1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov The Parker Ranch installation in Hawaii BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM



### Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Public Meeting: Conventional Cooking Products
Test Procedure March 4, 2013

Ashley Armstrong Department of Energy Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 4 3 2

Active Mode Test Procedure Regulatory History

Covered Products 1 Introduction

5 Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

6 Compliance with EPCA Requirements3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Agenda

9:00

– 9:05 am Welcome

9:05

– 9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

9:15

– 9:20 am Regulatory History

9:20

– 9:30 am Covered Products

9:30

– 10:30 am Active Mode Test Procedure

10:30

– 10:45 am Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure

10:45

– 11:00 am Compliance with EPCA Requirements

11:00

– 11:15 am Closing Remarks4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

###  NOPR published on January 30, 2013

 NOPR Public Meeting today, March 4, 2013

 Comments on NOPR from interested parties

• Transcript records oral comments from today’s public meeting

• Written comments (comment period closes 75 days after publication in the Federal Register, April 15, 2013)

 DOE reviews and considers all comments

 Final Rule Publication Steps in the Test Procedure Rulemaking 

## Introduction

Final
Rule NOPR5 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 4 3 1

Active Mode Test Procedure Introduction

Covered Products 2

5 Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

6 Compliance with EPCA Requirements Regulatory History6 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Legislative Background

 This test procedure rulemaking covers Appendix I of 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B.

• The test procedures were established in a May 1978 Final Rule and amended in a May 1997 Final Rule.

• DOE published a Final Rule on October 31, 2012, to incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption, as well as the energy consumption of certain active mode features, into the test procedures for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and conventional cooking products.

 The only existing energy conservation standards for
conventional cooking products prohibit the use of a standing
pilot light in all products manufactured after April 2012. 

## Regulatory History7 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 4 2 1

Active Mode Test Procedure Introduction

Regulatory History

3

5 Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

6 Compliance with EPCA Requirements Covered Products8 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Procedure Applicability

 Induction cooking uses an oscillating magnetic field to generate (“induce”) current in the cooking vessel. The current in turn creates heat in the cooking vessel due to the electrical resistance of the metal, and the heat is transferred to the food load by means of conduction and convection

.

 In order for the current to be induced and the induction technology to function properly, the cooking vessel must be made of a ferromagnetic material, such as steel or iron

. 

## Covered Products9 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Procedure Applicability

 Induction products were not considered in the initial final rule
to establish the conventional cooking product test procedures because of their relatively small market share in 1978.

 A recent survey of major retailers indicates that roughly 10 percent of all cooking tops currently available on the market

use induction heating

.
 The three manufacturers comprising more than 84 percent of the market for conventional ranges each offer multiple induction cooking products.

 Given the increased availability of induction cooking products, DOE believes these products warrant inclusion in the Appendix

I test procedures. 

## Covered Products10 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

###  10 CFR part 430.2 provides the following conventional cooking top product definition:

• Conventional cooking top means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units which include either a gas flame or electric resistance heating.

 DOE is proposing to amend the definition of conventional
cooking top:

• Conventional cooking top is a household cooking appliance within a class of kitchen ranges and ovens, each of which consists of a horizontal surface containing one or more surface units that utilize a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or
electric inductive heating. 

## Covered Products

Test Procedure Applicability11 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

###  10 CFR part 430.2 also provides a definition for conventional

range:

• Conventional range means a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a household cooking appliance consisting of a conventional cooking top and one or more conventional ovens.

 DOE is not proposing any amendment to the definition of
conventional range, but products with an induction cooking top

and conventional oven would be considered conventional
ranges under the proposed amendment to the definition of
conventional cooking top. 

## Covered Products

Test Procedure Applicability12 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

###  Appendix I includes the following mode definition:

• Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the
main functions of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance heating, or microwave energy...

 DOE is proposing to amend the definition of a ctive mode in
Appendix I:

• Active mode means a mode in which the product is connected to a mains power source, has been activated, and is performing the main function of producing heat by means of a gas flame, electric resistance heating, electric inductive heating, or microwave energy... 

## Covered Products

Test Procedure Applicability

(Current Definitions)13 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Procedure Applicability 

## Covered Products

Comment Request #1

DOE requests comment on the proposed
amendments to the definitions of “conventional cooking top” and “active mode” to include products that use electric inductive heating.

DOE notes that the definition of “conventional range” would remain unchanged, but would cover induction products based on the proposed amendment to the “conventional cooking top”
definition.14 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 3 2 1

Covered Products Introduction

Regulatory History

4

5 Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

6 Compliance with EPCA Requirements Active Mode Test Procedure15 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Current Test Procedure

 Process:

1. Select appropriate test block for the surface unit under test, and allow test block and cooking top to reach ambient temperature.

2. Turn surface unit to its maximum energy input setting.

3. After the test block temperature increases by 144 ° F, reduce the surface unit setting to 25% of its maximum energy input

rate.

4. Record data for 15 minutes at the reduced setting.

 Surface unit efficiency is calculated as the ratio of energy transferred to the test block (based on its increase in temperature) to the energy consumed by the cooking top during the test. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure16 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Current Test Procedure

 Equipment:

 Aluminum Alloy 6061 is not ferromagnetic, and is therefore not compatible with induction cooking tops. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Material Test Block Size Used to Test Diameter (inches) Height (inches)

Aluminum Alloy 6061 Large All gas surface units, electric
surface units with diameter > 7
inches 9 3

Small Electric surface units with
diameter ≤ 7 inches 6.25 2.817 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Current Test Procedure 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

 Aluminum test blocks:18 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Testing for Proposed Test Procedure

 DOE conducted testing on potential substitute test blocks that would be compatible with induction cooking tops.

• DOE followed the current testing procedure, but used different

test blocks.

• The goal of the testing was to determine the effects of the
different induction

- compatible test blocks on test

- to

- test repeatability and efficiency.

• Testing included 3 conventional cooking tops (electric smooth

top, electric coil, and gas) and 3 induction cooking tops.

• Repeated the test 5 times for each test block type on each surface unit tested (except for the gas surface unit, which had the tests repeated 4 times). 

## Active Mode Test Procedure19 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

###  For all candidate test blocks, DOE maintained the 6.25 and 9
inch outer diameters, and maintained the overall heat capacity
of the current aluminum test blocks by varying the heights of

the substitute test blocks.

 DOE is proposing to amend the test procedure to replace the
current aluminum test blocks with the stainless steel hybrid

test blocks. 

## Test Blocks for Investigative Testing 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test Block Type Test Block Composition (Component and Material)

Aluminum One solid aluminum alloy 6061 block

Carbon Steel One solid carbon steel alloy 1018 block

Carbon Steel Hybrid Carbon steel alloy 1018 base + Aluminum alloy 6061 body

Stainless Steel Hybrid Stainless steel alloy 430 base + Aluminum alloy 6061 body20 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Blocks for Investigative Testing 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

 Carbon steel (large and small), stainless steel hybrid, and
aluminum test blocks:21 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Aluminum Test Block Results

 The aluminum test block results served as a baseline for comparing the different substitute test blocks.

• The aluminum test block results produced standard deviations of

less than 3 percent for each surface unit tested.

• These standard deviations correspond to 95

- percent confidence

intervals within 4 percent of the mean surface unit efficiency

.

 The substitute test blocks should result in similar or, if possible, better repeatability from test to test. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure22 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Carbon Steel Test Blocks

 DOE tested carbon steel test blocks with the following properties:

 The test block diameters and overall heat capacities equal
those of the aluminum test blocks. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Material Test Block Size Diameter (inches) Height (inches)

Carbon Steel Alloy 1018 Large 9 2.09

Small 6.25 1.9323 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Carbon Steel Test Block Results

 The carbon steel test blocks resulted in similar efficiencies to
the aluminum test blocks for the three conventional test units.

 The carbon steel test blocks produced results with similar repeatability to the aluminum test blocks.

 The carbon steel test blocks appear to be a reasonable replacement for the aluminum test blocks; however, may not reflect how induction cooking tops operate in real

- world
scenarios. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure24 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Blocks

 DOE tested “Hybrid” test blocks to better represent real

- world use of induction cooking tops (i.e., heating of a thin ferromagnetic material rather than a solid block).

 Carbon steel hybrid b locks constructed of two separate pieces:

 The test block diameters and overall heat capacities equal
those of the aluminum test blocks. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Material Test Block Size Diameter (inches) Height (inches)
Carbon Steel Alloy 1018 Small Base 6.25 0.25
Aluminum Alloy 6061 Small Body 6.25 2.5
Carbon Steel Alloy 1018 Large Base 9 0.25
Aluminum Alloy 6061 Large Body 9 2.7225 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Block Results

 The carbon steel hybrid test blocks produced efficiencies for the conventional surface units that were slightly lower than with both the solid carbon steel and aluminum test blocks, but
within the 95

- percent confidence intervals.

 For 5 of the 6 induction surface units, the carbon steel hybrid test blocks resulted in higher efficiencies than the solid carbon

steel blocks.

• This suggests that heating the solid block could introduce inefficiencies with induction heating.

• However, while these increases in efficiency were typically small
and within the 95

- percent confidence intervals, the efficiency for one induction surface unit dropped significantly with the carbon steel hybrid test block. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure26 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Block Results

 The test

- to

- test repeatability for the carbon steel hybrid test
blocks was similar to both the carbon steel and aluminum test

blocks.

 DOE observed rust forming on the carbon steel base throughout testing. The rust could lead to inconsistent heat transfer between the base and aluminum body.

• DOE also observed rust forming on the solid carbon steel test

blocks.

• The rust is likely to have more of an impact on the hybrid test
blocks due to the additional heat transfer surface between the test block base and body. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure27 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Blocks

 DOE conducted further testing using stainless steel hybrid test blocks, which would be more resistant to rust, constructed of two separate pieces:

 The test block diameters and overall heat capacities equal
those of the aluminum test blocks. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Material Test Block Size Diameter (inches) Height (inches)
Stainless Steel Alloy 430 Small Base 6.25 0.25
Aluminum Alloy 6061 Small Body 6.25 2.5
Stainless Steel Alloy 430 Large Base 9 0.25
Aluminum Alloy 6061 Large Body 9 2.7228 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Block Results

 The stainless steel hybrid test blocks showed greater repeatability than the aluminum, carbon steel, and carbon steel hybrid test blocks

.

 The stainless steel hybrid blocks also produced efficiency results that were on average 2.5 percentage points lower than for the carbon steel hybrid test blocks. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure29 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## All Test Block Results Comparison 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Cooking Tops Test Block Type Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Conventional Only Aluminum 56.02% 1.40% 1.80% Carbon Steel 54.99% 1.32% 1.69% Carbon Steel Hybrid 54.36% 1.13% 1.44% Stainless Steel Hybrid 51.70% 1.03% 1.35%

All Cooking Tops Carbon Steel 59.78% 1.36% 1.71% Carbon Steel Hybrid 59.15% 1.36% 1.71% Stainless Steel Hybrid 56.60% 1.10% 1.40%30 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Block Proposal

 Because the stainless steel hybrid test blocks produced the most repeatable results, DOE is proposing to use these blocks for testing induction cooking tops.

 The conventional cooking top tests showed a drop of 4.3
percentage points between the aluminum and stainless steel
hybrid test blocks.

 DOE is proposing the use of the stainless steel hybrid test
blocks for all covered cooking tops to allow a meaningful
comparison of efficiency results among different product types. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure31 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Block Proposal 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Comment Request #2

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of stainless steel hybrid test blocks for testing all cooking tops that would be covered by the proposed definition of conventional cooking tops in an amended cooking products test procedure, including the potential burden associated with the requirement for such new test equipment.32 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Water

- heating Tests

 DOE conducted a series of tests based on heating water rather

than a metal block.

• Water provides a heating medium that is more representative of
actual consumer use.

• However, water heating also introduces additional sources or variability absent from the block

- heating tests.

 DOE conducted testing according to a Draft amendment to IEC

Standard 60350

- 2 Edition 1.0 “Household electric cooking
appliances

– Part 2: Hobs

– Method for measuring
performance.” 

## Active Mode Test Procedure33 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Water

- heating Test Equipment

 The IEC Test Method specifies the quantity of water to be heated in a standardized cooking vessel based on the surface
unit diameter.

 DOE chose the cooking vessels and water quantities that most closely matched the DOE test block diameters. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Cookware Size Cookware
Diameter (in) Base
Thickness (in) Total Height (in) Lid
Diameter (in) Water Weight ( lbs )

Small 5.91 0.24 4.92 6.5 2.27 Large 9.45 0.24 4.92 10.43 5.9534 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Water

- heating Test Equipment 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

 Custom IEC Standard 60350

- 2 cookware:35 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Water

- heating Test Method

 The IEC Test Method involves heating the water to 194 ° F using the maximum energy input rate, and then maintaining the water temperature above, but as close as possible, to this temperature for a simmering period of 20 min.

 Energy consumption is measured throughout the entire test, and the final metric describes the energy per 1000 grams of water necessary to reach and maintain the simmering temperature. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure36 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Investigative Water

- heating Test Method Concerns

 DOE observed the following issues during testing:

• The water approached boiling even at 194 ° F, and a significant amount of water boiled or evaporated off over the course of a

test.

• The simmering temperature and overall energy consumption
varied from test

- to

- test on the same surface unit even at the same simmering setting.

 DOE developed an efficiency calculation to account for the total temperature rise and the amount of water lost during the test.

 The efficiency results also allowed for a more direct comparison to the block

- heating test results. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure37 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## All Test Results Comparison 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Cooking Tops Test Type Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Conventional Only Aluminum 56.02% 1.40% 1.80% Carbon Steel 54.99% 1.32% 1.69% Carbon Steel Hybrid 54.36% 1.13% 1.44% Stainless Steel Hybrid 51.70% 1.03% 1.35%
Water

- heating 64.81% 2.70% 3.52%

All Cooking Tops Carbon Steel 59.78% 1.36% 1.71% Carbon Steel Hybrid 59.15% 1.36% 1.71% Stainless Steel Hybrid 56.60% 1.10% 1.40%
Water

- heating 71.63% 1.98% 2.54%38 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Water

- heating Test Method

 The test

- to

- test variability of the water

- heating tests could be limited with more stringent tolerances on the ambient test conditions (air pressure , temperature, and humidity).

 DOE is not proposing a water

- heating test procedure because it did not show any improvement in repeatability compared to the

block

- heating tests, and further ambient test condition controls could place a burden on manufacturers and third party test
facilities. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure39 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Water

- heating Test Procedure 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Comment Request #3

DOE acknowledges that the water

- heating tests may better reflect actual consumer behavior for cooking tops, and invites comment on whether

water

- heating tests should be considered in place
of the metal block

- heating tests. DOE also invites comment on the appropriate test method and
conditions for water

- heating tests, and the burden that would be incurred by more stringent specifications for ambient conditions.40 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Non

- circular Electric Surface Units

 As previously discussed, the proper test block size for testing
an electric surface unit is determined based on that surface
unit’s diameter.

 The current test procedure does not specify the proper test
block size for electric surface units with non

- circular shapes.

 DOE proposes that an electric surface unit’s smallest dimension be used to determine appropriate test block size to account for surface units of all shapes.

• DOE notes that this is consistent with the method included in the
Draft IEC Standard 60350 Amendment.

• DOE does not propose to change the requirement that all gas surface units be tested with the large test block. 

## Active Mode Test Procedure41 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Non

- circular Electric Surface Units 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Comment Request #4

DOE invites comments on whether using the
smallest dimension of an electric surface unit is appropriate for determining the proper test block
size.42 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 3 2 1

Covered Products Introduction

Regulatory History

5 4 Active Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

6 Compliance with EPCA Requirements Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure43 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure

 DOE recently conducted a separate rulemaking to address standby and off mode test procedures and certain active mode provisions for conventional cooking products, dishwashers,
and dehumidifiers.

 For conventional cooking products, the October 2012 Final Rule addressed standby mode and off mode energy consumption and fan

- only mode operation. 77 FR 65942. 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure44 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure

 This NOPR for induction cooking products proposes to amend the definition of “conventional cooking top” to include induction technology.

 Under this proposed definition, induction cooking products would be covered by the test procedure amendments made in
the October 2012 Final Rule.

 DOE did not observe any standby or off mode features or fan

only mode operation unique to induction cooking products that would warrant any changes to the provisions established by
the October 2012 Final Rule. 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure45 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure

Comment Request #5

DOE invites comment on whether induction cooking products require separate consideration for standby mode and off mode testing.46 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 3 2 1

Covered Products Introduction

Regulatory History

6 5 Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure 

## Public Meeting Agenda

4 Active Mode Test Procedure

Compliance with EPCA Requirements47 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Test Burden

 DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct.

• The additional cost for the new test blocks is roughly $1,000.

• No new instrumentation is required.

• The only additional time in the test procedure itself is for measuring the weight of two pieces of the test block rather than the current single piece.

• Additional testing would be required for the newly

- covered induction products, and DOE estimates this would cost manufacturers up to roughly $6,000.

 DOE does not expect these cost or time commitments to represent a significant burden, including for small businesses. 

## Compliance with EPCA Requirements48 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

## Compliance with Existing Standards

 DOE notes that the only existing standards for conventional cooking products require that gas cooking products shall not be equipped with a standing pilot light.

 As a result, the proposed test procedure amendments would not affect a product’s compliance with the existing standards. 

## Compliance with EPCA Requirements49 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov In all correspondence, please refer to the Induction Cooking Products Test Procedure rulemaking by:

– Test Procedure NOPR for Induction Cooking Products

– Docket Number EERE

- 2012

- BT

- TP

- 0013

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904

- AC71

Email : Induction

- Cooking

- Prod

- 2012

- TP

- 0013@ee.doe.gov

Postal Mail : Ms. Brenda Jones, U.S . Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE

- 2J 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585

- 0121

Courier : Ms . Brenda Jones, U.S . Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L’Enfant Plaza , SW., Suite 600 Washington , DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586

- 2945

Comment period closes April 15, 2013. 

### How to Submit Written Comments 

## Closing Remarks50 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov 

# Results Appendix51 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov a Values describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance heating elements.

b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from

test

- to

- test

. 

## Aluminum Test Block Results 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test
Block

Size Cooking Top Heating Technology Surface
Unit Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Large A Coil 1 71.03% 2.22% 2.76%
B Smooth 1 54.22% 0.64% 0.80%
B Smooth 2 65.19% 1.06% 1.32% C Gas 1 18.96% a,b 1.01% a 1.60% a

Small A Coil 2 65.04% 2.73% 3.39%
B Smooth 3 61.70% 0.73% 0.90%52 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov a Values describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance heating elements.

b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test

- to

- test

. 

## Carbon Steel Test Block Results 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test
Block

Size Cooking Top Heating Technology Surface
Unit Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Large A Coil 1 69.79% 1.59% 1.97%
B Smooth 1 53.19% 1.28% 1.60%
B Smooth 2 63.24% 2.03% 2.52% C Gas 1 18.67% a,b 0.92% a 1.46% a D Induction 1 63.92% 2.30% 2.86%
E Induction 1 67.78% 0.68% 0.84%
F Induction 1 67.93% 0.56% 0.70%

Small A Coil 2 64.61% 0.54% 0.67%
B Smooth 3 60.44% 1.55% 1.93%
D Induction 2 64.10% 1.04% 1.29%
D Induction 3 60.89% 2.70% 3.35%
E Induction 2 62.86% 1.08% 1.34%53 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov a Values describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance heating elements.

b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test

- to

- test

. 

## Carbon Steel Hybrid Test Block Results 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test
Block

Size Cooking Top Heating Technology Surface
Unit Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Large A Coil 1 67.78% 1.87% 2.32%
B Smooth 1 52.03% 0.78% 0.97%
B Smooth 2 63.59% 0.64% 0.79% C Gas 1 18.64% a,b 0.59% a 0.93% a D Induction 1 65.94% 2.68% 3.32%
E Induction 1 68.17% 1.06% 1.31%
F Induction 1 60.10% 3.21% 3.99%

Small A Coil 2 64.44% 1.87% 2.32%
B Smooth 3 59.71% 1.06% 1.32%
D Induction 2 63.26% 0.79% 0.98%
D Induction 3 62.88% 0.65% 0.81%
E Induction 2 63.27% 1.19% 1.48%54 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov a Values describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance heating elements.

b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test

- to

- test

. 

## Stainless Steel Hybrid Test Block Results 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test
Block

Size Cooking Top Heating Technology Surface
Unit Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Large A Coil 1 64.52% 0.87% 1.08%
B Smooth 1 49.19% 0.46% 0.57%
B Smooth 2 59.60% 0.46% 0.57% C Gas 1 16.27% a,b 1.16% a 1.85% a D Induction 1 64.19% 1.28% 1.59%
E Induction 1 64.32% 0.91% 1.13%
F Induction 1 55.57% 1.47% 1.83%

Small A Coil 2 62.87% 2.36% 2.93%
B Smooth 3 57.75% 0.87% 1.08%
D Induction 2 62.83% 1.47% 1.83%
D Induction 3 60.29% 0.68% 0.84%
E Induction 2 61.81% 1.19% 1.47%55 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov a Values describe data for four tests, not five. In addition, cooking efficiencies for gas burners are typically lower than for electric resistance heating elements.

b Results lower than expected due to a meter error, but consistently low from test

- to

- test

. 

## Water

- heating Test Results 

## Active Mode Test Procedure

Test
Block

Size Cooking Top Heating Technology Surface
Unit Mean Efficiency Standard
Deviation 95

- percent Confidence Interval ( ± )

Large A Coil 1 79.81% 1.66% 2.06%
B Smooth 1 61.81% 2.83% 3.52%
B Smooth 2 75.88% 3.11% 3.86% C Gas 1 26.29% a,b 2.83% a 4.51% a D Induction 1 81.31% 0.28% 0.34%
E Induction 1 79.21% 0.65% 0.81%
F Induction 1 74.17% 2.55% 3.17%

Small A Coil 2 76.99% 1.65% 2.05%
B Smooth 3 68.09% 4.12% 5.11%
D Induction 2 79.35% 0.37% 0.46%
D Induction 3 80.67% 1.71% 2.13%
E Induction 2 75.99% 2.03% 2.52%