A 11 ID 3 TISIfl?

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 78-1556

Kitchen Range Energy

Consumption

J. V. Fechter

L. G. Porter

#

Consumer Ergonomics and Information

Consumer Sciences Division

Center for Consumer Product Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

Final Report

June 1978

Issued March 1 979

Prepared for Office of Conservation

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20461

A (PC'

tOO

100 . LtS<o

U56*7e-ISSt,

78 - /? 7 ?

C . 2 C-3-

, w^poaij o? Standard MAY 1. 'a 107^

o,(.ot" Acc ‘ C_A r

. CM A,X-p<Tr ^ 1 Q^i' I A'l3

NBSIR 78-1556 V » „ Kitchen Range Energy

Consumption

J. V. Fechter

L. G. Porter

Consumer Ergonomics and Information

Consumer Sciences Division

Center for Consumer Product Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

Final Report

June 1978

Issued March 1 979

Prepared for Office of Conservation

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20461
J
NBSIR 78-1556

KITCHEN RANGE ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

J V. Fechter

L. G. Porter

Consumer Ergonomics and Information

Consumer Sciences Division

Center for Consumer Product Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20234

Final Report

June 1978

Issued March 1 979

Prepared for Office of Conservation

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20461

V

¥

PH

AU 0*

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secratary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
4

YreMraafe t8q$i)i Wl BilnBifh 30H3MMOO "10 fWhjMfHA^G -8JJ

b'Rfe s^W-aE •<©* mteftE **«&»*& jiovmS X Aftfcnot. wlwwVa .isSdmA i*wn3 ,«Qf»ACMAT8 =10 UA3«#8 JASrtOVTAWI
Table of Contents

Page

List of Figures ,

. . . iii

List of Tables iii

Acknowledgements v

Executive Summary vii

Background 1

Participants, Equipment, Procedures .... 3

Results T ..... t t 8

Discussion 19

Summary . 21

References 23

Appendix A - Research Participant Agreement , . . . . 24

Appendix B - Recipes of AHAM Meals Involving Cooking

on Kitchen Ranges 25

Appendix C - Summary of Range Characteristics .... 34

Appendix D - Graphic Illustration of Energy Consumption

and Variation for Each Range, Cook, and

Day ...... 40

i
: .

•

• -

'
List of Figures

Number Title Page

1 Floor Plan of NBS Consumer Research

Laboratory 7

2 Combined Efficiency of Each Range Plotted

Against the Mean kWh used for Actual Cooking 11

3 Mean kWh and EkWh used to Prepare Each Menu

Day (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Gas and

Electric Ranges . . 18

List of Tables

Number Title Page

I The AHAM Menu, as Used by NBS for Range

Tests 5

IX Range Energy Efficiency Measured with the

Laboratory Test Method ..... 9

III Mean kWh or Equivalent kWh (EkWh) Used by

Ranges to Cook Each Menu-Day (0.293 kWh =

1 cubic foot of Natural Gas) 10

IV ANOVA Summary Table for Total Energy Used on

the Electric Ranges „ 13

V Newman-Keuls Test of Differences Between

Rank-Ordered Electric Range Means . . . , . 14

VI ANOVA Summary Table for Total Energy Used on

the Gas Ranges 16

VII Newman-Keuls Test of Differences Eetween

Rank-Ordered Gas Range Means 17

VIII Percentage Differences Between the Highest

and Lowest Energy Users for Each Kitchen

Range . .

iii

19

Executive Summary

In support of the national appliance energy conservation

program, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has evaluated

and recommended to the Department of Energy (DOE) standard

test methods for use by manufacturers in measuring the energy

efficiency of their major appliances. In particular, NBS has

recommended and DOE has adopted a test method for measuring

the relative energy efficiencies of kitchen ranges. The

method utilizes established laboratory techniques and instrumentation for measuring the amount of energy required by the

range to raise the temperature of a standard aluminum block

by a specified temperature difference. In further support

of this recommendation, an additional study was undertaken in

which non-professional cooks, i.e. homemakers, individually

prepared meals on ranges which had been previously used to

establish the published test procedure, and for which

efficiency ratings had been obtained.

The ten kitchen ranges used (five electric and five gas)

had been previously selected to exhibit a variety of the

technical range features that may be found in the marketplace,

rather than to be statistically representative of that market.

Thq meals cooked on these ranges were prepared by 58 homemakers. Each prepared 21 meals, or a week's menu for an

"average American family of four." The menus had been selected

from a group of menus generated by the Association of Home

Appliance Manufacturers (ARAM) . In all cases, the range

energy consumption was measured and recorded.

In addition to determining the correlation between

"real-life" and laboratory test methods for measuring

efficiency, this study also revealed a number of other

interesting results. These follow along with certain significant conclusions.

(1) The correlation between laboratory measured range

efficiency and that exhibited by the homemakers was

high (p < 0.05). Consequently no major modification to

that laboratory test method would appear to be in

order

(2) The variation in energy used by the different

cooks on the same range for the same meals was

high (differences between cooks was as high as

50 percent) . Whereas some of this variation could

be ascribed to random individual behavior; other of

the variation could be ascribed to certain generic

behavior and would be amenable to control via

range design.

vii
(3) Regarding energy consumption, much of range design

is independent of human factors, (random and

generic) as evidenced by the high correlation

between laboratory and home simulated tests.

Accordingly, the test procedures should provide

effective guidance to manufacturers for improving

the energy efficiency of their ranges.

(4) An evaluation of the energy used to cook each of

the 21 meals from the AHAM menu indicated that

only three to five of the energy intensive meals

(usually dinners) would have been sufficient to

study relative efficiencies of kitchen ranges f

Vlll
KITCHEN RANGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

BACKGROUND

The reality of the energy shortage has affected

Americans in many ways. The nation has acknowledged

that the problem is real and is trying to do something

about it. A part of the national effort to reduce energy

consumption and encourage energy conservation is through

the production and use of more efficient appliances.

The Federal government's program in this regard is administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) and requires

(1,2) manufacturers to improve the energy efficiency

of

- refrigerators and refrigerator freezers,

- freezers,

- dishwashers,

- clothes washers and dryers,

- water heaters,

- room and central air conditioners,

- home heating equipment,

- televisions,

- humidifiers and dehumidifiers,

- kitchen ranges and ovens, and

- other products as stipulated by Public Law 94-163.

In addition to improving the energy efficiency of

their appliances, manufacturers must attach energy related appliances.* information to their * Presented on labels,

this information will show consumers the relative efficiency

of the labeled appliances and will include an estimate

of the annual energy cost for their operation. The goal

of the program is to enable consumers to select appliances

that will minimize the cost they will have to bear each

year to operate their appliances. Consumers who use

the label information will be able to select energy efficient

appliances which not only meet their needs, but also

consume minimum amounts of energy in doing so. Test Methods

The standard test methods to be used by manufacturers

to measure appliance energy efficiency must be accurate,

reliable and usable with all design variations. In addition,

test results must be both replicable and valid—a kitchen

range ranking high in energy efficiency under laboratory

conditions should also rank low in energy consumption

under ordinary home use. Under the appliance energy

*The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection

is still considering whether all of these appliances should

in fact be labeled.

Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 34--Friday, February 16, 1979.
conservation program, the Department of Energy (DOE)

is required to provide test methods to be used in the

program. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will specify

how these methods are to be used to arrive at labeled

values

In supporting DOE, the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) has evaluated available test procedures and recommended procedures which can be used for the appliance energy

conservation program. NBS recommended a test method

for each appliance covered by the legislation and provided

information about appliance use. That information is

being used in developing estimates of the annual cost

of energy to operate the appliances.

Kitchen Range Study

This report describes kitchen range tests involving

actual meal preparation by non-professional cooks, i.e.

homemakers. The study was done to provide realistic

energy consumption data (collected under known conditions)

to engineers who were evaluating kitchen range, energyefficiency laboratory test methods.

Energy use data collected during this study served

several purposes . The main purpose was to measure energyuse under "simulated" real life conditions, where various

types of use data could be easily collected. The staff

could then compare the energy use of the ranges in the

"real life" setting to the energy efficiency of the same

ranges tested under laboratory conditions. Insights

into possible discrepancies in test methods could then

be resolved later by reference to the great variety of

data collected during the real life study.

The secondary purpose of studying actual cooking

activities was to obtain specific data on human behavior

in the use of the kitchen, as for example, hot water

use or knife use. Behavioral data included both written

logs of the cooks' activities as well as continuous video

tapes of their behavior. These records will serve in

the future as a valuable data base of kitchen activityrange use and safety, knife use and safety, water use

and temperature preferences, but are not discussed further

in this report.

2
PARTICIPANTS , EQUIPMENT, PROCEDURES

Participants

Fifty-eight cooks (six per range on all but the

last gas range) were recruited from the vicinity of NBS

in Gaithersburg, Maryland; all were female. Applicant

cooks were accepted if they:

- normally cooked for a family of four,

- were between 29-50 years of age, and

- were married, with two children living at

home who were between 3-19 years of age.

These selection criteria were based on assumptions

built into the test menu used in the study--a menu developed

by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)

and described later in this report.

All cooks were assigned to test conditions in approximately the same order in which their telephone inquiries

were received. After reporting for the study, each cook

was shown a pre-recorded TV-introduction to the Consumer

Research Laboratory (3) and then shown the video console

and observation booth. After that introduction and the

signing of the informed consent form (Appendix A) each

cook became familiar with the kitchen layout, range controls,

location of food and utensils, and the individual recipes

to be used that day. The cooks were also told that NBS

was studying many aspects of kitchen behavior—safety,

appliance use, water use, energy use, and other kitchen

activity. This explanation, and the inclusion of some

meals involving little or no energy use, served to prevent

the homemaker from concentrating solely on energy use

but instead to act naturally as at home. A full debriefing

at the end of her participation informed each cook of

tbe primary reason for undertaking the project.

Having been selected and introduced to the study,

each cook reported to the Laboratory for seven consecutive

weekdays —either for seven morning sessions (8:30-12:30)

or seven afternoon sessions (1:00-5:00). Cooks used

the same type of cooking energy (gas or electricity)

in the study as they used in their own homes. Each cook

used only one of the ten ranges

Menu

Cooks were allowed to prepare the food to their

own family's preference (e.g. doneness and seasoning),

3
but were not allowed to substitute or omit any major

ingredients in the recipe.

The seven-day menu (Table I) had been developed

in 1975 by the Subcommittee on Ranges of AHAM ' s Consumer

Education Committee and was meant to represent the typical

foods prepared by an average family of four in one week.

Very detailed instructions for preparing each food item

had been developed by the AHAM committee. These detailed

procedures enable professional cooks to prepare all meals

under precise laboratory conditions wherein such factors

as the starting temperature of the water or the type

of cooking utensil are precisely defined. Because such

precise procedures are not used in the average home,

they were not used here and the AHAM menus/instructions

were converted into typical recipe formats having simple

preparation instructions (see Appendix B for complete

recipes)

The original AHAM menus had been planned with the

"typical" working family in mind, with the most energy

consuming meals being on Day 1. In the present study,

however, the order of the menu days was randomized across

all cooks to eliminate a day-sequence effect. In addition,

some menu items were placed within the overall menu plan

so that the amount of energy consumed per day, and hence,

the amount of food preparation required per day, would

be irregular--as in real-life. The use of simple preparation

instructions and recipes allowed the non-professional

cooks to express their own individuality in food preparation,

in ways which could affect energy consumption. For examplq,

one cook might choose to prepare two or three dishes

simultaneously in the oven whereas another might choose

to do it sequentially.

Cooks prepared three meals (i.e., one menu-day)

within the four hour period allotted and were allowed

also to take breaks between meals . They were also allowed

to take natural breaks during preparation of items which

did not require constant attention to the range.

The seven-day menu was intended for use with gas

or electric kitchens, using the same meal ingredients.

Further, it was intended to exercise all parts of the

range--surface , oven, and broiler.

Ranges

All ranges had been selected by staff engineers

working on the efficiency test method. Ten ranges were

4
The

AI1AM

Menu,

as

Used

by

NBS

for

Range

Tests

J o

-Q •/) 03 o U

© © CO cox d u-d

© P oj 03 © © u rt u </> g x x HQ 5 l </) a.

r 5<£2 C

8 * 3 & ©

J-< G X 08 T> X 01 (8 ©

o3 e u G

© cl g © g

i to P O G q

£ «*

»-* U (O 3 B COt2J?OQH£(25u5

©

P - •H ©

.a 5

Gh © G m © U G © i

Cm to g

0} X o3 g g

G G O p Q uchfii

3

T3 G G

(8 t/3 ©

tA P ^ ^03 X OfiC W OH

© *5 P *H

'2 *

03 CO

CO P e0 G -h p c*

01 T3 -G ©

B.a

ca a t

!S 2

! ‘H *X3

: o g

i G cl cq z: t

© O •'H © 2!3 2

c

3 X »-j co

© u

C4G G

03 G4 G O o CO

©

G *

•H ©

G © —

c8 <g ©

COG-t G

S G o 03

Cl 3 UH

g> E v-/ O

I-. o

° 2-5 G G 03

O P O G -H HQ - s:

3:© TJ © GO3 ©

X! -H © G-l G

> 03 O X * G tO

<-H © G

&-S x 8 £ a u oj U O 03 (O

©^

G. to *3 G

© O

lO •—*

• rH r—

PC CO

© 03 O © G G

03 © ,

G ©

•H H

G G 03CO ©

G 3 03 §

Eo ©

C G

• rH G G G

G 8 QGAJ

5 © G p © O *H

i a a i3 q us

G ©/

03 G-t 644-1

S 6 -S g

© to p co o co to o © © G ^G

G3 O

c

-

o &

H Q

: e G G

; 03 3 o ^ —

^ © 03 «

"g X

?

OJ X

d n O G © rH

-P y © © 3

co 5 g © G

l/> -H

to G 03

3 ©

rO 03 ©

G rt H G

03 © ©

G 06 G

C X O

rt 'p •GUO© 1-H -H G © -5icS;

c e

o B

03 G4 ©

60<G G GOG

G G 8 o © x:2= p G

tO U M ©

66 tO G G

o O © _ G

TJ G rH J= ^

03 rX to G G u © G ©

2 £r *1 U Q

G r—*

^ to c 8

© G

u 3 a

•h O G

-C GO U — X) - >x -0

•p > © p

© sr x © X G i0 O

03 CD q G

XI ^ CJ

• 'P G c"3 ? rt G to

© -H

04 3

. 3 o •'H Qu 2:

-a to O

>X G

e

^

5

^ CO

to c

to O -H C U to a

s G G

g-s. C £ •

C t, O O © G-. G

G u ji

O C

G 03 © rH © G » S» U n G !/l gE. 2 E

b£^’°-

G O CO"? tO -C p X G © — y

G

U-. G “3 to “3 C © -H C33 C O q © G G G»— rH ^

jt U o: O G G £ P O -H

© 8

^3

5

5

Selected

food

items

(such

as

ice

cream

for

dessert)

were

not

included

in

UBS

version

of

the

AHAM

menu.
used--five gas and five electric. The ranges were selected

to reflect the variety of technical types available,'

for example, a gas range which used electronic ignition,

ones with large ovens, ones with small ovens, and ones

with self-cleaning and continuous range cleaning features.

At the same time the chosen ranges were not statistically

representative of thpse in the marketplace. The data

therefore cannot be generalized to all ranges in the

marketplace? however, this does not prevent making valid

statistical comparisons among the ranges actually selected.

The overall project objective to which this study

contributed was to develop and recommend a standard laboratory

test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of

any range in the marketplace, and not to concentrate

on "statistically significant," small differences. To

reiterate, the main purpose of this study was to compare

the energy consumed by ten kitchen ranges used in a simulated,

real-life cooking study to the relative energy efficiencies

of the same ranges when measured under laboratory conditions

Only conventional ranges were used. Convection

ovens, induction or smooth-top surface units, and microwave

oyens were not included. Appendix C presents size, wattage

or BTU , and other specifications for each of the ten

ranges

Kitchens

Two separate kitchens were used—one for gas ranges

and the other for electric ranges . The work triangles

(sink-refrigerator-range) were identical in both kitchens,

and the same kinds of refrigerators, dishwashers, cabinets,

and sinks were used in both. Aside from the absence

of windows in the basement kitchen, differences between

kitchens were minor.

A floor plan of the Laboratory (Figure 1) notes

the location of television cameras and observation booths

for each kitchen.

Data Collection

For the electric ranges, two dial-type, watt-hour

meters were used to measure the number of kilowatt hours

(kWh) used for each meal. One meter measured total energy

used by the countertop (surface units) and the other

measured total oven and broiler use. Meters were read

6
FIRST FLOOR

BASEMENT

OBSERVATION MOHS

WITH ONE-WAY MIRRORS • TV CAi ERA POSITION

M INTERCOM /MICROPHONE

SPEAKER

FIGURE 1

Floor Plan of MBS Consumer Research Laboratory
before and after each meal. Later in the study digital

watt-hour meters were used in place of the dial type

meters to simplify data collection.

For the gas ranges, a single flow-meter was connected

in the line supplying bottled, industrial-quality, natural

gas to the range. Accordingly, separate records for

top and oven/broiler were not available from this range

type. Gas consumption was measured in cubic feet, but

for this report all cubic feet have been converted to

equivalenti-kWh (EkWh, where 0.29 3 kWh = 1 cubiq foot

of natural gas. This conversion is based on a nominal

heating value of 1000 BTU per cubic foot of natural gas

(4)) . RESULTS

Range Energy Consumption versus Range Efficiency

As discussed in the Background section of this report,

manufacturers must all use a standard test method when

measuring the energy efficiency of kitchen ranges. The

laboratory test method under consideration at the time

this study was done consisted of raising the temperature

of an aluminum block a specified temperature differences

and measuring the amount of energy required to do so.

The exact procedures eventually recommended to DOE by

NBS and specifications for the aluminum test block—including

size, weight, location of senior devices, tolerance for

flatness, etc., are all listed in the test method published

in the Federal Register , May 10, 1978. Also listed are

all definitions and formulae needed to perform these

measurements accurately and reliably.

The ten ranges used in this study were first tested

according to those procedures: resultant energy efficiency

figures for the countertop (all surface units? and oven

of each range are listed in Table II. Also listed is

the combined energy efficiency of each range. As is

obvious from the data, gas ranges are not as efficient

as electric ranges. Table III contains the mean energy

consumption of each range on each menu day.

Linear correlations were high between the combined

computed efficiency of each range and the overall mean

amount of energy used per menu day by cooks. Plotted

data are presented in Figure 2. For the electric ranges

the correlation was 0.89 (p < 0.02)

,

and for the gas

ranges it was 0.83 (p < 0.05)

8
Table II

Range Energy Efficiency

Measured with the Laboratory Test Method

Electric

Ranges

Oven

Efficiency

Countertop

(Surface Unit)

Efficiency

Combined

Efficiency

El 0.143 0.71 0.45

E2 0.115 0 . 76 0.42

E3 0 . 104 0.68 0.38

E4 0.140 0.77 0.47

E5 0.133 0.79 0.46

Gas

Ranges**

G1 0.058 0.40 0.22

G2 0.058 0.40 0 . 22

G3 0.075 0.40 0.25

G4 0.059 0.40 0.22

G5 0.06C 0.40 0 .23

*As noted in section 4.3.2 of the Federal Register notice,

Combined 1

Efficiency 0.145 + 0.855

oven efficiency countertop efficiency

**Gas ranges require a constant supply of oxygen to burn

fuel, resulting in a considerable amount of heat being

lost to the surrounding eir. For both electric and

gas ranges, surface units are more efficient than ovens.

9
Mean

kWh

or

Equivalent

kWh

(EkWh)

Used

by

Ranges

to

Cook

Each

Menu

Day

(0.293

kWh=1

cubic

foot

of

natural

gas)

CM ro ^ in vo r** i £ O CM ON o> in 00

rq £ in in ro o p» i ft w vo vo vo vo in*

cn r- o o <o ro ro

in VO a> ro vo vo

O M*

e> 1 e 0 • • • • » « w uo co m in in vo m*

rH rH r* r~i o M1 r-t *r s cm CO vo in CM vo IN u i • • * • • * ft ft w 00 vo vo vo IP VO

!§

m VO CO ro ro r~ ON co 5 in CO r- CO O CM CO O u i • • • • • • 0 0 W UD CO CO m in in m m £ VO pH o V0 <r pH ON G2

x; CM CO ro in CM 00 CO

H

CO vo VO in r- VO £ m CM CM o r- LO vO CM

r~! CM rH ro o CO vo CO

O o • « e • e • 0 « o w 00 in in 00 vo r- rfNJ CO X?- in vo nuhO £I &

>1 >i

w

JK

CD

O

<d ^ a:

a) c n O -P U) h 3 m

curs -n

w

m

CD CD ^ p n c

is 3 as o 0 p n XP-PH aj Q 0 its S n -ij 3 s s& 3j» * V #

10
'Mean

kWh

Used

Per

Menu

Day

8 .0 j

i

7.0

6.0

5.0

i

4.0

3.0

2.0

0 0.05

* G1

. G4

' G2

' G5

• E3

. E2

. El

. E4

* E5

I

i j r i j i i i 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

Combined Efficiency of Oven and Countertop

FIGURE 2

Combined Efficiency of Each Range Plotted

.gainst the Mean kWh Used for Actual Cooking

11
In other words, for electric ranges, 79 percent

of the variance in measured efficiency can be predicted

from the variance in energy used during actual cooking.

For gas ranges, 69 percent of the variance in one could

be predicted from a knowledge of the variance in the

other

The higher the measured efficiency, the lower the

total energy used by cooks. Because the correlation

between measured efficiency and actual energy use was

high, NBS engineers considered it unnecessary to modify

the test method being proposed at that time. Instead,

they concluded that the proposed test method would be

adequate for measuring range efficiency for the appliance

energy conservation program.

Other data which had been collected during the study

were therefore not needed to identify test -method changes

for the time being, but an analysis of these other data

may serve to assist manufacturers and others who are

involved in range improvement work.

fiange Energy Consumption

Data for each of the two range types, gas and electric,

were analyzed separately because they consume significantly

different amounts of energy. Further, because the same

criteria were not used when selecting the gas ranges

as when selecting the electric ranges, a comparative

analysis would be inappropriate.

Electric range energy consumption data were analyzed

by a repeated measures, two-factor analysis of variance

test (ANOVA) . The two factors were ranges (five) and

menu-days (seven) wherein the seven different days of

meal preparation constituted repeated measures on the

same range. The results of the ANOVA for electric ranges

are summarized in Table IV.

12
TABLE IV

ANOVA Summary Table for Total

Energy Used on the Electric Ranges

Source of Variation S

df MS

Between Subjects

Ranges 19 .

4 4 . 75

Sub j . within group 14.7 25 0 .58

Within Subjects

Menu days 55.0 6 9 . 16 101.78**

Ranges X menu days 3.0 24 0.12 1.33

Menu days X subj . within

group 13.2 150 0.09

** = p < 0.01

Examination of Table IV clearly reveals a significant

difference in the energy consumption of the electric

ranges [F (4, 25) = 8.18, p

< 0.01], and further indicates

that the differences between ranges were much greater

then the differences between the groups of subjects who

used each range. This is a most interesting result since

the study was carried out over a long period of time,

with breaks of several days between range changeovers

,

and this could have led to the possibility that the later

cooks might tend to conserve energy purposefully because

they had attended the NBS Open House* or talked to others

who had already participated in the study. This might

have influenced the main effect (ranges) with differences

between groups. Under such conditions, it would not

have been possible to determine whether energy efficiency

was due to range design or to the cooks' attempts to

b^ energy efficient. Thus, the present results indicate

*As noted on Table II.

13
that range differences in energy consumption are sufficiently

large that even statistically insensitive tests will

detect the differences.

Since the main effect (ranges) was significant,

it was desirable to test mean differences between all

possible pairs of electric ranges. A Newman-Keuls procedure

was used to compare mean differences. Table V presents

the results of these procedures.

TABLE V

Newman-Keuls Test of Differences

Between Rank-Ordered Electric Range Means

Range E5 E4 El E2 " E3

Required

Ratio

E5 — 5.8 1^18. 3** ^27.7** \3 3.3** 17.99

E4 12.5 21. 9** \ 27.5** \

17.08

El 9.4 15.0 15.79

E2 5.6

“'‘•K - - 13.78

E3

** p < 0 .01

--

The resulting differences can be illustrated as : Range Range Range Range Range

E5 E4 El E2 E3

whqre the 'bars’' indicate the overlap due to variance.

14
In words, Ranges E5 and E4 do not differ from one

another, but do differ from Ranges E2 and E3. Other

examples of differences are displayed by the above illustration . The results of the Newman-Keuls test demonstrate

that the use of non-professional cooks in a simulated

real-life study can detect relatively modest differences

in the amount of energy consumed by different electric

ranges. In terms of actual kWh differences, one may

question whether small, statistically significant differences are practically meaningful. Such a question, however,

requires more information than was available and, hence,

is not considered further in this report.

The second part of Table IV evaluates the second

main effect (menu-days) by considering the variability

between subjects within each group; menu-days were significantly different in terms of energy consumption [F (6, 150) = 101.78, p < .01]. Since the food preparation instructions

and recipes were designed to be different, this result

is to be expected. The interaction between range and

menu variations was also evaluated but was insignificant.

This result is also not surprising since it merely means

that electric ranges are not selectively better for preparing

ope menu than another. What is surprising is that menudays accounted for so much of the total variance in energy

consumption. Examination of mean kWh consumption shown

in Table III provides some insight into these results.

The variability of the energy required to prepare the

various sets of menu-day meals was very much larger than

the variability between the cooks in preparing a given

menu-day. For example, the difference in energy required

to prepare a Day 1 menu versus a Day 2 menu was very

much greater than the difference in energy used by the

five cooks in preparing a Day 2 menu. From other evidence,

it is known that the variability between cooks was very

small on low energy requirement menu-days. As energy

requirements per menu-day increased, so did the variability

between cooks in the amount of energy actually used.

This means that low energy requirement days do not contribute

much to subject variability and, hence, could easily

be omitted from any future study.

In a sense, the evaluation of the menu-day effect

is superfluous in that it merely proves the obvious.

But the sheer magnitude of the menu-day effect indicates

that making the energy requirements different for each

menu-day is not the approach most sensitive for comparing

the relative efficiency of ranges by using non-professional

15
cooks in a simulated real-life environment. A more effective

methodology would be to use just a few high energy-requirement menus (with repeated measures) or better yet to

use the same menu prepared a number of times by the same

cooks (replication) . The approach used in the present

study is appropriate, however, if the problem is concerned

with how people use ranges in a wide variety of home

conditions

For gas ranges, six different sets of cooks had

used each of the first four ranges, but only four cooks

used the last (fifth) gas range. An ANOVA was again

performed, but using an unweighted means analysis because

the number of cooks per condition was unequal. The ANOVA

summarized in Table VI produced results much like those

for electric range data.

TABLE VI

ANOVA Summary

Energy Used on

Table for

the Gas

Total

Ranges

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between Subjects

Ranges 89.03 4 22.25 12.93**

Subj . within group 39.68 23 1.72

Within Subjects

Menu days 218.73 6 36 . 45 107.20**

Ranges x menu days 11.78 24 0.49 1.44

Menu days X subj . within

group 47.73 138 0.34

** = p < 0.01

In the gas range ANOVA, range differences F(4, 23) = 12.93, p < 0.01, and menu day differences, F(6, 138) - 107.20, p < 0.01, were statistically significant; the

range by menu day interaction was not. As with the electric

range data, the Newman-Keuls procedure was used to isolate

the source of main effect differences. The results of

those additional tests are presented in Table VII.

16
TABLE VII

Newman- Keuls Test of Differences

Between Rank-Ordered Gas Range Means

Required

Range G3 G5 G2 G4 Gl Ratio

G3 i 2.24** 7.65** L 7.75** ^13. 44** 1 . 24

V.

G5 — 5.41** 5.51**'--... 11.20** 1.17

\

G2 V. -- o

i o i— 5.79** 1.08

G4

% -- 5.69** 0.95

Gl

** p

< 0.01

Range differences (from Table VII) can be illustrated as:

Range Range Range Range Range

G3 G5 G2 G4 Gl

In words, Ranges G2 and G4 did not significantly differ,

but all other ranges did.

Figure 3 illustrates the amount of energy used to

prepare each menu day. This figure also ’shows ' the relative

difference in kWh between gas and electric ranges used

to prepare the same menus

For each range, data from the cook who used the

most overall energy and the cook v/hc used the least,

were summarized. Absolute percentage differences between

high- and low-consuming cooks on each range varied from

a low of 4 percent on one gas range to a high of 33 percent

on two of the electric ranges (see Table VIII)

17
t

UJO

z

<

ccQC

UJ

CL

O

LLJ «/> 15

-G

JC

LLf ix

d:

O

-e

IX

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Gas Ranges

Electric Ranges

Day pay Day Day Day Day Day

2 3 5 6 4 7 1 SEVEN MENU DAYS

enu Da/

FIGURE 3 Mean kWh and EkWh Used to Prepare Each

(Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) on Gas and Electric Ranees

18
TABLE VIII

Percentage Differences Between the Highest and

Lowest Energy Users for Each Kitchen Range

Range Percentage Percentage

Range Difference Range Difference

Electric Gas

El 25.3% Gl 4.3%

E2 14.4% G2* 30.8%

E3 33.6% G3** 30.1%

E4 14.8% G4 16.0%

E5 33.1% G5 10.7%

*0n the electronic ignition gas range one cook was

frightened by the ignition spark and asked the

research staff to turn the burners/oven on; she

left them on during most meal preparation.

**The range controls became so hot that some cooks

simply turned them on and didn't turn them off

until they had completed the meal.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study have immediate and long

range utility. First, the high correlation between measured

efficiency and energy used by cooks indicates that the

efficiency test method is reasonable in that it relates

well to real-life cooking. In other words, high efficiency

ranges will consume less energy overall than low efficiency

ranges when cooks use them for real cooking. However,

the cooking habits of an individual cook may result in

energy use much higher than the test method utilizes.

Second, because energy used by cooks declines as

measured efficiency improves, it is likely that after

all reasonable efficiency improvements have been made,

other improvements might also be appropriate to affect

the way cooks utilize a mechanically efficient range.

For example, after cooking 21 meals over a seven-day

period, the most efficient cook differed from the least

efficient cook on the same range by as much as 33 percent.

A change in the mechanical efficiency of that range will

probably not affect the 33 percent figure, unless the

change also addresses some human factors involved in

19
t

using the range. It is also true that the most efficiently

designed appliance will not operate efficiently if it

is used improperly. Proper use might be enhanced through

improved consumer education, through appliance designs

which effectively preclude inefficient procedures, or

both

The importance of separately addressing user considerations in appliance efficiency improvement programs (i.e.

product design, consumer attitude, and consumer education

programs) depends on the relative and absolute number

of appliance users who are inefficient. If most users

are efficient the user-caused waste is probably minor

and not sufficient to warrant further research. On the

other hand, if most users are not efficient, their energy

waste is probably substantial and should be further studied T The small sample size used in this study is not adequate

to settle the issue.

Regarding range differences, special note should

be made of the differences between gas and electric range

efficiency. As shown in Figure 2, gas ranges use more

EkWh than electric ranges for the same tasks. However,

the efficiency with which electric ranges use energy

does not reflect the energy lost in its distribution

and other factors. Gas ranges burn fqel at the point

of use, where all of the heat could conceivably be used

in cooking; electric ranges use electricity generated

elsewhere, where heat lost during generation is not ayailable

for subsequent use. Readers should again be cautioned

not to compare the electric and gas ranges used in this

study against one another, because the same criteria

for selection were not used for both types of ranges.

In addition, while most differences between ranges

were significant, the range selection process was not

random and the sample was not statistically representative.

For those reasons, conclusions about the ten ranges tested

apply only to those ranges. Readers interested in the

performance of a specific range should refer to the summary

of range characteristics in Appendix C, graphic illustrations

in Appendix D, and the mean energy consumption summaries

in Table III.

The AHAM menu used for all range testing was originally

intended to represent the amount of food prepared by

a family of four in one week. If so, the energy consumption

for a full year could then be predicted by multiplying

the AHAM menu energy use by 52. Unfortunately, based

on comments made by cooks during post-test interviews.

20
the menu represents more than one week of cooking to

many cooks, making the projection of annual consumption

uncertain

On the positive side, menu day differences are real,

even though the 21 meals do not represent l/52nd of a family's eating and energy use in one year. This study

did find that the rank order of meals, from least to

most energy consuming, was virtually the same for gas

and electric ranges. That conclusion, and the finding

that almost all meals required significantly different

amounts of energy to prepare them means that future researchers working on range efficiency improvements can choose

which meals to use if a full seven-day test is not possible.

Post-test interviews also indicated that the cooks rapidly

adjusted to the experimental study and felt "at home"

in the kitchens. In fact, video tape recordings reveal

numerous instances of a spontaneity of behavior that

would occur naturally in their own homes . Such naturalness

in the experimental environment of the Consumer Research

Laboratory strongly suggests that food preparation behavior

and energy use should closely approximate normal in-thehome energy consumption.

SUMMARY

Fifty-eight cooks each prepared a seven-day test

menu using real food in real kitchens. Five gas and

five electric ranges were used.

Results indicate that:

(1) The correlation between laboratory measured range

efficiency and that exhibited by the homemakers was

high (p < 0.05). Consequently no major modification

to that laboratory test method would appear to be in

order

(2) The variation in energy used by the different

cooks on the same range for the same meals was

high (differences between cooks was as high as

50 percent) . Whereas some of this variation could

be ascribed to random individual behavior; other

of the variation could be ascribed to certain

generic behavior and would be amenable to control

via range design.

21
(3) Regarding energy consumption, much of range design

is independent of human factors, (random and

generic) as evidenced by the high correlation

between laboratory and home simulated tests.

Accordingly, the test procedures should provide

effective guidance to manufacturers for improving

the energy efficiency of their ranges.

(4) An evaluation of the energy used to cook each of

the 21 meals from the AHAM menu indicated that

only three to five of the pnergy intensive meals

(usually dinners) would have been sufficient to

study relative efficiencies of kitchen ranges.

22
References

1. Public Law 94-163, Energy Policy and Conservation

Act, December 22, 1975.

2. Public Law 94-385, Energy Conservation and Production

Act, August 14, 1976.

3. Fechter, J.V. and Van Cott, H.P., The House that NBS

Built, Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics,

1977, 1, 101-108.

4. Andrews, L.A., National Bureau of Standards, Product

Performance Engineering Division, Personal Communication,

June 9, 1978.

23
APPENDIX A

NBS-783 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(2-75) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT

3. Cost Center No.

4410121

1, Principal Investigator 2. DiVision/Section 4. Location

Robert Cunitz, Ph.D. 441.02 Gaithersburg

5. Experiment Name Code |_| Other fvpccily) Kitchen Utilization Study Program

6. Descnptidn of Experiment

This study program is designed to collect data about kitchen use by American

homemakers preparing meals for a family of four. Two general types of data will

be collected: (a) engineering data on actual appliance use and (b) behavioral

data, recorded on video and audio tapes, showing how a homemaker prepares her

meals.

7, Risks to Participant In the worst case, frisks to the participant are those normally found

in an average middle class home t i . e . , electrical shock , contact bums from hot

surfaces, scalding injuries from spilled hot liquids, cuts from sharp edges,

bruises and contusions from falls and dropped articles, and digestive illnesses

from spoiled foods. To reduce these risks, a rigorous safety program will be

followed. In no case will participants use unfamiliar or highly specialized

tools/instruments. All kitchen equipment will be standard, commercially available

items.

S. Responsibilities of Participant Each participant will: (a) prepare three meals (i.e., breakfast,

lunch, dinner) within four hours on seven different days, (b) prepape all meals

as she would in her own home, using the menus/recipes provided, (c) dress;

appropriately, e.g. , no high heels, (d) attend orientation and debriefing sessions,

and (e) permit video/audio tape recording of her activities.

Although all participants are free to terminate their participation at

any time, a bonus of $1.00 per hour will be given to those participants who, complete

the seven-day test.

9. Responsibilities of I nvest i ga tor (s )

' The investigators will: (a) protect the participants from an

unreasonable degree of physical danger, (b) respect the dignity of the participants

and protect them from psychological distress, (c) provide prompt medical attention

for treatment of injuries which may occur despite safeguards, and (d) ensure the

participant's personal privacy as well as maintain confidentiality of information

regarding participants. Since the behavioral data will consist of videotapes of the —1 -r— '

10. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT EITHER THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, THE PARTICIPANT. OR THE PARTICIPANT'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN MAY

TERMINATE THE PARTICIPANT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RESEARCH AT ANY TIME WITHOUT INCURRING LEGAL LIABILITY FOR SUCH

TERMINATION.

11,1 hereby certify that my participation is voluntary and that 1 have read and accept the terms of this agreeme nt.

Participant, or Parent or Guardian ( Signat ure) Date

12. Principal Investigator ( Siunature/ Date

13. Early Termination by (Signature)

1

Date

24 USC OMM-NBS-DC
Appendix B

Recipes of AHAM Meals

Involving Cooking on Kitchen Ranges

OATMEAL

NU

rea

DAY 1

kfas t

MENU DAY X Lunch

MENU DAY 1

Dinner

MEAL HI

3 cups water

1 tsp salt

1-1/3 cups Quaker Quick Oats

Raisins Brown Sugar

t 1. Place water and salt in a sauce pan and bring to boil.

2. Stir in oats, boil uncovered for 1 — stirring occasionally.

3. Remove from heat (add Raisins and Brown Sugar if desired). — 4. Cover and let stand a few minutes before serving.

MEAL #2 GRILLED-CHEESE SANDWICHES

12 slices of bread

6 slices of American cheese

1/2 cup of margarine

1. Prepare six grilled cheese sandwiches (butter both sides of

bread if desired).

2. Grill until golden brown on each side (approximately 12 minutes).

ARM POT ROAST

Beef arm roast (4 lbs)

4 medium potatoes

4 small onions

4 carrots

1/4 cup flour

2 Tbls. shortening

1 Tbls. + 2 teaspoons salt

1-1/4 teaspoon pepper

1/4 cup water

Trim excess fat from meat. Mix flour, 1 tablespoon plus 2 teaspoons salt

and 1-1/4 teaspoon pepper. Rub flour mixture into meat,

shake off excess. Melt shortening in a Dutch oven on range top.

Then add meat and brown on both sides. Add water, cover and

place in oven set at 350°.

Add peeled quartered potatoes, onions, quartered carrots, and 1/2 teaspoon salt

1-1/2 hours later.

Cook until done, about one hour longer.

Gravy:

1 cup meat broth from pot roast

1/4 cup water

2 'ibis, flour

2 Tbls. gravy coloring

When pot roast is done, remove meat and vegetables from Dutch oven. Pour

liquid into large measuring cup, skim off excess fat. Return 1 cup

liquid to Dutch oven. Place flour and water in covered jar, shake to blend. Add flour mixture and gravy coloring into hot meat broth, bring

to boil, stirring continuously, let cook for 1 minute.

PEPPERIDGE FARM, PARKERHOUSE ROLLS

1. Follow instructions on package.

2. Warm rolls in a 350° oven for 3-5 minutes.

APPLE CRISP

2 - 20 or. cans apples (sliced)

2/3 cup light brown sugar

1/2 cup flour

1/2 cup Oats, Quick Quaker

1/2 cup margarine (soft Chiffon)

3/4 teaspoon cinnamon

3/4 teaspoon nutmeg

1. Drain apples, retain juice.

2. Spread apples evenly over 8" x 8" x 2" greased pyrex dish.

3. Sprinkle 2 Ibis, apple juice over apples.

4. Mix dry ingredent together.

5. Blend in margarine with fork until mixture is crumbly.

6. Spread evenly over apples.

7. Bake in 550° oven until liquid bubbles and topping- i£ golden

MEAL #3

MEAL tt 3

MEAL #3
MENU DAY 2 Lunch

MENU DAY 2 Dinner

MEAL #5

MEAL #

MEAL #

MEAL #6

MEAL #

MEAL H 6

VEGETABLE SOUP

1. Place soup i.n a covered sauce pan.

2. Heat until steam is noted around lid of sauce pan and

then turn off.

BAKED CHICKEN W/CRAVY

8 chicken thighs

1 envelope- Shake-n-Bake

Wash chicken thighs under cold water. Then, coat chicken according

to instructions on Shake-n-Bake package. Place chicken pieces in singl

layers in jelly roll pan and bake for 40-50 minutes in 400°F oven. Save drippings for gravy.

GRAVY

1 can Campbell cream of mushroom soup

1/2 cup milk

In a sauce pan combine chicken drippings with soup. Add

1/2 cup of milk gradually. Bring to a'boil and serve. MASHED POTATOES

2 cups Instant Potato Buds

2 cups Water

3 Tbls. margarine

3/4 teaspoon salt

1/3 cup milk

Place water, milk, margarine and salt in a sauce pan, bring to boil.

Remove from heat, stir in potatoes with a table fork until desired

consistency.

BIRDSEYE GREEN CUT BEANS

Follow package instructions using a sauce pan w/lid or

1. Place frozen beans in sauce pan and add:

1/2 teaspoon salt

1 tablespoon margarine

1/2 cup water

2. Bring to boil and then simmer for 10 minutes.

FRUIT -IN -GELATIN SALAD

1 - 3 oz. package strawberry jello

1 - 10 oz. package Birdseye Quick- thaw mixed fruit

1. Bring water to boil in a sauce pan.

2. Add gelatin, stir in until dissolved.

3. Add frozen fruit and stir.

4. Divide mixture evenly into four custard cups.

5. Chill until gelatin sets. REFRIGERATED BISCUITS

1. Follow instructions on package.

2 . Place biscuits on cookie sheets and place in 400

o oven.

Remove biscuits when light, golden brown or about 9-11 minutes

28

3 .
SCRAMBLED EGGS WITH BACON STRIPS

,ENU DAY 3

Breakfast

MEAL #7

7 eggs

1/4 cup milk

2 Ibis, butter or margarine

1/2 lbs. bacon (8 strips)

MENU DAY 3

Lunch

MEAL #8

MENU DAY 3

Dinner

MEAL #9

MEAL #9

Eggs:

1. Break eggs in bowl.

2. Add milk and beat with fork.

3. Melt butter or margarine in a skillet.

4. Add egg mixture and cook slowly stirring occasionally to allow

uncooked portion to flow to bottom.

5. Eggs are done when mixture is set, but still moist.

HOT DOGS

1. Place 1 cup water and 2 hot dogs in sauce pan.

2. Cover and cook over high heat until done (approximately 5 minutes).

3. Serve on a bun.

BEEF STEW

1/3 cup flour

1-1/2 teaspoons salt

1/8 teaspoon pepper

1-1/2 lbs. boneless stew beef, cut in cubes (one inch)

2 tablespoons Wesson oil

3 cups water

3 medium-size onions sliced

4 medium-size potatoes, cut in 1 inch cubes

5 medium-size carrots, quartered

1-1/2 cups frozen peas

1/4 cup water

Combine flour, salt and pepper (save remaining flour) . Coat meat with

seasoned flour. Broun meat in hot oil in a Dutch oven. Add

water and cover tightly, simmer until meat is tender (l'i hours).

Add onions, potatoes, and carrots. Cover and simmer 15 minutes. Add peas cover and simmer until all vegetables are tender. Blend 1/4 cup water

with remaining flour. Add to stew, stirring gently; cook until thickened.

PEPPERIDGE FARM BROWN AND SERVE GOLDEN TWIST ROLLS

According to package instructions or

1. Place on ungreased cookie sheet.

2. Bake in 375° pre-heated oven until golden brown.
MENU DAY 4

Lunch

MEAL 111

Ml: A L Ml

CHICKI N' NOODLE. SOUP

1. Place soup in a covered sauce pan.

2. Heat until steam is noted around lid of sauce pan and then

' turn off. TUNA AND LOG SALAD

2 hard boil eggs

1 (3 or.) can turn fish J/2 cup mayonnaise

salt and pepper

To cook eggs

Place eggs in a sauce pan, cover with water 1" above eyes bring rapidly to a boil, cover. Remove tree, b.oat , let _:u\i IP -arut When eggs have cooled, peel xnd cnop. Mix witli tuna and toss lightly HEAL *11 CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKILS

1/3 cup shortening — j/j cup margarine (softened)

>5 cup granulated sugar cup Broun sugar tpacked)

11 teaspoon vanilla

lh cups all purpose flour h teaspoon soda

h teaspoon salt

h cup chopped nuts

1 package (6 oz. each) chocolate chip pieces

MENU DAY 4

Dinner

1. Heat oven to 375°.

2. Mix thoroughly shortening, margarine, sugar, eggs, and vanilla.

3. Stir in remaining ingredients.

4. Drop dough by rounded teaspoonfuls , 2" apart onto ungreased

cookie sheet.

5. Bake 8 to 10 minutes or until golden brown.

MEAL *12

MF.AI. *12

MEAL *12

6. Cool slightly before removing from cookie sheet. ITALIAN SPAGHETTI

1 lb. ground beef

1/2 cup onion (finely cheeped)

1 green pepper (finely clipped)

1 can tomato sauce

1 can tomato paste

1 Bay leaf (crumbled)

I teaspoon oregano

1 envelope Italian stvlc spaghetti sauce mix w 'rushrooms

1-1/2 cups water

1 Ibis, sugar

1 clove of garlic (crushed) 1-8 Oz. package Italian spaghetti

grated panr.esor. cheese

1. Place ground beef, onions', and green pepper in a skillet, cook

and stir until meat is brown and onions arc tenders.

2. Stir in remaining ingredients except spaghetti and cheese.

3. Cover, simmer 1 hour stirring sauce occasionally.

4. Using a covered sauce pan, cook spaghetti as directed on package.

5. Serve meat sauce over spaghetti and pass the cheese. GARLIC BREAD

1. Cut 2 French bread loaves in half (the long way)

2. Mix 1/2 cup soft margarine and 3/4 teaspoon of garlic powder or

1 finely minced radium sized, garlic clove.

3. Spread thickly on bread and place on ungreased cookie sheet.

4. Place in oven, close to broiler unit.

5. Leave door open and toast to a golden brown. WHIPPED GELATIN

1 package gelatin

1 cup boiling water

1 cup cold water

1. Mix gelatin in a bowl , with boiling water.

2. Stir until gelatin dissolved.

3. Add cold water and stir.

4. Chill in refrigerator until set (about 30 minutes).

5. Miip with electric portable mixer 3 minutes at medium speed.

6 . Return to refrigerator and chill for 45 minutes.

30
MENU DAY 5 Breakfast

MENU DAY 5 Lunch

MENU DAY 5 Dinner

MEAL #13

4 eggs

SOFT -COOKED ECUS

1. Place eggs in a sauce pan, cover completely with cold water,

leave lid off.

2 . Place sauce pan on surface unit, turn control to highest setting, and bring to full boil.

3.

Remove sauce pan from heat, cover. Let stand for 3 minutes. LEFTOVER IUT F ST1.U

1. Use Dinty Moore canned beef stew.

2 . Place 2 cups of stew in a covered sauce pan and heat until vegetables and meat are heated throughout.

BRAISLL) PORK CHOI'S

6 pork loin chops, 1/2” thick

3 Tbls. vegetable oil salt and pepper

1/2 cup water

1. Heat oil in uncovered skillet. - ••• •

2. Brown chops on each side.

3. Season with salt and pepper to taste.

4 . Add a small amount of water, cover tightly and cook until done.

(No pink shows in meat.) SCALLOPLD POTATOLS

1. Follow package instructions or

2 . Remove potatoes in the container^ place in 400°F pre-heated

oven.

3. Bake for 45-5S minutes or until top is golden brown. BUTTERLI) SPINACH (GREEN GIANT)

1. Follow package instructions or

2 . Place 1 c.up of water in sauce pan, bring to full boil at high setting.

3. Put unopened pouch into boiling water and bring to second boil .

4 . Turn down to medium and cook for IS minutes with cover on.

5. Remove and season for table use. RFD HOT APPLESAUCE

1. Place applesauce in a sauce pan.

2 . Add 1/2 package of "red hot" cinnamon candy hearts.

3. Heat at low-medium heat, stir occasionally, for 5-6 minutes.

4 . Taste for cinnamon flavor, add more red hots if desired. LEMON MERINGUE PIE

9" pie shell (Tet Ritt)

1 - 4-3/4 ot. package jcllo lemon pie filling (Regular)

3 egg whites

6 Tbls. sugar (confectionery ), 1/2 cup plain sugar

3 cups water

1. Pie Shell: Bake for 10 minutes in 400°F prc-hcated oven.

2. Pie Filling: According to package instructions

Mix package contents with sugar, '• cup of water, and slightly

beaten egg yolks. Stir in 2h cups of water and place

sauce pan (without cover) or. surface unit. Turn

to medium heat, stir until mixture boils, and remove pie fillin

filling. Let cool for 5 minutes and then pour into pie

shell.

3.

Pie Meringue:

Place egg whites in bowl and beat until foamy (portable electric

mixer). Add 6 Tbls. of confectionary sugar and beat until stiff

peaks form.

Spread meringue over pie.

Set oven to 325°F and place pic in center of oven.

Bake until meringue is golden brown (S minutes) and remove from

oven to cool. 31
MENU DAY 6

Lunch

MF.AL #17

2 eggs mayonnaise

salt and pepper

EGG SALAD

MENU DAY 6

Dinner

To hard cook eggs

Place eggs in sauce pan cover with water 1" above eggs. Rapidly bring water to a boiL cover, remove from heat and let stand covered

about 15 minutes.

When eggs have cooled, peel and chop.

Add mayonnaise, salt and pepper to taste.

MEAL #18

MEAL #18

MEAL #18

MEAL #18

Make 2 sandwiches.

BROILED ElSil f, BROILED TOMATO

2 packages (12 on. each) frozen halibut steaks

3 Tbls. butter

salt, pepper and paprika

2 medium- size tomatoes

1. Adjust oven shelf for broiling.

2. Set oven control to "BROIL" and preheat for 5 minutes.

3. Melt butter in small' pan.

4. Cut tomatoes in half (crosswise) and place on broiler pan grid,

brush with melted butter.

5. Place frozen fish in colander and rinse under cold running water.

6. Dry thoroughly with paper towel, place on broiler pan grid,

brush fish with melted butter.

7. Place broiler pan in oven and broil for 10 minutes with oven

door ajar.

8. Turn fish, brush with butter, sprinkle with salt, pepper, and

paprika

.

9. Broil an additional 10 minutes or until done.

10. Remove fish and tomatoes.RICE PILAF

1 cup butter

1 onior^ chopped

1 can beef consomme

1 cup rice

1 can water

1. Melt butter; saute onion until yellow.

2. Add consomme, rice and water.

3. Bake in covered casserole at 350° , for 1 hour.

PEAS WITH PEARL ONIONS

1. Follow package instructions using a sauce pan with

cover or

2 . Place frozen peas in sauce pan and add

1/2 teaspoon salt

1 tablespoon margarine

1/2 cup water

3. Bring to boil and then simmer for 2-5 minutes.

TAPICOA PUDDING W/FRUIT TOPPING

1 package (3-1/4 oz.) jello tapicoa pudding - vanilla

2 cups milk

1 package frozen fruit

1. Place mix in sauce pan.

2. Slowly add milk, stirring with spatula for 2 minutes.

3. Cook pudding, stirring constantly, until done (approximately 5-7 minutes).

4. Top with fruit just before serving.
MENU DAY 7 Breakfast

Ml AL Mil

mi:al »i?

I’ANCAkl S

1 Clip I'i 1 1 sin. rv Hungry- Jack I’anc.ike Mix

2 cup whole milk Iw.ifiT tail la

1

used tor thinner mix)

1 IMs. plus 1/’ teaspoon cooking oil

1 large egg

1. Preheat griddle at medium setting.

2. In large bowl nix together pancake mix, milk, egg, and

1 Ibis, cooking oil.

3. Crease griddle with 1/d teaspoon cooking oil.

4 . Using 1/4 cup measure, dip batter onto griddle, ccokir.g J pancakes

st a tine. Cook pancakes (1-1/2 minutes) on each side or until

• bubbles iirst appear on iirst side, or pancakes a light golden

brown.

5. Repeat cooking for remaining batches mke IMS pancakes. SAUSAGES

10 sausages links

2 Ibis, water

MENU DAY 7 Dinner

1. Place sausage links in cold skillet, jdd water and cover.

2. Cock on medium setting for 4 minutes.

r~ —

ML AL #21

MF.AL >21

MEAL #21

MEAL #21

MEAL #21

MEAL #21

3. Remove cover and cook until links are light golden brown, turning

frequently (total cooking time — 11-13 minutes). RIB STEAKS

4 - 1" thick - 1 lb. rib steaks

1. Kipe meat lightly with paper towel.

2. Score fat by cutting vertical slashes in fat about 1 or 2 inches

apart. Ho not cut into lean.

3. Piece steaks on broiler rack in broiler pan.

4 . Set oven to broil, place broiler pan in broiler unit so that aoout 3-1/2" clearance is left between heating unit and top of

food. Leave oven door ajar.

5. Broil on first side 8 minutes.

6. Turn and broil on second side. About 6-3 minutes for medium done. BAKED POTATOES 4-6 oz. size Idaho baking potatoes

1. Scrub skins, pierce each one once with cooking fork.

2. Place on oven shelf in position closest to bottom of oven.

3. Bake at 400°F (do not preheat) 45-55 minutes or until potatoes

are done. SAUTEED MUSHROOMS

1/2 lb. fresh mushrooms

3 This, butter

1. Melt butter in a skillet.

2. Swirl butter in pan. Add mushrooms cook 3-5 minutes stirring

frequently until mushrooms arc ins

;

golden brown (dark color

indicates overcooked)

.

BROCCOLI SPEARS

2 package (10 oz.) frozen broccoli spears

1/2 teaspoon salt

1/2 cup water

1. Place water, salt, and broccoli in a sauce pan. v/cover. Turn burner to "Ili" setting and bring rapidly to a full boil, about 5-1/2 to 6-1/2 minutes.

2. Separate broccoli with fork. Cover and sinter at low setting

for 5 minutes or until tender. Test for tenderness by piercing vegetables in both stem and flower with. fork. HOT FRENCH BREAD

1 lb. loaf sliced Rainbow French style bread (approximately 14" long)

1. Place bread on cookie sheet.

2. Place cookie sheet in oven, set at 400°.

3. Bake 10 to 12 minutes or until crust is browned. DEVIL’S FOOD CAKE 1-9 oz. package Jiffy cake nix

1 large egg

1/2 cup water

2 teaspoons Crirco

t0 fi our anj grease casserole

2 teaspoons i lour

1. Blend calc mix, 1/4 cup water and 1 egg in mixer at No. 1 speed

(lowest) for IS second:;.

2. Beat for 2 minutes at medium speed, scrape bowl often.'

3. Add 1/4 cup water and beat 2 minutes longer at medium speed.

4.

Pour batter In 77x 8" x 2" square casserole.
Appendix C

Summary of Range Characteristic
Summary

of

Range

Characteristics 4-> •Ha

CDU333mmo

CD

CD 3? 3

i—

3$

CD 3

•H

A* 3 £

05 0

rH3 K)

,0 '£> H o 3 bO

<L> 3 > • H O S

</) bo ^ -P

CD

CD 3 0 t-H 3 • h no -3 CD 3+-> 3 3 tn U 3

a) 3 s rrH •rH

+-> f-U u 3 3 r-i 3 Mh Q) 0) aj

CD £

rH K, CD X f ? >O1

+-> 3

CP1 o -y "0 a: 3 cn -H -H 5 rH 3 3 $ g $$

r—1 T-} CM 3

33

•rH

<d Is

CD

•H£

tX> Cn £ 3 3 3 rH 3 •H

C3 o C3

O

u

d

O

to

•H e Hp £

-p0 ^ -PO

CD

'-O o [y

3j o rH o w M 35

Range

Oven

Features

Type

of

Su

rface

Units

Size

and

Rating

Information

u > <D

•iH '-H

4-> 00 £.S

r-t JZ

4) oo 3 .S

'd <v oo >

•H tf) *H 3 -a e s e e

i-t ki <m o o © © o

<L> T3 • H£

A*

a e o3 U i—

3 to JD v.

e5 o

bo

•H

+-> o >o

bOC . 'H ^ C 0 +J o3 Tq ^ 0 P O'! H -H ^ i—

Ul-Hi—

0

CO 0 LT) C

37
T30G

•H4

-> GOU o

4-1GUG£

"GS0

•H

00

CD 3 £nJ "o a ^ &"& >

•H -r-f £ XJ e b s s

'O OO 4T> CT* IT) "t K1 O ddod

*-« <i>

<l> a> •*-> <D C > U

x;

C 2 <u X)

d)

O +j - ^ (D 'S

w •

CT3 r—I rH -HC

U P o

<-H -d

O <D -H

y § 3 a g.

23 <D 4-> Ej

t/> e xu 3

t/» a> rt t/) <U +-» *-< C h (/) O Q.O S*^" - u

a> bO- G C£ ~

rH

O -H P *h i—I -H GP <D i—I -M Q C

•H

O • <1> *-» eL u ^ _ y oo ^ x:

25 -H

q CT3 ob • r—, fl) CL-H It!

§‘" >c ?y«

+-> Xbfl

+-> OH

CG

44X

S’

440
Range

Oven

Features

Type

of

Surface

Units

Size

and

Rating

Information

o o o o

'§>

•H

CP

+J

•Mo

i—

• H

CP

-p +J -G rf

Cl t

•H

i—

i—

4-) 4-> 0 0

i—

1—

H H

CM CP

g -P O • H -C • tn o o •H

tO iH U)

V—J •H

4-1 \C> 0 G • r-- r~l 0 c

• -H -H •H o Cm -P e

LO

<D A, \

En • H 3 -P > W 4-1 G

/—

\

0 co G 0 ud

• H o 4-1 o

\D 4C • tO tn o

•H

rH 0] £

-P rH 0 G

cn rH 0 • *H *H • o Cm 4-> 39
Appendix D *

Graphic Illustration of Energy Consumption

and Variation ;£or Each Range, Cook, and Day

* 40
to

tu^ujO£es:> ysx

41

FIGURE

Dl,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

ELECTRIC

RANGE

!
i i i i i ' i i i i ‘i i r r i i i rrrr i i i i in 
 in 
 LD LD

* o H 
 
 <S> ^“4

i i i

ID

in

T

CDO

CD

m

ru

^3X EUJCZ Q*-* La. U. LlI Q£ UJ X O UJ

42

FIGURE

D2,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

ELECTRIC

RANGE

1

AND

THE

STD.

DEVIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
LiJZ:LlIQ£0> ^31

43

)

FIGURE

D3,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

ELECTRIC

RANGE

2.
\

n n T”T’ r i i T

"T "r i i r~i i i i r r

- r rT~-

LD © LD o LD © id

•* * 'H 


! s Hi

srui<r z: D I F F E R UJZIOU

44

f

FIGURE

M,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

EttRGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

ELECTRIC

RANGE

3

AND

THE

STD.

DEUIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
uj z: lu a: o > ^ 3 x

45

t

FIGURE

D5,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

ELECTRIC

RANGE

3.
UD

Lf)

cn

nj

—

Lf)

^13 X

s> LD LD 
 *

^=4 <S>

1

*r-i

i

e:uj<s;x D I F F E R E N C E

LT>

I

46

COOK

FIGURE

D6,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

ELECTRIC

RANGE

3

AND

THE

STD.

DEUIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
#

FIGURE

D7,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

ELECTRIC

RANGE

4.
rr~r r i i i r r rrT"nnnn^^TT^n^

in «s> LO © Lft © m * « <0 * * © © © °3**§

i i ^3X SLaJ^X Q^LL.u= yj£^8jjz:oLy

48

COOK

FIGURE

DS,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

ELECTRIC

RANGE

4

AND

THE

STD.

DEUIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
49

FIGURE

D9,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

ELECTRIC

RANGE

5.
ri

\

TT "T T TTrr i T“l T”^"T“T“i "ttTT

LD © ld 
 LD & LD © 
 «sjM

i f 8 ^3i e: lu«x z: o mix. u_ l*j a: uj z p uj

50

COOK

FIGURE

DIO,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

FER

COOK

FRON

THE

DAILY

(1EAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

ELECTRIC

RANGE

S

AND

THE

STD*

DEVIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE*
FIGURE

Dll.

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

GAS

RANGE

1*
r~

T" i I i ! i 'i i f

1 r rii i i' r i i r i i r 'i r

\S) 
 LD © LTj 
 LD

* <£> •& & *-4

i i i ^ 3 x elsj<ez: a s-« u. u_ uj ix lu z: O bJ

52 I

I a

COOK

FIGURE

D12,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

EMERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

GAS

RANGE

AMD

THE

STD*

DEVIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE*
00 CD

Ll! 2 UJ CZ O > ^ 3 X

53

FIGURE

D13,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

GAS

RANGE

2*
ri i i r t i i i i i i i i i i

1

i i i i i r ~

r" r

If) <S) id <Sf LD


 «s> <5> v-4 vH

i i i

CD

ID

Clc;CJ

n

ru

^3X E UJ \T Z! Q»MLL-U_Ldtt:LUXObJ

54

G

FIGURE

D14,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

GAS

RANGE

2

AND

THE

STD.

DEULATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
#

CD

LTY

C=-

cu

'—

yj z: ty <3 > ^3X

55

FIGURE

D15,

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

GAS

RANGE

3.
Ltt

CZ

CD

CD

ro

cu

‘I I III! I I 'FT TTTT

If) © LD © m © Lf)

1 «* * vHl © © ©

^4S<ez; a ^

tc u. uj ck Ly z: o i

56

FIGURE

P16,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

-ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

GAS

RANGE

3

AND

THE

STD.

DEVIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
#

#

UJZLUO£C9> ^3X

57

FIGURE

D17,

TOTAL

ENERGV

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

GAS

RANGE

4.
CD

Lft

o

O'

o>

co

ru

rrr i i r ! M I ,! ' T "T ! ! I—

TTT

LTj 
 LD G> in in

'H <5> 


s i !

hiuj^xz: D I F F E R

58

i

FIGURE

Dio,

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

PER

COOK

FROM

THE

DAILY

MEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

GAS

RANGE

'I

AND

THE

STD.

DEUIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
LU2£UJQ£C3> ^3X

59

m

FIGURE

D19.

TOTAL

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

PER

COOK

PER

DAY

FOR

GAS

RANGE

5.
TTi i rr"1

r rr 1 ! 1 1 III 1 1 1 TT IT

LT) © LT) <S> LT> <S> LD

4> 4- *

<5*=^ & <S> <r-3

! ! !

w

>

-J

AH

<ro

LUX

fO

LO

li_ O

o

o

UJX

c

c

n

LU

o

X

Ixl a:LU

Lj_ Ll, Q

CD

Cxi CL

LU

£K

Z>

C3

h

'Ll,

^3 X szuj<xz: Qi-sLi-LL,ijja:Luz:oLu

60

(

WEAN

ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

OF

ALL

COOKS

USING

GAS

RANGE

5

AND

THE

STD.

DEVIATION

OF

EACH

DIFFERENCE.
NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. 78-15562. Gov't. Accession Wo? 3. Recipient's Accession Wo.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Kitchen Range Energy Consumption

5. Publication Date March 1979

S. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

J. V. Fechter and L. G. Porter

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP)

Same as Item 9, and

Department of Energy (formerly Federal Energy Admi

Old Post Office Building, 1200 Penn. Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20401

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

lA.

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| 1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) In support of the national appliance energy conservation program,

the National 3ureau of Standards (NBS ) has been developing, evaluating,

and recommending standard methods for measuring appliance energy

efficiency. This report describes a study v/here 58 non-professional

cooks prepared 21 standard meals each on kitchen ranges, and compares

the results with a laboratory test method which does not utilize such

cooks. Ten different ranges were tested--five gas and five electric.

The results are (1) the rank order (least to most efficient)

correlations between laboratory measured efficiency and energy used by

cooks were not significantly different, (2) the cooking practices of

the 58 cooks were sufficiently alike that no major modification to the

laboratory test method was required, (3) homemakers showed greater

variability in energy use than did laboratory tests with the same

ranges, (4) energy consumption labels on appliances should include

information about that variability, and (5) evaluation of range

efficiencies could be done with only three to five energy intensive

meals

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semi colons) Appliance; cooking; efficiency; energy; human factors;

kitchen ranges; labeling; stoves; test methods

18. AVAILABILITY ^Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

| For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 67

. fj] Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

| 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

| VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED $5.25

USCOMfyi-DC
,

.

.