Tech Model

30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50%

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Remaining Moisture Content (%) Baseline Model

30%

32% 34% 36% 38% 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50%

Current Appendix J2

Method NOPR

Method Max

- Tech Model9

3. TEMPERATURE INDICATO R LABELS

Determining the maximum wash temperature achieved during a wash cycle requires measuring the water temperature during the cycle. In the April 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the test procedure to authorize the use of waterproof, non

- reversible temperature indicator labels, adhered to the inside of the clothing container, t o determine the maximum temperature threshold achieved during a n extra

- hot wash cycle. If testing a front

- loading clothes washer, the label would be adhered along the inner circumference of the clothes container drum, midway

between the front a nd the back of the clothes container. For a top

- loading clothes washer, the

label would be adhered along the inner circumference of the clothes container drum, as close to
the bottom of the container as possible.

In response to comments received by DOE on its propo sal, as discussed in the final rule that this test report accompanies, DOE conducted investigations of non

- reversible temperature labels. For this report, DOE investigated two non

- reversible temperature label s from Omega Engineering Inc

. 2 :

 M odel TL

- E

- 105, which provide s temperature indicators in 5

- degree Fahrenheit ( °F )

increments between 105 and 120 °F

, and 10 °F increments between 120 and 160 °F

.

 M odel TL

- E

- 170

, which provides temperature indicators in 10 ° F increments between

170 and 240 °F

.

DOE is also aware of waterproof adhesive temperature labels from the Paper

Thermometer Company, Inc., 3 including temperature labels designed to indicate the maximum temperature threshold achieved during dishwasher testing. At the time of this testing, however,

th e particular temperature labels of interest were not available from the manufacturer

. DOE is not aware of any temperature labels from any manufacturer offering a temperature indicator of

135°F , which corresponds to the hot water supply temperature specifie d in the clothes washer test procedure and the threshold that defines an extra hot wash

.

To determine the accuracy, consistency, and durability of the Omega labels, DOE test ed

both top

- loading and front

- loading clothes washers using the methodology proposed in the April

2014 NOPR

. The results of this testing are described in the following sections of this report.

3.1 Temperature A ccuracy

Omega does not provide a temperature accuracy for the TL

- E product line, so DOE performed test ing to investigate the a ccuracy of the temperature indicators. The testing consisted of suspending a label in a pot of water, heating the water using an electric coil cooktop, and using calibrated thermocouples to measure the water temperatures at which the individual

thermal ind icators on the label became activated ( i.e. , changed color)

.

The test setup included one temperature label sandwiched between two thermocouples and suspended in the middle of the pot by a wooden support structure. The bottom thermocouple was adhered to the label using waterproof adhesive tape to ensure that it was firmly secured. The top

2 Omega labels available at http://www.omega.com/pptst/TL

- E_LABELS.html

3 Paper Thermometer Company: www.paperthermometer.com10

thermoco uple was situated directly above the label

. Figure 3.1

. 1 shows a schematic of the test

setup

, and Figure 3.1

. 2 shows a photo of the temperature label and thermocouples.

Figure 3.1

. 1 . Schematic of Temperature Label Accuracy Test

Figure 3.1

. 2

. Photo of Temperature Label and Thermocouples

During the test, DOE recorded the temperature reading of both thermocouples at the time each temperature threshold indicator on the label became activated

. DOE average d both thermocouple readings to determine the calibrated temperature at which each threshold was achieved on the temperature label

. DOE performed this test on three Omega labels

. Table 3.1

. 1

p resents the results of the three tests conducted.11

Table 3.1

. 1 . Results from Temperature Label Accuracy Test

Temperature

Threshold on

Label (°F) Calibrated Temperature Recorded by

Thermocouple s at Each Label Threshold (°F)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

105 104.6 103.9 104.3

110 110.2 109.9 110.5

115 114.1 113.9 113.9

120 123.0 122.6 122.3

130 129.6 127.0 127.4

140 138.2 140.2 1 36.2

150 148.1 147.8 146.2

160 159.3 157.8 155.4

The results in the Table 3.1

. 1 are represented in a scatter plot in Figure 3.1

. 3

, which

shows the label temperature thresholds on the x

- axis and the calibrated measured temperature on the y

- axis

. The straight line in the plot indicates a theoretical perfect match between the temperature threshold indicated on the label and the actual measured temperature.

Figure 3.1

. 3

. Measured Temperature versus Indicated Temperature

These test results demonstrate that the Omega TL

- E

- 105 labels provide an average accuracy within ±1°F for temperatures less than 120 °F, and an average accuracy within ±3 °F for temperatures 120 °F and greater. The calibrated temperatures recorded at the 1 40 °F indicator

threshold ranged from 136.2°F to 140.2°F.12

3.2 C onsistency and D urability

DOE performed additional test ing to investigate the consistency and durability of the Omega temperature indicators. For these tests, m ultiple labels were installed in one top

- loading

and two front

- loading clothes washers

. Table 3.2

. 1 shows the three different wash cycles tested.

Table 3.2

. 1 . Wash Cycles Tested to Confirm Consistency and Durability of Lab els

Test Parameter Test #1 Test #2 Test #3

Clothes Washer Type Front

- Loading Front

- Loading Top

- Loading

Cycle Selection Whites Sanitize Normal

Wash/Rinse Temperature Selection H ot/Cold Extra Hot/Cold Hot/Cold

Figure 3.2

. 1 shows the placement of the three temperature labels for Test #1, which was performed in a front

- loading clothes washer using the Whites cycle and the Hot/Cold wash/rinse temperature setting. The first label was placed directly on the side of one of the ba ffles; the second label was placed on the wash drum adjacent to one of the baffles; and the third label was placed in the center of the wash drum midway between two baffles.

Figure 3.2

. 1

. Placement of T hree Labels in Front

- Loading Unit, Test #1

Figure 3.2

. 2 shows photographs of the labels after testing . The dark gray circles indicate the temperature thresholds that were achieved during the wash cycle. A ll three labels indicate a consistent maximum temperature threshold of 110 °F

. With regards to durability, label (c) shown

in Figure 3.2

. 2

, which was placed in the middle of the drum halfway between two baffles, wa s the most worn after the test

. Labels (a) and (b), which were placed on a baffle and adjacent to a baffle, respectively, were noticeably less worn than label (c). In no case, however, did the wear interfere with the activation or observation of the temperature indicators.13 (a) Baffle (b) Next to b affle (c) Between b affles Figure 3.2

. 2 . Labels from Front

- Loading Hot, Whites Wash Cycle

Test #2 was performed in a front

- loading clothes washer using the Sanitize cycle and the Extra Hot/Cold wash/rinse temperature setting. For this test, DOE used f our labels : two provided

a temperature range of 105

- 160 °F

, while the other two provided a range of 170

- 240 °F. The

1 70

- 240 °F labels were used to verify that the labels would not register a false high temperature reading during an extra

- hot clothes washer cycle

. One of each label type was placed next to a baffle

, while the other two were placed in the center of the drum midway between two baffles. Figure 3.2

. 3 displays the four labels after the test.

. (a) Next to baffles (b) Between b affles

Figure 3.2

. 3

. Labe ls from Front

- Loading Extra Hot, Sanitize Cycle

B oth pairs of labels in Figure 3.2

. 3 indicate a maximum temperature threshold of 150 °F. Note that the lighting in Figure 3.2

. 3 (b) results in the 150 ° F indicator appearing lighter than the

14 0 ° F indicator; however, on the actual label the 150 ° F indicator is clearly activated. The labels with a range of 170

- 240 °F d id not show any temperature thresholds achieved, as expecte d

. With regards to durability, the labels placed midway between the baffles were noticeably more worn than the lab els placed next to the baffles. Again, in neither case did the wear interfere with the

activation or observation of the temperature indicators.14

Test #3 was performed in a top

- load ing clothes washer using the N ormal cycle and the

Hot/Cold wash /rinse temperature settin g. Two labels were placed near the bottom of the clothes container, as proposed in the April 2014 NOPR. Figure 3.2

. 4 shows the placement of the temperature labels for Test #3.

(a) Vertical portion of sidewall (b) Curved portion near bottom of drum Figure 3.2

. 4

. Placement of Label s in Top

- Loading Unit

B oth labels indicated a maximum temperature threshold of 130 °F, as shown in Figure

3.2

. 5

. With regards to durability, the label located on the vertical portion of the sidewall of the

drum showed less wear than the label placed along the curved portion near the bottom of the

drum

.

(a) Vertical sidewall (b) Curved portion near bottom of drum

Figure 3.2

. 5

. Labels from Top

- Loading Hot, Normal Cycle

3.3 S ummary

The results from these tests demonstrate that the Omega labels provide d consistent results

and remained intact and adhered to the side of the wash drum. T he results show that placement

within the wash drum affects the amount of wear experienced by the label during the wash cycle.

For the front

- loading clothes washers, the lab els placed next to the baffles experienced the least amount of wear. For the top

- loading clothes washer, the label placed along the vertical portion of the sidewall of the clothing container experienced the least amount of wear. In no case, however,

did th e wear prevent the activation or observation of the appropriate temperature indicator.